Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:09, 3 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ocean's Three and a Half 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Article milestones Date Process Result October 8, 2007 Articles for deletion Deleted July 25, 2008 Articles for deletion Deleted
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 21, 2009.

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

Christian Bale reference on Family Guy

Sweeeeeeeeet. Will be interesting to see what sort of reception this gets in secondary sources. Appears to be a clip from this episode. Cirt (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

hahahaha, that part was hilarious!!! Carluverdrm2004 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional mentions of this in Los Angeles Times, Gather News. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly mentioned in comments. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

News.com.au, The Celebrity Truth, New York Post. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode title

Comcast listed the title as "Ocean's 3.5", not "Ocean's Three and a Half". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.64.156 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when has Comcast become the Family Guy athority? My Dish Network has gotten episode title wrong before. But on this episode it feature the title as Ocean's Three and a Half. Sarujo (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources list the episode title as "Ocean's Three and a Half". Cirt (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Susie's age

Could someone add a full explanation how Susie is already 18? I'm guessing 10 years since Family Guy first premiered in 1999 (when Bonnie was first introduced as being pregnant) but I'm not sure where he's getting the other 8. --Champthom (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be more of an exageration on Quagmire and the writers parts. Like saying "The Simpsons have been on the air forever." or "That guy's girlfriends get younger and younger. Soon he'll be dating sperm". Sarujo (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Quagmire has expressed the desire to have sex with girls under 18 before under the guise of pretending to mishear their age. 66.231.141.34 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Past characters

The children in the lemonade stand scence were from the previous episode "Tale's of a third grade nothing" worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stewie's music video

Does anyone know all or at least some of the music videos being parodied in Stewie's Bryan Adams music video? 207.211.82.6 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the videos were listed in a previous edit, but then were removed. I have no idea why this was done.99.237.62.225 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They need sourcing. Sarujo (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Music Video parodies

Here are some

- White Stripes "Fell in Love With a Girl": Lego Stewie

- Police "Wrapped Around Your Finger": Blond Stewie in sunglasses

- "The Wall" (Pink Floyd film) & "Hysteria" by Muse: Stewie destroying the hotel room

- Across the Universe (film): Stewie throwing paint over a canvas

-Fleetwood Mac "Little Lies" Scene of Stewie in the barn walking. Ends with a shot of his gravestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.106.12 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

--70.23.157.208 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Leo11--70.23.157.208 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Regarding , quotes should be in quotation marks, and not italicized. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Misplaced Pages:MOS#Italics_and_quotations. Cirt (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the revert before the message in my talk page. Quotes may not be in italics all story titles are. So all instances of story title have to be in italics. Sarujo (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So were just going to turn a blind eye to what I have to say? Sarujo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is best not to italicize within quoted text. If by story titles you mean things like books, movies, or other productions that would normally be italicized, generally I defer to the original secondary source - if the phrase was italicized in that secondary source, it could be italicized within the quotation. If not, not. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So that's why, hmm. And to think I've doing it wrong all this time. Guess I've got some work cutout for me. Sarujo (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Please take a moment to read WP:LEAD. Per WP:LEAD: The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Misplaced Pages article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not all that much shorter than the actual plot summary, and the way it's written just doesn't look right. Immblueversion (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It conforms with WP:LEAD, in that it is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it just seems so overly-detailed. Can't we just sum up the plot of the article in a more concise way, like the official press release only different, and not actually go into the ending? The article is just so short that it seems like putting so much there is like re-writing a quarter of the whole thing, and that's what makes it seem so out of place. Immblueversion 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Immblueversion (talk · contribs), I would appreciate it if you would revert this edit you just did . It really is not a summary of the entire article, you removed the entire summary of the Reception section, and the plot context is not sufficient, because it needs to provide context for the Cultural references/Reception summary paragraph in the lede. As you have changed it, the article now does not conform to WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"The article is just so short that it seems like putting so much there is like re-writing a quarter of the whole thing", I agree with that, but it's just a consequence of the article lacking much more notability other than the reviews, not a reason to over look the WP:LEAD guideline. Alastairward (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Lede

Template:RFCmedia

Should the the lede section of Ocean's Three and a Half be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article? 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt

• Applicable guideline: Misplaced Pages:Lead section - Specifically: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.

• Summary of events: I have put a large amount of work into this article, which included referencing and expanding the lede from its prior version of one-sentence to a stand-alone concise summary of the article. Immblueversion (talk · contribs) reverted with no edit summary, and cut the lede back down to a length of two-sentences. I restored, also in the process removing some unsourced material inserted in-between by IPs. I explained on the talk page that the lede section of the article should function as a stand-alone concise summary of the entire article, citing WP:LEAD . Unfortunately in his reply comments, Immblueversion (talk · contribs) has not been too responsive or specific, saying the way it's written just doesn't look right, and subsequently Can't we just sum up the plot of the article in a more concise way, like the official press release only different, and not actually go into the ending? Unfortunately it seems he does not understand WP:LEAD and that a proper lede section is actually the opposite of his thinking - that is it should describe the beginning, middle and ending of the plot, as well as concisely summarize all of the other subsections of the article. Most recently Immblueversion (talk · contribs) again cut down the lede section, with no edit summary, cutting it to a total of four sentences, removing the entire paragraph summary of the Cultural references/Reception portion of the article, and inserting a run-on sentence.

I think at this point the situation would be helped by some input from previously uninvolved contributors that are familiar with WP:LEAD. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I waited a while after this comment was made by a previously uninvolved editor/respondent to the RfC, and restored the longer lede version. Cirt (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

After this , by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs), I left a comment at the user's talk page about this RfC. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Immblueversion

Comment by previously uninvolved editors

• Ledes should generally be much larger than they are. That's also true in this case. They should summarize all aspects of the article, including the beginning, middle, and end of the plot summary. I haven't looked to deep into this, but it sounds like part of the problem might involve putting spoilers into the lede. Look at Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, if so. It says the Darth Vader is Luke's father in the lede. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• With no disposition toward this current debate, Vader being Luke's father is not be a spoiler for Return of the Jedi. This plot point is revealed in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, whose lede only alludes to it as a shocking revelation. —Ost (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should be self-contained and summarise all the significant aspects of the article, so that readers who want a synopsis can read the lead without having to read the main text. Ty 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

usage: "downright"

".. Carter downright refuses" (?) no: "refuses outright". The word "downright" is regional slang. examples: "Junior's barbecue was downright heavenly." "Foster Brooks was downright hi-larious."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisaacs (talk • contribs)

 Done. Removed. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of songs with girls names

I think we should add a list of all the songs that Brian mentions, I'll put them on here so people can work out who they're by and evenually add them. Roseanna, Roxanne (Police), Michelle, Alison, Sarah, Angie, Brandy, Mandy (Barry manilow), Gloria, Cecilia, Maggie May (Rod Stewart), Jessica, Nancy, Barbera, Anne, Billie Jean (Michael Jackson), Layla (Eric Clapton), Lola (The Kinks), Polly, Helena (My Chemical Romance), Jenny from the block (Jennifer Lopez). I make that 21, maybe it should be Barbera-Anne. Sherry, Laura (Scissor Sisters), Wendy, Maria, Peggy Sue (Buddy Holly), Minnie The Mucher. Tracy, Jean, Jane, Mary Anne, Eleanor Rigby (Beatles). Will Bradshaw (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this information mentioned in a secondary source? Cirt (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I got them off the episode, but they're available on IMDB. Will Bradshaw (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately IMDB is not a WP:RS source. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

HAHA it was funny to hear Brian reciting all those songs! Just FYI, The Rolling Stones created "Angie", The Beach Boys did "Barbara Ann", and Toto did "Rosanna". You know where to find others; I don't know all of 'em. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And what makes IMDB so unreliable if it's so high on Google rankings? Is it because it's an "anyone can contribute" site like Misplaced Pages? I thought IMDB had a fact-checking panel or something like that. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly certain as to what fact-checking IMDB goes through, but it is true that "anyone can contribute", by submitting to the site. Best to rely on better secondary sources like news/media, reviews of the episode itself, etc. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have them linked here: "Rosanna", "Roxanne", "Michelle", "Alison", "Sarah", "Angie", "Mandy", "Brandy", "Gloria", "Cecilia", "Maggie Mae", "Jessica", "Nancy", "Barbara Ann", "Billie Jean", " Layla ", "Lola", "Polly", "Helena", "Jenny From The Block", "Sherry", "Laura", "Wendy", "Maria", "Peggy Sue", "Minnie the Moocher", "Tracy", "Jean", "Mary Ann" and "Eleanor Rigby".

EamonnPKeane (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source to verify this info? Cirt (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph format please

Regarding , let's please avoid bullet-point style formatting in this article. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Sarujo (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Way to reply while also simultaneously making a cultural reference. :P Cirt (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Two-sentence long paragraph?

Does it make sense to have a two-sentence long paragraph in the Plot subsection, here? Personally I don't think so. Thoughts from others? Cirt (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For one thing wikipedia isn't supposed to be a recitation of every TV show episode out there. But the plot subsection shouldn't be so short you wouldn't know what the episode is about! --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Addding a linebreak so that there is a two-sentence paragraph doesn't elongate or shorten the plot, it is just poor style to have such a short paragraph. It should be merged back into the prior paragraph. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry I misunderstood. From my experience editing here short paragraphs are generally signs of lazy editing. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, actually see the diff I cited above in my first post in this subsection. Prior to that, the short paragraph was part of the larger paragraph above it. I think it should be restored to that version. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Left out of Adult Swim

Regarding and , Unfortunately, that is a violation of the WP:NOR policy. We cannot include this unless this was reported in a secondary news/media source that satisfies our policies of reliable sources and verifiability. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Animation articles
• Low-importance Animation articles
• B-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Animation articles
• B-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• B-Class Comedy articles
• Low-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles