Talk:American Dad!: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:11, 4 August 2014 editAmericanDad86 (talk \| contribs)11,637 edits →Season 11 & season 12 dispute ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:16, 4 August 2014 edit undoWattlebird (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,218 edits →Season 11 & season 12 dispute Next edit →
Line 432:		Line 432:
	:I actually like this idea. ] (]) 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)		:I actually like this idea. ] (]) 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	All right people! It looks like consensus is clearly against the absurd idea that the three episodes airing in September are a "microseason." Only two editors were arguing that theory while it seems everyone else either wants it to be as part of the 2013-14 Fox season or the 2014-15 TBS season. With that, I have removed the reference to "microseason" from the article. ] (]) 03:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)		All right people! It looks like consensus is clearly against the absurd idea that the three episodes airing in September are a "microseason." Only two editors were arguing that theory while it seems everyone else either wants it to be as part of the 2013-14 Fox season or the 2014-15 TBS season. With that, I have removed the reference to "microseason" from the article. ] (]) 03:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
			:No, consensus has no been reached. You're just reading what you want and for some reason, have completely disregarded Spongey253's idea which had no opposition at all. - ] (]) 08:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:16, 4 August 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Dad! article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Animation: American / Television Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Misplaced Pages. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1: Apr 2005 - Dec 2006
/Archive 2: Dec 2006 - Mar 2010

Episode Count

According to the IMDB, "American Dad" has 112 episodes. Is the episode count updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

April in Quahog

"April in Quahog" - A deleted scene features Peter and Lois with Stan and Francine. <-- It wasn't a deleted scene, it was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.145.35 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve Adopted?

Stan has black hair so does hayley and francine has blonde hair but steve has brown hair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Steve was not adopted. In this one episode, sorry i don't know the episode name but, when Steve and Stan started to fight over who was the man of the house, it showed when Steve was first born and Stan holding him in the hospital. So, he was not adopted and his hair i think is from Stan's mom, doesn't she have like a brown hair or something.--WikiTells (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is revealed in an episode (actually, more than one) that Francine dyes her hair. Doniago (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

High Definition

The infobox lists the show as being in 720p starting in 2010, however Netflix has part of Volume 4 and all of Volume 5 (which correspond to the broadcast Season 4, if I understand it correctly) in 720p with a 4:3 aspect ratio. I'm assuming 2010 is when the show switched to the full 16:9 720p format? Can anybody clarify? NJM (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The series has 7 seasons

According the official website: http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-7/episode-15 as well as imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397306/episodes and tv.com: http://www.tv.com/american-dad!/show/21935/episode.html?tag=page_nav;episode the series has 7 seasons.

The discrepancy starts in season 1. Season 1 has been split and now has 7 episodes en the other 16 episodes form season 2. The subsequent seasons all shift 1 season with a new total of 7 seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzuijlek (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all. Both IMDb and TV.com are unreliable. Secondly, Fox has got the seasons wrong with Family Guy, too. And just look at this press release from February 2011; it says that the show has been renewed for a seventh season, meaning that it is currently in its sixth. okay? Pancake (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting since 'season 1' was always split into 2 parts on the BBC, but at a different point to that on the fox site given above, where Stannie Get Your Gun is episode 1 of series 2. So who knows what's going on. FX UK is also currently showing what's named as series 6 which is actually 'season 5' as per US programme guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.89 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode Notability

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_episodes#Episode_notability, it has been decided that the twenty-two (out of 127) episode articles are indeed notable and should not be merged. Doniago, stop adding notability maintenance tags to these articles without reading the discussion and finding some other reason to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't delete maintenance templates without providing a reason in the edit summary per WP guidelines. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest I was adding tags rather than reverting your unexplained removal, but feel obligated to provide clarification. All that was clear was an IP removing maintenance tags without apparent explanation. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed them because of the discussion cited above. Is that acceptable, then? 50.80.139.102 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Doniago (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

iTunes and other links to legally purchase each episode from

Should links to iTunes,Amazon,etc be added to make it easier for people to go right from the wiki page to being able to purchase the episodes. 66.214.101.208 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. WP is not for advertising. Anyone who wants to purchase the episodes can look it up on Google. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic means having a human form. The goldfish doesn't have a human form, he has a goldfish form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.50.153 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Should There Be?

Should there be articles for all shows episodes, like Gumball, and MAD, and Spongebob, and even preschool shows, as there are episode articles for this show. Just wondering. Dawn is my duck. And she will PWN you until you run away and jump in a hole! (Casey should have been said as guilty) (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think any episode deserves its own article unless there's third-party sources establishing some manner in which the episode is notable, but my understanding is that consensus is against my views. Doniago (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Future of the show?

Seth MacFarlane recently tweeted that the future of the show was up in the air, in response to a twitter user who asked what was going on with the show (its only being aired occasionally), suggesting people tell Fox if they want the show to continue. Should this be mentioned in the article? --RThompson82 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American Dad! (season 7) which is related to this page, please see that talk page for the discussion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Some input in the discussion would be apreciated as it involved re-numbering all the seasons from season 7 to season 8 etc. There has been little input so far.--Salix (talk): 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete other people's stuff!

Contributor "AmericanDad86" deleted some material I contributed pointing it as "unsourced and bla bla blah". If you deem it unsourced you tag it as such but you DON'T DELETE other people contributions unless they are A) unrelated with the article (and mine wasn't), B) blatantly made-up (and mine wasn't) or C) unenciclopedic or opinionated (and mine was neither). The user also said "Family Guy shouldn't be the focus of this article". Well, who's making it the focus? I just pointed out similarities with McFarlane's ONLY other work just as well as other users have opened chapters in Family Guy's article about its similarities with "The Simpsons". Also, he says "there's no connection between the two shows apart from McFarlane". Dude, THAT'S THEIR CREATOR! And the 2 shows are 90% of his work at all! Except the Oscars night! Don't they have a IQ check for Misplaced Pages contributors before they sit at their keyboard and blabber around? Max ventura, Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.85.48.105 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

IP 5.85, you are not making any minor claims that can be readily presumed. You are making major claims which means proper citation and sourcing are needed. Your assertion of "American Dad is based on Family Guy" is a major claim; your assertion of "American Dad was initially intended as a replacement for Family Guy" is a mjor claim. Your assertion of "the characters Roger is a reflection of Stewie, while Klaus the fish is a reflection of Brian the dog" is a major claim; etc. You yourself wrote that material should not be deleted unless it seems blatantly made-up. How is one to tell all these huge claims you're making aren't blatantly made up if you can't even provide sources for them? I've been watching this series since it came out and Klaus the fish bears few similarities to Brian other than the fact that he's an animal that can articulate human words. Other than that, their personalities completely differ. And besides, Klaus is actually considered a man, just trapped in an animal's body, making the two characters that much more different. And Roger is vastly different from Stewie. Stewie doesn't engage in half the outrageous acts Roger regularly engages in, from masquerading and living out multiple lives, raping, con artistry, etc., etc., etc. Bottomline: Just because these characters might have a trait here or there that bears similarities doesn't mean they're based on each other and it's most certainly not presumable, so the onus is on you to provide sources for all of that.

As it is, much of this article has already made Family Guy mentions, including an entire section dedicated to crossovers of Family Guy characters, how it aired after Family Guy in the production section, reference to Family Guy as a sister show in the opening, Family Guy mentioned in the "Related shows" section in the infobox, etc. We don't need the remaining 50% of the article to promote Family Guy as well. The two shows have little similarity other than their creator, so if you're going to make such big claims like you are, source them. And even if you are to find sources, the information you place in the article on Family Guy needs to be limited so this article isn't promoting Family Guy in every section. It's a show about American Dad and should be respected as such, an individual show. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I support AmericanDad86's decision to remove the fancruft paragraphs. His reasons make perfect sense. The disputed paragraphs are pointless opinion of questionable veracity. I would also caution the anonymous editor against making personal attacks ("Don't they have a (sic) IQ check for Misplaced Pages contributors before they sit at their keyboard and blabber around?"). - Fantr (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also support the removal unless and until reliable sources are provided. Doniago (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Do as you wish. Still, what I'm saying is dead on. An i'm not anonymous, you are. My real name and location are signed up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.165.128.216 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm mystified as to how, according to you, the three of us, Fantr, Doniago, and myself, are the "anonymous" users here when we're the ones who are signed in, and you're the established user here when you're the one who's not signed in. Not only that but in the same breath as you wrote all that in, you failed to sign your post (and spoke of "location" for some reason). Please add ```` to the ending of each of your talkpage posts. And while you're at it, I would suggest learning a few basics of Misplaced Pages before further editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Contents/Browse/Getting_started AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexual tendencies"

This sentence was sourced to a fan written homosexual story on Fanfiction.net so I've removed it completely. Fanfics should never be considered reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've supported the statement with a better source, which describes their relationship as "overly affectionate" and a "bromance," and mention of the "License To Kill" episode in which the two characters Snot and Steve kiss.AmericanDad86 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Periods and Quotation Marks

Per MOS:LQ, "On Misplaced Pages, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." The policy is a Misplaced Pages-wide standard that applies regardless of nationality...which is not even mentioned within the guideline itself.

WP:TIES has no bearing on this, as it is a guideline with regards to spelling and word-choice, not mechanics as above.

I have now twice reverted an editor who placed periods within quotation marks in such instances as episode names. I would welcome further opinions on this matter.

I have requested feedback from WT:TV as well. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do episode titles appear between quotation marks? Film and novel titles appear in italics. Perhaps we should do the same? Putting episode titles in italics makes for easier reading. - Fantr (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat peripheral to the topic, but discussed at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Names and titles. If you feel the guideline should be revised I'd recommend starting a discussion at the Talk page for the guideline. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually not peripheral with the topic. Agree with Fantr and it resolves a rather petty debate. Btw, as a master's degree graduate, I can tell you that this is not the way grammar is to be done in English and it looks bad when the grammar is as such on a page with "American" in the title. And just to note, that section did mention quotations. Either way, as Fantr stated, these titles should not be in quotations anyway. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I thought that a rule about this may exist but wasn't prepared to search for it myself. If the rule exists, then it exists and we must observe it. - Fantr (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the episode titles get quotations is because the series title is in italics. Episodes should be viewed as "chapters" of an overall work. If you've ever noticed in news sources, the episode titles are always in quotes. Now there is a differing opinion on whether a period should be inside that quote or not. On Misplaced Pages, it is NOT in the quote, because Misplaced Pages uses the Chicago style for grammar. So, we are technically using the "American" style, just not a style that others are necessarily following. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bighole, I don't think that we can say something unique to Chicago or a specific small section of the U.S. equates to American at least if it's going against another usage widely considered the norm throughout the entire country of America. And Doniago, your policy on consistency is from an entirely different article. I'm getting my consistency policy from the exact same page as you just sent me here. Try to stick to the grammar article for finding policies relevant to grammar. The article you sent me is not from the same grammar article. And the section on consistency from the page "you" sent me reads and I quote:

In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety.

The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another. Editors who alter an existing variety can be advised of this guideline via the placement of In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Misplaced Pages has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Misplaced Pages articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Misplaced Pages articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. on their talk pages.

In other words, if the entire article is using one version, this states that it is counterproductive and disruptive to argue another version. The most important thing here is consistency. You are breaking the rules of consistency by making that section use the European form. You are even breaking the rules in accordance to your own policy from this other article you're sending me that has nothing to do with grammar. If you feel as though the entire article should follow your format, then it is up to you to go through the entire article and make it follow your format; what you have done, however, is merely change the section in question. Feel free to go through the entire article and put it in the European English style format if you like. Either way, this policy above has stated starting an argument over such an issue is useless and counterproductive. And I'm getting that policy from the page "you" originally showed me. In addition to that, as opposed to your claim that this section has nothing to do with grammar, the section is indeed about punctuation and grammar and even touches on quotations in this section here:

While Misplaced Pages does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:

quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below);

proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);

titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

As evidenced by that portion of that entire section, the section is not solely referencing "words." And not only that, the section as a whole does not say specific to "words" or "terminologies." There are differences in both terms AND punctuation with regards to America and English-speaking European countries, so why would it only be referencing one or the other without stating this explicitly. In addition, this is an article that has "American" in its title and has heavily focused on subjects that are "American." And this here reads:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:

Great Fire of London (British English)

American Civil War (American English)

Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)

Australian Defence Force (Australian English)

Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian English)

Usain Bolt (Jamaican Standard English)

For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote (especially if the writings are quoted). For example, the articles on J. R. R. Tolkien's works, such as The Lord of the Rings, use British English with Oxford spelling.

This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles.AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything you've just added applies to word-choice/spelling/dialectical variants (color vs. colour, grey vs. gray), not mechanical matters such as the placement of periods with regards to quotation marks.

I should add that, with all due respect, I feel it is exercising article ownership to tell any editor that they shouldn't make changes to one section of an article unless they're prepared to apply the changes to the article entire.

Lastly, based on your initial comment, I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with Chicago in the context it was being used. Regards. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you feel is article ownership. I have just stated to you that I'm drawing information from a Misplaced Pages policy page that yoooooooou have shown me. I'll copy and paste it again for you. In a Misplaced Pages policy page that yooooou presented me with, it emphasizes consistency. Again, this is not something I'm pulling out of my own head. This is drawn from a policy page yoooooooooou have presented me with. Unless you just like cherry-picking between the policies to suit your own whims. Here it is again:

In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety.

The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

And as said above, the section in question is touching upon grammar. Copy and pasted again for you since it didn't register the first time I wrote it out:

While Misplaced Pages does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:

quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below);

proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);

titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

AmericanDad86 — Doniago is quite correct in what he has been trying to explain to you. First, the placement of punctuation is not a matter of grammar but style. Second, your statement regarding usage widely considered the norm throughout the entire country of America may be your opinion, but it is not supported by evidence. There are many American style guides which advocate using logical quotation style. The guidance on retaining national variety of English really has no bearing whatsoever on this matter. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not supported by any evidence?! Sigh! Do I really have to present evidence. I thought this was common knowledge. It was one of the first things I learned not in my Journalism Master's program, but in high school. Anyways, I guess not everyone here has majored in journalism so here you go. As stated here :

Rule 1

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.

Examples:

The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within 30 seconds.

She said, "Hurry up."

She said, "He said, 'Hurry up.'"

Also notice how it's highlighted as "rule 1." I thought this was one of the first things you learn in English writing. And be that as it may, it really doesn't matter. The policies on the WP grammar rules in question have placed more emphasis on consistency. That the article is consistent and not to bicker about it as long as it's consistent otherwise you're quote on quote "wasting time" with trifles. Now there is one section that is inconsistent. And the only people that are exercising article ownership is Doniago and Bignole. I tried to place a happy medium in the article where italics are instead used based upon the opinion of someone else and the two of them dismissed that and continued up the reversions. If you won't agree to negotiate, then I'm afraid I'll take it to the admin noticeboards for disruptive editing. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no question that many American style guides do recommend usage as you describe. However, that is not evidence of a pervasive national preference for such usage. There are American style guides that recommend use of logical quotations. And in any case, as has been repeatedly explained, the guidance at WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN and WP:CONSISTENCY really doesn't apply here. You mention quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text, but that is about altering direct quotations—not about the use of punctuation in conjunction with quotation marks. As for your happy medium, that doesn't work. Episode titles are not italicized. If you do take this to admin noticeboards, you'd better be prepared for a WP:BOOMERANG. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note to anyone who may wish to enter this discussion, user wiser is not a different user than Bkonrad. Both of them are the same person. Same person operating these names. I say this because it could be used a tactic to make it seem as though more people have agreed with him. Why he has changed his username to look differently, I have no idea. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no secret that my user name is bkonrad and that I sign my comments as older ≠ wiser. I've done so since before I can remember. I started editing in 2004 and can no longer recall when I start using that signature. older ≠ wiser 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying. When you're reverting under one name, then debating under another, it's pretty slick. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that I'm not. My user name is readily apparent to anyone who cares to look at my signature. older ≠ wiser 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

did you actually accuse me of ownership of this article. I don't know if that was an innocent mistake or if you're that delusional because I haven't added to this article other than to make one comment on the talk page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Learn how to read. And shut up calling me delusional. It's rude. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I read very well. You may want to go visit your comment 6 rows above my last one. And I quote, "the only people exercising article ownership are Doniago and Bignole." so feel free to tell me how you didn't claim that I was acting like an owner of the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The other user here who's name starts with a "B" has some type of a method where he changes his name between how it shows up when editing and when here, and your name also starts with a "B." As said before, his username change has caused confusion. Either way, I'm done assisting with that section of the article. It's subject to deletion now because very little if anything is sourced and much appears to be original research. Further, the writing needs clean up in that section. I've sourced all of the rest of this article, most recently the awards section. I'm steering veeeeeeeery clear of this section now because of the bellyaching over how to place a period. So if the section isn't sourced and cleaned up appropriately, it will be deleted unfortunately and I'm not helping out with this section in particular any longer. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not ever changed my user name. Please do not misrepresent things. older ≠ wiser 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to say on the issue "Bkonrad" otherwise known as "wiser." Goodbye!!!! AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's just dandy. Spread misinformation and then leave. Nice. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards putting the punctuation outside the title, e.g. "Tears of a Clooney". It's logical though initially clumsy-looking. Putting it inside the quotes is visually jarring. The wp:LQ policy Doniago quotes clearly states "On Misplaced Pages, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." This appears to trump the national ties argument. In the alternative, I agree with Donagio that "WP:TIES has no bearing on this, as it is a guideline with regards to spelling and word-choice, not mechanics as above." - Fantr (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fantr, this discussion has completed and your input was merely a means of sparking up strife. As the section is largely unsourced and is being used to instigate other editors now, I'm removing it. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced, poorly written "DVD release" section

There is an entire section of this article that is unsourced and subject to deletion which is the DVD section. I have taken the time out to source all the other sections from this article, from the awards section, the ratings section, the origins section, etc., etc., etc. I don't feel comfortable with sourcing and editing this particular section, however, because of dispute that has broken out above in regards to the bellyaching of where periods go. So I'm going to refrain from sourcing or assisting any further with this section. This section is overwhelmingly filled with material that isn't sourced and reads like a complaint. Please understand that this material is all subject to immediate deletion at any time. I encourage someone perhaps some of the editors concerned with where periods go in this section or anyone else to source it all. In addition, the section's writing style does not match with the rest of the article in regards to punctuation which is another concern. For now, I've posted the appropriate tags. I'll go ahead and delete if the section remains unsourced. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo placing

User Grapesoda22, you have placed the character photo into the infobox, as shown here and I reverted you explaining in edit summary that the character photo was better left right next to the character information of which it describes. There's already a photo in the infobox that states the title of the show. Mind you, someone else other than myself originally removed this out of the infobox when it was there once before because it wasn't necessary. Again, it's not necessary because there's already an image in the infobox and that's the image of the show's title. Moreover, removing the pic from the character section makes the Jeff photo look like it doesn't belong.

Anyways, after explaining this to you in edit summary, you reverted me again and without an explanation at all in your edit summary. Please leave the edit as it was originally until the matter is discussed. If a big deal is made out of it, we can get the opinions of other editors. Thank you AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago

Doniago, please stop instigating edit wars as you did . I wasn't the first person to add that bit of information on the show having a TV-14 rating for adult content, another user was. I am simply the one to vouch for the material and support it with sources. If you view it as "trivia," it was in your best interest to initiate a discussion about it on the talk page of the article rather than instigate an edit war by reverting it when you knew full well that others found it necessary in the article. Your behavior is belligerent and contributes to edit warring. And adding a "television shows" "TV-14" rating is not trivia. This is an adult cartoon and it's plenty relevant to the article. Unless you can find me a policy that states adding a television show's TV rating is trivia, you have no business labeling it as such. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should start by assuming good faith. You should furthermore consider whether starting off by accusing someone of instigating edit warring is really the most productive way of approaching your concern. While this is obviously a tv series and not a movie, I feel WP:FILMRATING makes the case succinctly for why the rating is not important. Why do you feel it is important in an age where many tv series come with such ratings? Doniago (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Television is different from film. Also, the Family Guy article has TV-14 information contained in it and has been rated a GA status article. Is what you're telling me that you're going to go over there and embark on a debate with them and the reviewer who rated it GA class?! AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to ask the GA reviewer for their thoughts if you'd like. And can you please explain why in this particular case it should matter whether we're talking about film or a tv show? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because one article does something one way, even a GA-rated article, doesn't mean it's correct. Policies change, consensus changes, article text changes. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, we don't need a television wiki project article because all the same rules apply as between television and film. If it doesn't say it at the teleivision show wiki project, it doesn't apply. Stop trying to bend the rules to suit a little belligerent agenda. Here at Misplaced Pages, we follow rules strictly. We follow rules strictly and you should know this considering your belligerent period/grammar belligerence from several months ago and I eventually ended up brushing off and ignoring. By your logic, why don't we just get rid of the television show wikiproject article?! You might want to consider doing two things: A.) going to the film article and asking do all the same rules apply as between television and film?! B.) consulting the GA reviewer and asking him why he gave that article a GA rating with that information? Furthermore, this same information is contained in the King of the Hill articles as well, so if you could ask all of them why they incorporated it. Thank you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you would like a response, please rephrase without the personal attacks. If you persist I will respond per the guidelines in linked policy. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AD96 is correct that since this involves a removal of stable content, we normally retain the material until there is a consensus to remove. For my part, I have a hard time understanding why any article would contain more than the briefest of statements about the rating level of a series.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have WP:BOLD then, Kww, if, as you state, we have to discuss the "removal of stable content". CTF83! 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to include such trivial information as the rating of an episode and the disclaimer. The Simpsons project has hundereds of GAs/FAs on episode pages, not one has a rating. Not to mention the FA, The Simpsons has no mention of rating. Also, how you wrote it, makes it seem like every episode has all 4 letters, which I highly doubt every episode does. For the record, I have had the same issues with AmericanDad86. CTF83! 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact that user:CTF83! has written "For the record, I have had the same issues with AmericanDad86" is enough evidence in and of itself that much like Doniago, he's not here for the good of the article, but simply to start edit wars and arguments all based upon past dealings. I had issues with both these users that like this situation, started from Doniago's edit-war-inciting behaviors, the last time over the placing of a period for God's sakes. This was months ago. I eventually dropped the whole heated debate and ended up ignoring as Doniago was getting more and more people involved who didn't know the extent of his belligerence, one of which was CTF83. Turns out I would later even have people coming to my talk page, begging me to continue challenging people like Doniago on his 'period placement' belligerence (as shown here on my talk page: ), but I was tired of all the fuss over the nonsensical matter and just ended up putting the few periods where he wanted it because I would much rather prefer not dealing with Doniago than debating with him.

Unfortunately, however, dropping the matter and letting the user have his way has proven to be ineffective as he's been perpetually doing his best to initiate more edits wars. One quintessential example is where it backfired on him and he realized his own edit was unconstructive in the midst of his belligerent revert ( as shown here and here ).

This matter in question is just yet another instance in which it has backfired on him because Doniago and CTF83 are of the opinion that I made the edit in question, but in fact I didn't. The edit was first made by User:TBrandley over a year ago in May 2012 as shown here . Now earlier on yesterday, it was removed by someone because they thought it was "untrue." That's when I restored the edit and placed a source to support TBrandley's year old edit. Thus, my only contribution was the sources and that it was delivered via a "public service announcement." That's when Doniago quickly jumped in and removed it, his reason being that it was "trivia."

I then initiated a debate on the matter here on the talk page, questioning Doniago as to why exactly he was removing the edit. He said his basis for removal was because the wikiproject film article discouraged such information. Entirely confused, I explained to him how that was the wikiproject film article, not the wikiproject television article." He argued that if it says it on the wikiproject film article, it should too apply to the wikiproject television article. I told him that if all the same rules applied as between the wikiproject film article and the wikiproject television article, then we wouldn't have two separate articles with differing rules and policies. He just kept arguing how everything on the film article should apply to the television as well.

I also noted that the Family Guy article, which is a GA article has the same information located in it's opening (as shown here: ). Likewise, the King of the Hill article has this information located in their article as well (as shown here ). Doniago replied to me by stating that he was going to consult all these people and the GA reviewer of Family Guy article as to why they incorporated it and rated it as GA class with this particular information in it. He has yet to do that. All he's done thus far, is to try to be slick and go to The Famiily Guy talk page where he knows CTF83 does a great deal of editing at and can easily be found at (as shown here ) and asked there if he can remove information off the American Dad! article (as shown here ). Following right in accordance with Doniago's manipulative schemes, CTF83 has shown up here and aggressed. And in such a way that it's clear he thinks I made the edit in question. What Doniago and CTF83 don't realize, however, is in their attempts to harass and start a petty tit for tat, they aren't even reverting an edit I made, but some stable edit created by someone else that's existed for over a year.

Unfortunately as dropping the matter has proven to be unsuccessful with Doniago as I tried to do the first time he pulled this, I will have to fight out this matter to the very end. And I will explain in detail exactly what Doniago is up to, to everyone and their neighbor if I have to so as to expose his misconduct. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to speak on this further pending the outcome of an WP:ANI discussion that I've opened regarding AmericanDad86's conduct. Doniago (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Doniago, I'm actually very pleased you've taken the matter to the administrative noticeboards and linked to this very discussion, especially when I've just explained the insides and outsides of this matter above and when an administrator has already point-blank told you this () within this very discussion. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, CTF83, it's really a question of figuring out which move was actually the bold one. If the content has been in a for a long while, then removing it is the bold act which was then reverted, and discussion is generally required before removing it again. If it just got added, then the addition was the bold move, and, once removed, discussion is generally required before adding it back.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kww...and AD86, do you really think I'm gonna read all that rambling? I'm even at work getting paid and I won't do it. I did read the first sentence, which I detest your insinuation. My 32 good articles should tell you I'm here to improve the project/this article. You just like to add junk trivial spam, that belong at a fan wiki, and then get in a tisy fit when someone removes it, as that doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Neither Doniago nor I have a block for personal attacks/incivility...so who really likes to argue here? And past dealings? It show your character and how you act on here, so I'd say they are relevant. CTF83! 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And to be honest, AD86, I've steered clear of American Dad episodes, since our issue with the trivial addition of Roger's costumes, because I don't even want to deal with you. I've dealt with hundereds of users here, and have never said that before. CTF83! 03:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And if the above two postings by CTF83 don't fully support my comment then nothing does. Since the user has joined the discussion, he's been doing absolutely nothing but bringing up a past ordeal, yet claims he's here for the edit in question and not his petty grudge. In CTF83's most previous two posts, however, he does nothing but make silly insults and doesn't even bring up the edit in question. The only time he brings it up is to acknowledge that he's wrong and administrator Kww who has agreed with me is right. Meanwhile, Doniago's only argument was that policies of the film article should too apply to the wiki television article. He's since been off at the Misplaced Pages Administrative Noticeboards begging them to block me because his feelings got hurt in this discussion, which they seem to be getting as exasperated with as I am . Ugh! Guys, I'm not entertaining the antics here any longer. I'll be back when a legitimate argument has been presented and there's been consensus among large enough number of editors. So far, all we have are Doniago and CTF83 engaging in verbal abuse, misconduct, and begging for blocks from administrators to try to support their edit or better yet grudge. Oh, and we have admins who disagree with them. If either of you would like to discuss the edit in question, let me know when you're ready, but as long as the silly insults and misconduct continue, you'll be ignored. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how our "rant" is different then your 6 paragraph rant. Anyway tv ratings , like Roger's costumes are trivial and belong on a fan wiki site, not an encyclopedia. CTF83! 10:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, in case you are unaware, admin's opinions carry no more weight then yours, mine, Doniago, or any other user/IP. CTF83! 10:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer to the Family Guy TV-14 thing is that it didn't have that when it became a Good Article. Amazingly, these articles are not frozen in time. We successfully did away with ratings at the Film Project because of their superfluousness and constantly changing and arbitrary nature that varies from country to country. This year I successfully lobbied to get them abolished from Video Games as well for the same reasons. TV-14 makes sense only to Americans and means even less to them, it doesn't need to be in the article, Doniago was correct to remove it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DWB. People following this thread may be interested to know that I have proposed a related change to MOS:TV. Discussion here. Doniago (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, User:TBrandley has stated over at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Television the following: I agree, this needs to be discussed. In my opinion, I believe parental ratings should be added to television articles, but only a short explanation. Reasons, such as because of its violence, is very unnecessary and a short explanation (eg: Family Guy is rated TV-14) would be fine (as shown here ). This is also what administrator Kww has stated above.

DarkWarrior, you raised the point that TV-14 only makes sense to Americans, but the show is called "American" Dad! There's going to be a great deal of information that will only make sense to Americans in an article like this. The series is created, produced, and set in, and even partly titled "American," so American-based information is first and foremost in an article of this nature. If information based on other countries should be added, it should be collectively annexed somewhere at the bottom of the article like it is in several other GA articles (such as here and here). Friends and Family Guy, which are both GA articles, touch upon a great deal of information that is unique to America throughout the entirely of their articles, as of relates to dates, premieres, and other information. It only touches upon information that's unique to countries other than America in sections that are collectively devoted to other countries, titled "International." And I've already given my response on "the policy exists at wiki project film" argument above (as shown here )

At least an argument has finally been presented here. Doniago has done little other than resort to sad, unethical ploys to get his way on this content dispute and strive to find people who I've had past content disputes with. He's spent the majority of this content dispute begging on his hands and knees at the Administrative Noticeboards for blocks. In doing so, he was sternly reprimanded and rejected by several admins for resorting to block-begging behavior to try to win this content dispute as opposed to proceeding ahead with this dispute in a straightforward manner, as was shown here , here and here . AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Easy with the personal attacks, AmericanDad86. Yes, we contributors to the AN/I discussion were not in any hurry to see you or anyone else reprimanded, but ease up with declaring that somebody is resorting to "sad" methods. DarthBotto_talk•cont 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Doniago (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Darthbotto, I should inform you of the behavior that Doniago has been engaging in! Instead of this user debating out this matter like the rest of us, he has engaged in a full-fledged and failed campaign to try and have me blocked. And he has been either dismissed and/or scolded each and every time by everyone he has come across. Despite being told numerous times by numerous administrators and editors to treat the matter as a content dispute and stop trying to make it anything more than this, Doniago has only continued going from admin to admin, venue to venue, and editor to editor to try to make it as something more than it is. Each time the user has harassed someone to block or scold me, he has been told the same thing and seems to keep digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole. I've not even entertained Doniago's attempts to get me blocked. I've largely just been ignoring him which has proven to be amazingly effective. It seems as though Doniago's actually about to get himself blocked or at least in trouble because he won't stop harassing everyone to try and get me blocked or at least scolded.

And if you don't believe me, he first went to the administrative noticeboards and ended up bickering with them because he was getting reprimanded there and didn't get his way, as is shown here: . Here's some of what different administrators told the user, repeatedly telling him to treat the matter as a content dispute and stop trying to make like he's been personally attacked by anyone: , here and here .

When that didn't work and his Administrative Noticeboard protest was effectively rejected by several admins, he started bellyaching to different administrators personally on their user pages, as shown here:

When that didn't work, he started going to different editors' talk pages, such as user Bignole's and CTF85, trying to get them to assist him in his aims, as shown here: , here , here and here .

When that didn't work, he started whining on the Help page. This led to a discussion between him and someone from the Help page in which he was whining that there's something wrong with Misplaced Pages administrators and the way they do business and the system of Misplaced Pages altogether, as shown here , here , here , etc. An individual from the help page, user:I dream of Horses, told him the same thing as the admins which was to treat the matter as a content dispute and that his protest didn't belong on the Help page: and here .

In going from venue to venue, admin to admin, editor to editor, Doniago has long violated the WP:FORUMSHOP policy. While I could easily bring this to an administrator's attention so as they could handle him accordingly, I think he'll get himself in way more trouble than I ever could with his behavior of harassing everyone to try to get me blocked because his feelings got hurt. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by Doniago to leave a comment explaining my close on ANI. First of all, I am not an admin but made the bold move of closing the ANI to send it to somewhere that could do something about the content issues. Secondly, any editor may question the close of any procedure that they have concerns with, whether it be ANI, AFD, DRV etc. This is not to say that Doniago's concerns were rejected merely that other venues be exhausted. At the time I closed the ANI, you had not made the above comment and thus I could safely say that the issue was largely content based. However, your misrepresentations of Doniago's requests for assistance, in what started as a content dispute, as "whining", as well as them being "reprimanded" on ANI following their "bickering" with the admins, is liable to poison the well and I suggest you strike your comments. I have encouraged Doniago to open a request for ], which they have done and similarly encourage you to join the discussion in the hopes of moving forward. Blackmane (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

By your own edit, you've just admitted that Doniago never did what he has been told to do now by numerous editors. He was initially told to treat this matter as a content dispute by numerous individuals and never did. My above edit comes only after all of the disobedience and harassment. Instead he's been on the talk pages of NUMEROUS editors asking them to defend him. You're just among one of many editors who he has asked to defend him, such as shown here and here . Several editors have ignored and/or dismissed him, but I see that you've appeased his nagging requests, which are shown on your talk page: here , here , here , and here .

By Doniago's own admission on your talk page, he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at your user talk page: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here ).

Thusly, I am not the only person Doniago has pulled these antics with in which he misuses the Administrative Noticeboards during a content disputes. Moreover, in the user's harassing behavior of going from person to person, trying to create strife between myself and them and bellyaching of how his feelings got hurt from "incivility," he has hypocritically been making a series of obnoxious comments and lies, such as the following on your user talk page: I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think AD86 would care if what you said was binding (as shown here ); and They have additionally ignored the advice of one of the participants in the ANI filing to settle down (as shown here ). This last comment he made was a lie because as you will see in the following link, I was never even apart of the discussion at the Administrative Noticeboards: . Again, I've largely ignored this user's antics. It's mainly been other editors reprimanding him to stop making it more than a content dispute and dismissing him as he tries to get them to defend him. I've actually had little involvement with Doniago as far as this content dispute goes. It has mainly been him bouncing around from person to person and venue to venue in an effort to get me blocked or get support in getting me blocked. In the process, he has been repeatedly ordered to stop treating the matter as anything more than a content dispute, but has been persistently disobeying these orders from several editors. As shown in the above, he's also going around lying now to accomplish his aims, claiming that I've had more involvement than I have and that I've been told to calm down on Administrative Noticeboards in discussions I wasn't even involved in. The user is a liar and a troublemaker and is upset that he isn't getting his way. I've handled him best by ignoring his shenanigans.

Also, Doniago, made this request of you on your user talk page: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." (as shown here )

Quite frankly, such a request as that is entirely out of line. This talk page is intended to discuss edits to the article, not to explain ANI filings or make Doniago look good. The only reason it has gotten off track as far as it has is because Doniago started making threats that he was going to Administrative Noticeboards during the middle of a content dispute. Since then, there has been little discussion relating to the editing dispute that was started based upon his wrongful reversion (this as told to him here by an admin ). And that's because of his threats to go to the Admin Noticeboards and deliberated attempts to get others to defend him.

Moreover, the editor has opened this matter up in multiple venues, including here at the Family Guy talk page , here at the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style talk page , the Administrative Noticeboards as shown above, Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution here , this discussion here at the American Dad talk page, the Help page, etc. In doing so, he's actually participated very little in the content dispute matter. In fact, he's had no involvement in the debate over at past opening up the discussion. Rather, he's just been going from venue to venue opening up the matter and whining that he's been viciously attacked by myself. As Kww told him from the get go, he was wrong and had no business removing a stable edit.

Moreover, if the editor is so antagonized and aggressed by myself, why is he shown at my talk page earlier today making this edit following a compliment I received from User:Willondon (as shown here ). Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"

If Doniago feels so antagonized and threatened by myself, tell him to stay off my talk page with the instigating after I receive compliments from other editors. His behavior is nothing more than belligerent, disobedient, and harassing and I have every right to label it as such.

Up to this point, I've done little to actually resist or acknowledge this user as far as this matter goes. Other than the few comments I've made here, I've not had any dealings with this user. I'd hardly call it a dispute because I'm not paying attention to the user beyond my comments here. He's been off at numerous pages of editors asking them to defend him and whining and bickering with them if they don't. He's done it at the Administrative Noticeboards, the help page, different admins, different editors, etc., etc., etc., etc. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN Info

A WP:DRN case was recently opened on whether or not the rating information would be included in this article. Consensus has ruled in against including such information. Please do not include the info in question as your edit will simply be reverted. If you would like to know more details, please see the link provided. Thank you.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I didn't resist the edit in question because I've honestly tired of Doniago and want nothing to do with him. As stated above, I'm largely ignoring Doniago's failed shenanigans to have me blocked at this point. He didn't give a hoot about the edit in question. He started up the trivial altercation for the purposes of getting me blocked, as he made clear to you in the dispute resolution noticeboard discussion in which he was supposed to be focused on the content dispute but wasn't (shown here and here where he's still bringing up my "conduct" and whining about not getting his way at the Administrative Noticeboards in trying to get me blocked). The user should have been called out for still whining about that in the resolution noticeboard discussion that was intended to be focused on the content dispute. As he did for the entirety of this debate, he was disobedient there too and not focusing on the content dispute like he was told by numerous editors. He hardly even debated out the matter and spent the vast majority of the time going from person to person, encouraging them to support him in blocking me. The user was showing up at my user talk page just yesterday after I received compliments from other editors. He should be blocked for his harassment. Doniago is very lucky I didn't take harsher actions with him and inform an administrator of his lies, disobedience, and harassment all of which is detailed in my post above. He spent the entire content dispute trying to get editors to support to have me blocked and when this failed, whined, bellyached, and bickered. The next time he pulls these obnoxious shenanigans, I'll be reporting him and presenting a detailed complaint with links to his antics. The user can consider this as his warning. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The sections of the article should be rearranged and merged

Hello, I think that the whole passage's sequence is not logical, and it is not easy to read, especially for those who are not familiar with the show. I think an article about a TV show should first be about its productions, then its themes, then its ramifications(reception, DVD, etc.).

I personally think The sections should be arranged as follows: Production(The sections "Origins and progression","Episode pre-production process" and "Voice cast" should be merged into this part); Characters (two sub-sections: main, recurring); Setting; Themes and Characteristics (merger of "Recurring themes", "Intro and closing themes" and "plot techniques"); Broadcast(most of "Adjustments in on-air presentation, production and broadcasts" should be added into this section, "Reception and Nielsen ratings data"("Nielsen ratings data" part), some new stuff should be added too); Reception and achievements (merger of "Reception and Nielsen ratings data"(except "Nielsen ratings data" part) and "Season number discrepancy and episode misreports"); "Other Media" (merger of "DVD releases" and "Potential film adaptation"). The last three sections ("Crossovers with other animated sitcoms", "References", "External links") need not be changed. Thus, the sections will be fewer and clearer, and the article will be more logical.

I got the idea from the sections of the Misplaced Pages article The Simpsons.

This idea may need some tweaks, but it is worth thinking about.

Thanks! Mysik1216 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Body Swapping?

Is it appropriate for Body Swapping to be listed as a category for the series entire, or do editors feel this would be more appropriate attached to individual episode articles? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Individual episode only. It's not a main theme of the show, and we don't need over categorization. CTF83! 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! DonIago (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Cast

For most television series, the cast is listed at the top of the article, sometimes integrated with the character descriptions. But in this article, the actors are named at the bottom of the page. I'd like to make this change but I thought I'd post about it here first. Liz 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem here. CTF83! 23:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Season 11 & season 12 dispute

Could we get some input?!

User Wattlebird is insisting that the three unaired episodes to be broadcast on Fox this fall are apart of their own separate season, "season 11." The three episodes will air on only two dates, with two back-to-back episodes on September 14 and one episode on September 21. Wattlebird is going to various Misplaced Pages pages, rearranging a lot of sourced info based upon this recent announcement, labeling these three episodes as the new “micro-season 11” and rewording the 15-episode TBS order as no longer being “season 11”, but now "season 12." His one and only source for making this move is that it was worded as “season premiere” at the Zap2it website, as shown here . I don't think this one and only source and its vague wording at best is enough to warrant this drastic overhaul and labeling season 11 as now being a "micro-season" of 3 episodes.

On my user talk page, Wattlebird went so far as labeling the Zap2it source as an official press release from Fox, as shown here . However, Zap2it is in no way connected to Fox.

Every source on the Internet regarding an “American Dad season 11” state it as being apart of TBS as opposed to "season 11" being three leftover episodes to air on FOX, such as shown here here and here . These are a few examples among many.

On the other hand, I am seeing zero sources describing the TBS season as a “season 12” and the three episodes on Fox as a “micro-season 11.” I don’t feel one source, especially Zap2it, wording it as “season premiere” warrants a complete overhaul of information on Misplaced Pages that’s based on numerous sources across the Web and that are already embedded all over Misplaced Pages. These sources are not only embedded all over American Dad Misplaced Pages articles, but in the areas right where Wattlebird makes his changes—as he doesn't bother to remove the sources that don't support his claims wants he has changed information—causing blatant inconsistencies between what he's inserted and the sources that follow.

In addition, there are no sources that even discuss an “American Dad season 12 and it's airing date", let alone that it will air on Fox this fall. If you look up “American Dad season 12” on Google, nothing really appears, let alone about it premiering on TBS in the fall of 2014, as shown here . All sources describe “season 11” as premiering as part of TBS in the fall of 2014.

There are sources from September 2013 that go so far as stating that the three episodes to air on Fox are apart of season 10. So my thinking is that these 3 episodes are just leftover season 10 episodes and that season 10 is a two-part season, as opposed to season 11 being a “micro-season” of three episodes to air on 2 dates. None of the sources on the Internet even speak of a season 12 and a truncated season 11, not even Wattlebird’s source. Feedback would be much appreciated! Thank you!AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's do this...

On my user talk page, Wattlebird went so far as labeling the Zap2it source as an official press release from Fox, as shown here. However, Zap2it is in no way connected to Fox

You clearly do not know the difference between a press release and an article. In this instance - that is not an article by "zap2it". It's a direct copy and paste of a press from FOX - which is why it also appears word-for word on theFutonCritic AND on FOX's OFFICIAL publicity website. It's a document that FOX have released and has then been circulated throughout the internet.

You cannot use the fact that previous articles referred to TBS' first run of the show as "Season 11" as evidence that the micro-season shouldn't be labeled as such because up until July 20th - no-one outside of FOX even knew that there were still unaired episodes. So of course they were going to refer to the next group of episodes as the eleventh season. Any article prior to July 20th that refers to the TBS season as Season 11 is irrelevant for this reason.

Too bad. It's an official document released by FOX that clearly labels it as a season premiere as the press release clearly says:

First, in the special one-hour season premiere

These sources are not only embedded all over American Dad Misplaced Pages articles, but in the areas right where Wattlebird makes his changes—as he doesn't bother to remove the sources that don't support his claims wants he has changed information—causing blatant inconsistencies between what he's inserted and the sources that follow.

Just because one small piece of information has changed based on new information coming to light doesn't discredit the other information being pulled from it.

Again, this is only new information that has only recently come to light. You cannot use a lack of Google search results as evidence of anything.

There are sources from September 2013 that go so far as stating that the three episodes to air on Fox are apart of season 10

No there isn't. FOX announced guest stars in September 2013 that would appear in episodes produced in the eighth production cycle that were, at the time, set to air at some point in the tenth season between September 2013 and May 2014 but clearly that didn't happen and plans changed.

So my thinking is that these 3 episodes are just leftover season 10 episodes and that season 10 is a two-part season, as opposed to season 11 being a “micro-season” of three episodes to air on 2 dates.

So, you want to edit Misplaced Pages based on your opinion, rather than basing everything off an official press release that was released by FOX? That makes no sense...

None of the sources on the Internet even speak of a season 12 and a truncated season 11, not even Wattlebird’s source.

Once again, that's because this is only new information that has recently come to light. And why would FOX mention Season 12 on TBS when the whole press release was centered on upcoming guest stars on their animated shows?

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters FOX have clearly labeled this a season premiere in their press release. Anything else is merely an opinion or personal preference Unfortunately the fact you don't like it, and think it should be different, doesn't count for anything. - Wattlebird (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My own opinion FWIW, is that going to season 12 is just digging the discrepancy hole deeper. I am curious from an outsiders point of view, how wikipedia is going deal with the future information coming from TBS that may say season 10 or 11 , but not 12? 108.226.145.151 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe season 10 starts on Fox and then continues on TBS? Either that or these are just leftover season 10 episodes. It's really too early to jump to conclusions though. Koala15 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with you two. By the way, I just looked up American Dad! on Google and the following StarOnline source came up, as shown here . As you can see, it describes the three episodes left to air on FOX as the "end of season 10," not its own three-episode mini-season or whatever. Moreover, it still describes the TBS order as season 11. Very consistent with what I've been trying to tell WattleBird. Still have yet to see any source specifying it as a mini-season 11 and TBS as a season 12. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that is a third-party source, whereas the FOX press release is a first-party source - which supersedes anything third-party. And yes you have seen something saying it's a seperate season - the press release clearly said "season premiere" not "when season 10 returns" or something similar. - Wattlebird (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As stated, Fox press release didn't specify anything regarding number of seasons. You came to a conclusion based upon vague wording. As other users have tried explaining to you, 3 episodes to air on 2 dates is not a full season, and it will only create further discrepancies in the future.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@AmericanDad86: How is "season premiere" and "season finale" not specific enough? Per Fox's press release: "First, in the special one-hour season premiere (Sunday, Sept. 14, 9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT), Roger . In the final FOX episode' (Sunday, Sept. 21, 9:30-10:00 PM ET/PT)". I realize this extra season seems stupid, but it is what it is. Davejohnsan (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel I have made my stance more than clear in my detailed post from above without having to repeat anything. I am going to make this easy. I have e-mailed Annie Geffroy, the woman in charge of American Dad! for Fox Flash (as according to the website of the press release ) and left her a voicemail and e-mail, inquiring on what exactly was meant by the statement, if it in fact carried all these implications, and what is considered season 10, season 11 and season 12. That way, we don't have to argue about it until we're blue in the face. Just so all are informed, my letter to Ms. Geffroy is copy and pasted down below. Thank you!

Dear Ms. Geffroy:

I am an editor of the English Misplaced Pages known as AmericanDad86. Recently, there has been some confusion among some editors of the website based upon a recent Fox Flash press release. The Fox Flash press release causing this confusion is located at the following web address: http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z254z9z8&ID=17091

Up until that press release came out on July 20, 2014, it was thought that season 10 had concluded on May 18, 2014, and that season 11 would begin on TBS this fall. That is what was being reported all over the media in articles discussing the topic.

However with the arrival of your press release on July 20th, there is now confusion as to what's considered season 10, season 11 and consequently season 12. Your recent press release revealed that American Dad had 3 new episodes left to air on Fox, that 2 of those episodes would air on September 14 and the 3rd and final episode on September 21.

Now it is my understanding that these 3 upcoming episodes are just the end of season 10, which ran 20 episodes during the 2013-14 television season. That is my understanding based upon A) the number of episodes left, again only 3 and on only 2 dates B.) all the past reports explicitly stating that season 10 is the final season on Fox and season 11 is the first season on TBS. C.) Fox having done this 2-part season once before, that being for the first episode and the remaining 7 episodes of the first season.

However, there is a contrasting belief that season 11 is no longer the 15-episode TBS season, but now rather the 3 episodes left to air on Fox. The 2 individuals making this claim are also under the impression that the 15-episode TBS season is now season 12, no longer season 11. These 2 individuals are asserting this based upon the words "season premiere" used in your Fox Flash press release. Your Fox Flash press release reads as follows, "First, in the special one-hour season premiere (Sunday, Sept. 14, 9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT)."

I have tried arguing that if all this were the case that Fox Flash would have detailed this or at least elaborated beyond "season premiere" with nothing more. Given that all the previous reports state that Fox ends with season 10 and TBS starts with season 11, I felt that elaboration would most certainly be provided if such a drastic change in season numbering were intended by Fox. However, the two editors in disagreement seem to think your usage of "season premiere" was crystal clear as to all the aforementioned implications.

A small majority of us at Misplaced Pages concluded that these 3 episodes were the end of season 10. In addition, media sources are beginning to support that notion as well, as shown in the following web address: http://www.thestar.com.my/Lifestyle/Entertainment/TV/News/2014/07/23/American-Dad-to-celebrate-end-of-Fox-run-with-Kim-Kardashian/ . With that, I thought consensus had been reached on the issue. However, another editor has since come in and supported the user in disagreement. So just to avoid the draining and never-ending back and forth arguments that regularly go on at the website, I am contacting you to inquire directly as to what was meant by "season premiere," and also what episodes exactly are considered season 10, season 11, and if relevant season 12?

If you could revise your Fox Flash press release so that your meaning is more clear, that would be very much appreciated. AmericanDad86 (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That is well and good on the assumption if TBS were follow the short 1st season model, but they actually have followed the long 1st season http://www.tbs.com/shows/american-dad.html and claim the 9th season just finished. A 3 episode FOX season 10 actually works into the TBS 11th season. 108.226.145.151 (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Very much agreed, IP! AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@AmericanDad86:I honestly don't see the ambiguity here, even with the season number of these upcoming three episodes omitted from the official press release, but since you've already contacted a Fox employee regarding this matter, I don't see how discussing this any further you will change your mind until the lady responds...if she bothers to do so. We'll see. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Dave, what was the point of your posting?! You have already explained that you don't see the ambiguity. There's no need to keep hitting that point home. As three users and a reliable source explicitly disagree with you, however, you'll have to accept that others see it differently from you. For that reason, I have asked the staff member responsible what she meant. It's not about changing my mind and arguing me into submission. That should not be your goal. Your goal should be coming to the correct answer. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Which three users and which reliable source would that be? Davejohnsan (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, if she replies with an answer as an e-mail, there is no way for us to verify that the reply is genuine, so you wouldn't be able to use it as a source...

It's not about changing my mind and arguing me into submission. That should not be your goal. Your goal should be coming to the correct answer.

We've already reached the correct answer, as there is a first-party source which clearly defines it as a season premiere. However you seem to disagree with it and are trying to claim that a third-party ARTICLE is a more accurate source than something FOX themselves released and won't give up because you don't want it to be this way. - Wattlebird (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You know, they are about two choices about this episode number confusing mess. For one, we could add the three unaired episodes to Season Ten, therefore TBS has its official Season 11, catching everything up and no Season 11 and Season 12 shit.

For two, FoxFlash.com says that the season beginning with Steve and Snot's Test-Tubular adventure is Season Nine, so I think we should go back and fix it so Season One begins with 23 episodes and Season Three is Season Two and so-on. And the three un-aired episodes would be Season Ten and TBS' is Season 11 ending the big clusterfuck shit.

Thoughts on this? Spongey253 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Spongey253

Makes sense. - Wattlebird (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So what have we agreed on? This discussion hasn't gone anywhere in days and I'd like to make sure we can reach something here... Davejohnsan (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Given literally no-one has objected to converting to the other season-labeling method and labeling the three episodes as season 10, so TBS' episodes can still be season 11 - I guess that's what's been agreed on. Even though it's the same result as just labeling the upcoming FOX episodes as season 11 and TBS as season 12, just with a lot more work and effort.

I didn't vote since I consider myself more of a fan than an editor, but bringing in "Season 12" is the last thing that should be done unless TBS revises their own count. We have a definitive season count from them that I think everyone else will be on board with as far as other media. Whatever it takes to match that should be done. 108.226.145.151 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, especially on whatever takes to match should be done. Making moves that would create more discrepancies would leave regular editors of this article with the unenviable task of making even more reversions and trying to resolve even more debates. As it is, there's enough debate over the first season discrepancy. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add my $0.02 We know FOX is calling 09/14 the "Season Premiere" & unless I missed it they aren't calling any date after the "Season Finale", correct? The wording here (https://tv.yahoo.com/news/fox-announces-simpsons-futurama-crossover-ha nk-azaria-joins-173200335.html) of "Fox finale of American Dad on Sunday, Sept. 21" isn't referring to a Season Finale, it's simply means the last episode that's airing on FOX Unless FOX eventually says that's what they are, it's absurd to ascribe three episodes as its own season so September 14th is the start of Season 10 and then it simply moves & continues on TBS after September 21st, whatever that date is going to be. KYLE (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually like this idea. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

All right people! It looks like consensus is clearly against the absurd idea that the three episodes airing in September are a "microseason." Only two editors were arguing that theory while it seems everyone else either wants it to be as part of the 2013-14 Fox season or the 2014-15 TBS season. With that, I have removed the reference to "microseason" from the article. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, consensus has no been reached. You're just reading what you want and for some reason, have completely disregarded Spongey253's idea which had no opposition at all. - Wattlebird (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z28

Categories: