Talk:List of Family Guy characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Should One-off characters be listed?
A1: Please follow these guidelines with characters:

1. 99% of all celebrity appearances are non-canon and should not be inlcuded in the recurring character article. (Possible exceptions: James Woods, Michael Eisner)

2. All unnamed characters should not be included in recurring article. (Possible Exceptions: Judge)

3. All characters appearing in cutaway jokes should not be included in the recurring articles. (Exceptions: The Evil Monkey rule: Any cutaway character who makes three appearances or more can be safely counted as a character. However, such an addition should be discussed on the talk page regardless.)

4. All characters who are central characters in the storyline of a single episode but do not make any more appearances should not be inlcuded in the recurring character article. (Examples: Nigel the British pub owner, Ronaldo Peter's Mexican friend)

5. All characters who are central characters in the storyline of two or more episodes should be included in the recurring character article.

6. All one-time and cut-away family members who have an episode or are a central part of a storyline devoted to them should not be considered characters. (Examples: Mickey McFinnigan, Lois Laura Bush Lynne Cheney Pewterschmidt, Peter's many ancestors

Stewies Accent[edit]

Stewie speak with dirty dog sound, which is the standard upper-class dialect of English in the United Kingdom. This was removed, but can be replaced if a source can be found. I point this out because it is an important aspect of Stewie's character.--Floydiac (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed and expressed enough in Stewies article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Evil Monkey?[edit]

shouldn't the evil monkey be on this page? hes appeared in lot of episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

whats more, Evil Monkey redirects to the "Other characters" section where he's not mentioned at all! bunch of geniuses here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

and they can't even answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bitch Stewie and Brian[edit]

Would Bitch Stewie and Brian warrant a mention on this page?

They were memorable. (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not; they were a 1-shot set of joke characters. See the FAQ at the top of this page for suggested guidelines on inclusions. DP76764 (Talk) 04:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Following that logic, why is Peter's father listed? (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple. The family section has all the family, one-shot or not. After that are characters used often. Last is semi-minor recurring characters. Bitch Stewie and Bitch Brian can be included when they are shown again, being recurring characters. MJ56003 (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Glenn's Sister" and "No Way Guy"[edit]

Removed these from the page, per guidelines of not listing unnamed characters, as well as characters who are not featured in more than one episode or hold any significance to the storyline. Roxxor2k7 (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Buzz Killington[edit]

Buzz Killington redirects to the "list of other recurring characters" section of this article, but is not mentioned there. Was he deleted by vandals? OR does someone need to write up his description? CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Jus' sayin'. CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably removed because he is a very minor character. CTJF83 chat 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore Redundancy[edit]

Could someone please, who can, delete the List of recurring characters in Family Guy article? It is awfully redundant; that article has nothing in it that this article does not. It's job is already being done by this article, and having two articles which basically do the exact same thing and have the exact same information (apart from LorciFG having a lot less characters, clarity and info in it than LociFG as) just makes said information more confusing to access. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done redirected to List of characters in Family Guy CTJF83 chat 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Why is there a redirect to the character Fouad on this page but no actual reference to him? NorthernThunder (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Arricherekk (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Consuela, the cleaning lady[edit]

The Spanish cleaning lady should be added. (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look through the FAQ listed near the top of the page, please. DP76764 (Talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
She has been in three episodes right? "5. All characters who are central characters in the storyline of two or more episodes should be included in the recurring character article.". But we could wait until she appears in more episodes, theres no rush. (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
She is the central character in 0 episodes though. She only appears in very minor roles, which doesn't qualify for this list. CTJF83 chat 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

She was featured prominently in one episode and has been in more than one. (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

She has not been the main character of any episode so far, but she has appeared in 5 episodes now I believe, including the 2nd special star wars spoof episode.Benjaminmin (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much plot synopsis![edit]

It's good that we have some guidelines about which characters appear in this list and which do not, but we could also use some guidelines about the character descriptions. As it is, they tend to devolve into messy plot synopses which list events that various editors found humorous. It seems to me that these entries are not meant to be histories, but descriptions of the primary features of the characters and their roles in the programs. Perhaps a more amibitious editor (or group of editors) could sketch a guideline for the sort of information that belongs here and the sort that does not. Phiwum (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kevin's death[edit]

There is no reason to mention his death in "Da Boom" because that episode takes place out of continuity and is never mentioned in episodes following it and is therefore irrelevent. Not to mention that Kevin made more appearances after that episode, including "Peter's Two Dads" at Meg's birthday party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I agree. CTJF83 chat 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
arrow Reverted I disagree. While it may be irrelivent to the overall continuity, there is no reason it can't be mentioned in Kevin's bio. There is a lot of notable events that happen in one particular episode, and is never referenced again. I don't see why this shouldn't be included, especially since the bio acknowledges the continuity issue. It was still an event that happened in the show and took place in the character's history whether it was reality or not. See Tony Soprano for a similar example. Geeky Randy (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Why are you fighting this so much? His "death" happened in a dream episode; it doesn't count. If we were going to include things that happened outside of continuity, many pages on here would be a mess. (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
These sorts of arguments occur because there are no guidelines regarding what counts as notable enough for inclusion here. As a result, the page consists of whatever some editor found funny enough to include, with no discrimination at all. These sorts of issues should be settled for character lists generally, but especially for an odd comedy like Family Guy where humor is more important than consistent character development. Phiwum (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
But he died in a dream episode. That doesn't count. (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
arrow Reverted We're not having a debate over what the show's reality is. So what if it was a dream? The bio explains this too. This doesn't mean it can't be included as long as it's not overly redundant. As for other pages looking like a "mess" if they were all like this, see WP:WAX as I've provided on your talk page already. I'm finding you're not reading the WPs I've been asking you to read in order to come to a consensus on this disagreement. If you continue, please be prepared to get accused of not adhering to WP:NPOV because you obviously care only about what you think the article should look like. Geeky Randy (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
These sorts of arguments occur because editors ignore the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It's a trivial plot detail not significant enough to include in a brief summary, such as this list article. / edg 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly how WP:NPOV works. Let's reach a WP:CONSENSUS on this before considering re-adding this material. For the record, I do not think that this bit of trivia is necessary to mention about the character. DP76764 (Talk) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't be listed, in a way similar to how we don't list anything from the Treehouse of Horror episodes. CTJF83 chat 22:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to be overly self-righteous about this. I'm an inclusionist, so naturally I'm going to support the "Boom" info about Kevin stays. But I never looked at it as similar as Treehouse of Horror episodes, so that could be a good point by User:Ctjf83. However, has been focusing on the dream-aspect for deleting the information, so I've been using notable information from other articles, Tony Soprano for example, as a defense for dreams still being notable. Geeky Randy (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
One Family Guy dream episode is not the same as multiple Soprano dream episodes. (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There was only one "dream episode" on The Sopranos and that was "The Test Dream". The rest were just dream sequences in between continuity. Not much different than cutaway gags on Family Guy. These are notable because many characters have come out of cutaway gags. "Da Boom" can also be argued similarly with introducing the Ernie the Giant Chicken, who has become quite notable despite not being part of the continuity. Not to mention Mila Kunis's debut as Meg--so since this was all a dream and not part of the continuity, why didn't Meg's voice go back to Lacey Chabert's in the following episode? Do you see how weak the "it was just a dream so exclude it" argument is? I understand it's not part of the story; but I'm not seeing why this isn't notable. Geeky Randy (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't change the subject. This isn't about Meg's voice or the Giant Chicken debut. This is about Kevin's death; this is a bigger issue. His death in the episode doesn't count because it's part of a dream and he appeared in many episodes following it until his real death was brought up in "Stew-roids." You know you are the only one fighting for this right? (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me say this as well. Should we include other things like Peter was once mayor of New Quahog or that Stewie gave birth to multiple baby eggs? Those are pretty notable things for the characters, except they happened in a dream and are never brought up again, along with Kevin's death and the whole entire episode, excluding the Giant Chicken's debut. As for Meg's voice change, that's a production issue and not a story issue. (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I see you still haven't read WP:WAX. I've stated my point, and it should be noted that notable things happened in the episode that were a part of the continuity. To discuss that isn't changing the subject, but could possibly be an overriding factor in the disagreement about notability. Look at yourself, your last few messages haven't added anything new to this debate. You're officially going in circles, responding to your own posts. Geeky Randy (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I only added more to argument by responding to my own post. Well, it's quite obvious you and me are not going to reach an agreement. I've made my point, but you just can't let this go can you? Every other person who posted here agrees with me; you're the only one fighting this. (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Every person who posted here agree with you? I don't think that's entirely true, and even if it was, it's irrelivant per WP:NOT#DEM. Will you read this? Probably not. Geeky Randy (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The death in a dream episode was not notable, even if other events in the same episode were notable. The fact that it happened only in that episode and was never again mentioned and had no effect on the series thereafter is a pretty good indication it wasn't notable. Phiwum (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
None of this episode's events are significant at all. We may only mention an event that occurs in an episode if it has a lasting effect on the series: Example: Loretta leaves Cleveland in an episode. We include this because it alters the character in future episodes, and without mentioning it, his actions would be confusing. However, Kevin dying in this episode is irrelevant because it does not shape the character in later episodes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, and after rewatching the episode to refresh my memory, we obviously wouldn't mention Cleveland and Quagmire being fused together or Joe being fused in concrete, or Stewie's tentacles, or Quahog (and the world) blowing up. CTJF83 chat 05:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Berler?[edit]

Is Mr. Berler (Meg's math teacher) significant enough for the list? I don't recall the character myself. Perhaps someone who has wasted even more hours watching this show can verify whether Berler is a recurring character or appears in only one episode. In the latter case, please delete his entry. Phiwum (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of any appearance that was more than minor. CTJF83 chat 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
He's in at least four episodes: "Let's Go to the Hop", "And the Wiener Is..." and "North by North Quahog". The fourth includes a scene where he accidentally shows his sex tape to his class. Geeky Randy (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Quagmires[edit]

The list currently include both Anna Lee and Dan/Ida Quagmire. As far as I know, these are characters that appeared in only one episode each, and thus should not be included in this list according to the guidelines found in the FAQ section of this talk page. I've deleted these entries, but if I'm mistaken, please revert. Phiwum (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, they don't really meet any of the requirements, but these 2 were each important to their specific episodes. Perhaps we could add another number to the FAQ and add this situation. I'll see what others think. CTJF83 chat 16:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
They actually were all rightly removed due to FAQ #6. They can probably be safely mentioned on Glenn Quagmire's page. CTJF83 chat 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should revisit #6? CTJF83 chat 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Loosening up #6 will probably lead us back towards all the Peter's Ancestors and such, sadly. I'd lean towards elaborating on characters like this on the pertinent character page instead of this one. The question, of course, is, how are these 1-shot characters important to the character they're tied to, and is that notable enough to mention? FG is quite good at 1-shot jokes that are against the normal character behavior (Brian 'praying', etc); all in the name of being funny, of course. Having a child (for example) has had little/zero impact on the core Quagmire character. DP76764 (Talk) 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
As the person who tightened FAQ #6 - being related to a Griffin character, even if they are important in only one episode, is not reason to be listed. This article should end at important characters. I may even request that since Family Guy has so many important unimportant characters like Bruce and The Giant Chicken, each character included must have an assertion of notability, notwithstanding characters with articles as they would most likely have accomplished this in the articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Good points. You're right DP, we can add stuff (if necessary) about Quagmire's dad/daughter on his page, where the info is more relative. CTJF83 chat 03:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

James William Bottomtooth[edit]

Just wondered if it's worth adding James William Bottomtooth to the list. From memory I think he appeared in two episodes, and some relative of his was in another one. I put his name in the search and was redirected to this page but found no mention of him. AnemoneProjectors 23:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look through the FAQ at the top of this page, if you please. DP76764 (Talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I already did but it wasn't entirely clear so that's why I asked. But looking at the recurring characters on the page I can see he's not recurring enough. Why bother with a redirect though if he's not going to be mentioned? AnemoneProjectors 10:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is addressed in the FAQ. Bottomtooth is in at two episodes, and isn't excluded by any of the Q1 rules. However, he's more a recurring joke (about Boston Brahmin) than a character. That said, he is referenced in the article on Locust Valley lockjaw. / edg 11:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
He's also mentioned in Yale in popular culture, or is that his son? AnemoneProjectors 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Jesus has been removed with User:New Age Retro Hippie saying that "One major role in one episode and trivial roles in all the rest is not notable for inclusion". However, the same could be said for the Evil Monkey. I think Jesus should be replaced in the article for this reason. God, Kool-Aid Man and Drunk Billy were also removed, but I'm not as concerned about those characters being included. AnemoneProjectors 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

None of them meet the criteria at the top of this page for inclusion. CTJF83 pride 16:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I think Jesus passes the so-called "Evil Monkey rule". Plus like the Evil Monkey, he had one central episode. AnemoneProjectors 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Kool-Aid Man should definitely not be included, all he does it bust into a room saying "OH YA!", that is in no way notable. Who is Drunk Billy?? Besides I Dream of Jesus, I can only think of appearances in cutaways? CTJF83 pride 18:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Therefore doesn't he pass the Evil Monkey Rule: "Any cutaway character who makes three appearances or more can be safely counted as a character"? God also passes that criterion. It says to discuss the characters' additions but as they were already listed, I think their removal should have been discussed instead. According to what was removed "Drunk Billy was the news helicopter pilot for WQHG. He is only shown in one episode called "Dial Meg for Murder", in which he dies in a helicopter crash. Shortly following that, WQHG plays a video, remembering him for his work." Was listed alongside his colleagues. AnemoneProjectors 18:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess I should read your whole post "but I'm not as concerned about those characters being included". I guess you're right, since they were already added, I think removing them should be discussed. CTJF83 pride 19:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess I'm less bothered about some of the ones that were removed - a character who appeared only once probably doesn't belong here) but yes their removal should have been discussed, it wasn't like someone just added them without checking first. AnemoneProjectors 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is very poor in its application of fan-made guidelines. Unless they are plot characters or they have out-of-universe information apart from development, they shouldn't be included. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


We all want to change the page after the season premiere but lets not throw up any old misspelled sentenced fragment okay? Lots42 (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This note would be better in the article, hidden, for people who will actually do that, no WP:FG members who wouldn't. CTJF83 chat 02:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Only problem would be where to put it; there are all sorts of new additions tonight. DP76764 (Talk) 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ya, best bet is to wait 3-4 days and then clean it up....or WP:RPP :) CTJF83 chat 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Fargus[edit]

Should it be noted under Mr. Fargus that he may possibly be injured or dead, because at the end the hallway robot stopped him to ask for a hall pass misinterpreting the teacher for a student. The robot raises his arm which is also a weapon and says "last request". When the screen turns to black you hear a gun-like sound, implying that he MAY be possibly dead or injured. Just thought that could be added. Any objections? Thanks. LeMasterC (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's trivial anyway, relating to 20 seconds on one episode, that kind of trivia is usually not included. Plus "possibly injured" equals WP:OR CTJF83 chat 03:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
A character who appeared in one episode? Not noteable enough. Lots42 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mort Goldman[edit]

I believe that Mort Goldman should have his own article. He has been in many episodes. There is plenty of information on him that could be placed in the article. I mean, if Ernie the Giant Chicken can get his own page, why shouldn't Mort? The chicken has been in only a few episodes, and only for pointless fight scenes. Mort has a lot more background information on him, like his Jewish ancestry and his wife, Muriel. So please consider it. Thanks. LeMasterC (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused...if you feel this way, why don't you start an article? You don't need anyone's permission. (smile) Doniago (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Weed[edit]

I am pretty sure Mr. Weed or Mr. Oui, is a french speaker.

What do you base that on? CTJF83 chat 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Portuguese Guys[edit]

I think it is worth mentioning that the two Portuguese guys speak with a Brazilian accent. I should know... I am Portuguese. Can't get a better source than this. Just because it appears to be a casting mistake, it does not mean it is not a significant feature. Accents and tones of voice are one of Family Guy's main joke branches: Consuela, Stewie, the Goldmans, the Browns, Bruce, Herbert, Seamus... the way all of these characters talk is a matter of amusement. So why not mention it in Santos and Pasqual?

(and by the way, it is normally spelled Pascoal) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya, per WP:V and WP:RS a source would be needed...something more than you saying it. CTJF83 chat 23:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the unsigned person e absolutely right, Santos and Pasqual really speak brazilian... and it should say that on the main page, i'm also portuguese, so i know! Don't ask me for sources, WE ARE SOURCES, so you better change it and stop acting like you own this website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomes89 (talkcontribs) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm portuguese too and I noticed that, they're not really portuguese, they're brazilian!

Okay, whatever is going on here, cites -are- needed. Lots42 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, cites are required...I could say I'm Portuguese till the cows come home...doesn't make it true. CTJF83 chat 23:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fact is that they are always refered to as Portuguese, such as Stewie saying "We couldn't run an ad that said 'no Portuguese', but no Portuguese" or when one of them said something about going back to Portugal. AnemoneProjectors 00:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fisrt of all, I'm Portuguese, and this isn't the only show to mistake Brazilian Portuguese for European Portuguese - it's understandable given that it's not a very well known language and not that many people in the USA speak it. That said, I would like to point something out, just for your consideration - how would you like it if we got a british guy playing an American man on a Portuguese TV show and didn't care to change his accent? It may be insignificant, I know it is, but it matters because some people might find it insulting. I'm not very patriotic, I love my language, but I know how small and ridiculous my country can be - I'm not offended - I find it perfectly natural - an honest mistake. But it's still arrogant for American TV to continually not bother checking or respecting other cultures to their fullest - I can't imagine how many misrepresentations have happened of cultures throughout the world, because of that, for lack of a better word, arrogance. As for it needing to be a citing of someone "official" sayint it's Barazilian Portuguese because we could just be lying about our nationality, well, fisrt of all - why would we care or lie otherwise? second - the first poster was trying to bring that to the attention of people! If no one's noticed before, or at least gotten to the trouble of pointing it out, it's because there isn't any official thingy about it. If there was, maybe they wouldn't be speaking Brazilian Portugese by now, would they? Duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this fellow here. Where are these people supposed to get their sources from? Not from an American site or magazine, that’s for sure… besides, all over Wikipedia there are simply hundreds of links to sites that just are not there anymore. What are we going to do about this? And would you perhaps like them to provide a Portuguese site or book as a reference? It would be written in Portuguese but your bureaucratic problem would be solved. I think that something in Portuguese is better than nothing or a link to something that is no longer there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We should include info that says they speak Brazilian because it's trivia and someone may find it interesting. And if it's innacurate information (which it isn't, I've noticed it myself), it's not like somebody's going to die because of it. If someone does die because of it, well, that's just life.--Midasminus (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As brought up at the beginning of this discussion, where's the reliable source to establish that they are in fact speaking Brazilian? Of course, as you mentioned yourself, it's trivial and hence isn't really appropriate for inclusion in any case, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up again. This isn't IMDb. Doniago (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

missing characters[edit]

Where is Broderick Brown? He is Cleveland's brother, the cosmetic surgeon. I think he should be on the list.

Also where is Phidias and Barnabe, the Muscular work out guys? They have been seen in plenty of episodes not to be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not include very minor characters. CTJF83 chat 22:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I Wiki'd "Al Harrington" which brought me to the article, but found nothing. The article indicated that characters who appear once are omitted, but he had to be in three or more different episodes because he had three different "commercials" that I had know of. NBK1122 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of redirects for characters with no mention in the article. Angus Griffin, Black-Eye Griffin, Jabba the Griffin, James William Bottomtooth, Marguerite Pewterschmidt, Peter Griffin Jr, Rufus Griffin, Bertram (Family Guy), Jeff Campbell (Family Guy), Carl (Family Guy), Consuela (Family Guy), Kevin Swanson, Patrick Pewterschmidt, Muriel Goldman, Olivia Fuller, Al Harrington (Family Guy), Buzz Killington, Dr. Bruce Kaplan, Fjurg Van Der Ploeg, Paddy Tanniger, Rose Griffin, Rush Limbaugh (Family Guy), Broderick Brown, Susie Swanson, Joan Quagmire, The Quahog Con Man and Vern and Johnny. Obviously many of them shouldn't be included, maybe some of them should. But there shouldn't be redirects if there's no mention of these characters. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree, can you delete the unnecessary ones? CTJF83 19:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think they would have to be listed for deletion as they've existed for a while. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Fuller is who I came here looking for, got redirected and there is no listing here. I would like to know who voice acted her part, if nothing else, and she was a main character in at least two episodes. #### —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Muriel Goldman has appeared in the series from series 3 and was kiled off in sereis 10! Where is she? MayhemMario

Meg Griffin[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a joke or if it spam which wasn't reverted, but, why does Meg Griffin's description just says "Nobody Likes Meg."? Nineko (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That was vandalism, thanks for bringing it to attention. Sometimes those things get lost in the shuffle. DP76764 (Talk) 05:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Griffin JR and Meg's other sister[edit]

I know these where jokes on the show, but they ARE part of the family, shouldn't people atleast acknowledge their existence in Family guy? If Seth MacFarlin wanted we won't have created them, so can't anybody add a header like: EXTRAS or NON MAIN STREAM CHARACTERS. Also Could somebody please reply with a reason, rather than "DO NOT add any other characters, including Peter Griffin Jr, or Meg's "other sister". They WILL be revert!" ? Thank you, (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a list of recurring (and hence not one-joke) characters. Doniago (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I added "They are just joke characters" to the note, good enough or want more? CTJF83 chat 20:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This article really needs to be fixed.[edit]

As it stands, it is extremely in-universe, and really has no point in being this way. The article needs to start following a proper criteria, and since the series has a heavy reliance on joke characters, these characters will need individual assertions of notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree for the most part. Might be time to re-debate the criteria for inclusion in the FAQ section. DP76764 (Talk) 03:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. For one, I think that we should drop the notion of setting a specific criteria of number of appearances. I believe that we should view each character individually and discuss whether they should be included. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the show, one-episode characters should -not- be included. Otherwise this article will become near unreadable. Lots42 (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise; I was arguing that having arbitrary criteria was making characters notable based on what the creators want to do with them, rather than how the public perceives them. A character who only appeared in one episode can be notable; he or she merely has to be covered in outside media significantly. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Going on from the previous discussion, assessment now.[edit]

I think we should get to the assessment. First off, I will list everyone that I think should just be given a quick pass as an obviously major enough character to be notable by default.

  1. Peter
  2. Lois
  3. Brian
  4. Stewie
  5. Chris
  6. Meg
  7. Cleveland
  8. Quagmire
  9. Joe
  10. Tom
  11. Diane

Basically, the above characters are frequently important to the plot or are in many episodes as more than joke roles.

What about Adam West? He is certainly a very frequent appearer on the show Benjaminmin (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And now, we have to make a criteria for inclusion. For one, I think we need to be extra-hard on gag characters. Evil Monkey and Giant Chicken are examples of exceptions, whereas Consuela and "Quahog Con Man" are not. A character must have substance - they cannot simply be a list of every gag they've ever had. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree CTJF83 chat 22:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think more important now, that we've discussed who's worthy of inclusion, is who isn't. I would venture to say that most of what's included now is not worth including. Mort's wife could be a footnote to Mort, and most of the joke characters could be removed, as they are merely a list of episodes they appeared in, basically. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Francis Griffin's hatred[edit]

In the article, it says that "he (Francis) hates Lois because she is Protestant/Jewish." However, Francis died in season 5, and we aren't shown Lois's Jewish heritage until season 8. If no one responds to this in a week, I will just change it myself, but I would appreciate feedback. (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

His ghost appears to Peter in the episode where Lois is revealed to be Jewish and I believe takes issue with it, but I wouldn't make a case for it. One could just as easily argue that the ghost was a figment of Peter's imagination rather than actually being Francis. Doniago (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You both make good points, how about..."He hates Lois because she is not catholic"? Solves the problem. CTJF83 chat 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. Doniago (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done CTJF83 chat 22:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mort Goldman & Carter Pewterschmidt[edit]

We have enough background information on both--and both are big enough supporting characters--that they should be split into their own separate articles. I'm going to start work on Mort Goldman, but if anyone has any objections, feel free to comment back. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't had their own sections already. Carter is very important to what passes for continuity in the show. Lots42 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've created an article for Mort Goldman (though I did tag it as a stub, as it could be expanded more), while Carter I haven't touched yet. Especially the past two seasons it seems like Carter has increased in importance, while, say, Tom Tucker has decreased in importance. Personally, I like Carter better between the two. Jgera5 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be an ass, but it's simply not acceptable to split out these articles yet. Simply being important, or becoming more important, is not a valid reason to split an article. Mort Goldman has not one mention of the hows or whys of his creation, nor does it cover any third party opinions of the character. That is the only consideration that should be made when splitting. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Order of characters[edit]

I think the characters should be arranged in alphabetical order. For people to better orient.--ToonsFan (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

They are. You got the Griffin's in age order, which I support that, then you got the 3 other main characters in alphabetical order. Then you have the other recurring characters in alphabetical order by first name. Probably should be by last name. CTJF83 17:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We organize by first name in the event of fictional characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


I would like to see Consuela added. She has been in several episodes and I think the reverted section about her was well written. –CWenger (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of appearances has no bearing on inclusion; due to the common practice of bringing back gag characters, we need to independently analyze such characters to discern whether they are worth including, at least in terms of them. As such, you will have to search Google for Consuela "Family Guy"; it will be difficult without any system to verify which sites are good for use, but use good judgment; for example, wordpress is not a usable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I second adding Consuela, among other characters. Geeky Randy (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, these number of characters have no plot relevance; simply using the number of appearances is not an acceptable measure of real world notability when they are so flippantly used for trivial appearances. If you would like to include this gag character, there must be evidence of notability - ie, reception (positive or negative) and/or development information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I can't find many reliable sources about her. The best I can do is this editorial. –CWenger (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It does look like a good source, but if it is the only one, it would best be used for the Criticisms of Family Guy article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at least it is a mention of this character in a secondary source. It wouldn't back up all the detail about her—not sure if that is a problem, but I bet it is true of most characters in this article. –CWenger (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hippie, she is nothing more than a minor character, mostly focused on cutaway jokes. Until she is the focus of a plot, she shouldn't be added. CTJF83 04:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
We should apply this standard universally then; for example, I doubt Greased-up Deaf Guy makes the cut. –CWenger (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This is certainly true. We need to do a verification check on every character without an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Concur CTJF83 19:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe she was the subject of one episode, kind of. I'm all for her being a gag character as opposed to a supporting character at this time. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing characters[edit]

Missing people like Vern and Johnny, Paddy Tanniger, and Santos and Pasqual, which are recurring characters, but very important in the series as gag characters.--ToonsFan (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would contend that none of those characters are "very important in the series". If they are, surely there will be some reliable sources discussing their importance. DP76764 (Talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with DP CTJF83 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I would contend they are at least as "important" as some of those listed already. But what do I know, I don't normally go around thinking I'm King Wiki using phrases like "I would contend".

Go4thAndDie (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't normally have conversations like a reasonable person without becoming offended and becoming anti-intellectual. You write important as if importance is trivial. This is not a fan list. This list exists to educate people who are not fans of Family Guy rather than to be a reference guide for fans. There is a Family Guy Wikia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


Just curious- why is Quagmire's description so long as compared to the other characters when he has his own page? Kjscotte34 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fans added it? I've shortened it. CTJF83 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Split the article[edit]

I recommend that this article be split into separate sections including:

  • Main characters
  • Secondary characters
  • Former characters

I also suggest that the list spawn tables; see List of characters in South Park for a reference. Railer-man (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you define main/secondary characters? What's a former character? How do you know they won't appear in flashbacks? CTJF83 18:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Splitting in such a way is basically making a list of characters that aren't important, which is basically making a list of non-notable subjects. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with your South Park logic...and shortening descriptions of these characters. CTJF83 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend separating former characters because they're not former characters if you're watching the episodes they're in. Calling them "former" is in-universe information based on the most recently broadcast new episodes. All episodes should be treated as current. –AnemoneProjectors– 23:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The "former characters" are those that no longer appear, even in flashbacks. I've watched enough Family Guy episodes to know. They are mentioned in some cases, however. Railer-man (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see the guide to writing about fiction. fiction is always written about in the present tense. oknazevad (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Who voices Seamus?[edit]

I'm guessing Seth, but is it known?

Joe Swanson Incontinence[edit]

There has been an ongoing discussion as to whether Joe Swanson's (fecal and/or urinary) incontinence is worthy of inclusion in the character outline. KlappCK is of the opinion that it is while oknazevad believes it is not. Please see the link to the latter's talk page for some background on the discussion. We are hoping that the community can come together for a resolution on the matter. KlappCK (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And to summarize my thoughts, it seems a relatively minor detail. It's not the sort if thing mentioned every appearance. But I would like to hear from others. I just ask that the discussion continue here (don't need a ton of extra messages on my talk page). oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
For reference, my argument for its inclusion is that it referenced on multiple occasions in the series and its inclusion in Wikipedia would consist a single internally hyper-linked word, incontinent, appearing in the same sentence that notes his paraplegia. I am of the opinion that a character detail that receives even a passing reference on multiple occasions is worthy of a one word acknowledgement. As a reference point, note that, at this time, at least two sentences of his one paragraph character description are dedicated to explaining his paraplegia.KlappCK (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a trivial detail that does not need to be included, especially since its root cause is his paraplegic condition. Using Klapp's logic, we should also include the information that Stewie has a micro penis, as it's been mentioned a couple times as well. Neither of these details belong in their respective articles because they have no real real-world impact on who/what the characters are; they are merely in-universe character cruft (aka trivia). DP76764 (Talk) 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, other details about Stewie that are arguably as trivial as his micropenis are included in his character description. Nevertheless, the fact that Joe Swanson unlike Stewie Griffin, does not have his own wiki page, makes it difficult even to make such a comparison of criteria for inclusion. On the other hand, if we were to look at other characters listed on this page who do not have their own wiki, one can easily find many instances of similar triviality (of which I will demonstrate only a few for brevity):
Barbara Pewterschmidt: She often speaks in an English accent. Carter often calls her "Babs."
Bruce: Bruce is a mustached Southerner who...
Carter Pewterschmidt: ...and also a billionaire industrialist, shipping mogul, and owner of several major companies
By Dp76764's reasoning, it would seem arguable that Barbara's accent and Carter's pet name for her are equally trivial pieces of information, as would be Bruce's mustache and Carter's status in the shipping industry, since one could argue that none of these details belong in their respective articles because they have no real real-world impact on who/what the characters are; they are merely in-universe character cruft (aka trivia). If we are going to maintain such an interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines on the subject of triviality for Joe Swanson, it would seem that the only egalitarian path forward from such a resolution is to apply the same standard to all characters. In my mind, such a mindset begs the question "would we rather add a one word detail about one character, or remove several words, phrases and/or entire sentences from all the other characters where equally appropriate?"KlappCK (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, having paraplegia does not necessarily mean you are incontinent.
Basic description of easily observable facts (mustaches, nicknames, profession) are fine to keep as they give a basic description/understanding of the character. The incontinence, much like Stewie's short member and Quagmire's use of carrots are entirely different (apples v oranges, my friend). Are those details necessary for a casual reader to understand the character? No? Then it's trivia. DP76764 (Talk) 23:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not quite follow your reasoning. How is Barbara's accent or pet name, or Bruce's mustache necessary for a casual reader to understand those characters? If you can reasonably explain the distinction I would be happy to concede your point. Furthermore, Carter's being in the shipping industry is referenced less often than Joe's incontinence, so I also fail to see how such a trivial detail about Carter passes as an easily observable fact but Joe's incontinence, in the face of Bonnie changing his diaper and his paraplegia (as you were quick to point out) does not. KlappCK (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Things like names and appearance are basic descriptions of the characters; like female, teenager, baby, fat, skinny, unemployed, fisherman, etc. Knowing that Carter is a wealthy mogul is basic to understanding his character. Knowing that Joe has bathroom issues (if this is worth including, then how about his impotence too?) is not basic to understanding him. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter (this was a request for comment, no?).
Upon reflection, a section detailing his frustrations in life might be worth including if it were well sourced. Ideally, I'd like to see it come from DVD commentary or something (if that exists on this subject). DP76764 (Talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I agree that knowing Carter is wealthy is essential to understanding his character. In fact, I think that it is as essential to understanding Carter as Joe's paraplegia is to understanding his character. The distinction I was trying to make is two-fold:
1)In which industry Carter made his fortune has no more bearing on the show's universe than does Joe's incontinence.
2)By detailing the facial hair or pet name of one secondary character and completely omitting something as life altering as the fecal incontinence and even impotence of another character (and I encourage you to read our articles on these subjects if you find that assertion disagreeable), to me, seems out of balance.
As I had alluded to earlier, simply stating that Joe has paraplegia would be enough for me, if it were enough to say that Carter was very wealthy (and please note that I am not singling out Carter; this is just one example). On the other hand, if we are willing to keep increasingly obscure details about one or more other characters on this page, we should provide equal consideration for all of them. In my mind, leaving in obscure details about virtually every other character that would not pass the basic description and basic understanding test without including something this significant, is at best an act of bias that marginalizes his condition, and at worst an act of editorial injustice.
Regarding sourcing: I don't believe we will likely find any details about Joe's disability in the DVD commentary. What is much more likely is that, at best, we would be able to point to episodes in which his incontinence is referenced, which, as is evidenced elsewhere in the page, appears to be well sourced enough for inclusion.KlappCK (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought about Bruce (or his mustache, if you will). A description of appearance is pretty basic, if you ask me.

As for the idea that Joe's incontinence is "life altering", that would be true if we were talking about a real person. We're not. We can't read into an aspect of a fictional character that isn't portrayed as major issue, unless someone else does it first in a reliable source. ) That said, there is a valid point made about Joe not having his own article. He did until it was merged here due to concerns of lacking independent notability. If some commentary on the character can be found, then re-establishing a separate article may be the best course of action. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Joe is not a real person, so questions of human dignity don't play into this debate as they otherwise would. My point was more in the direction of why are we allowing the inclusion of some equally under-sourced character traits while omitting others? In real life, I would still imagine that whether or not one has a mustache is less self-defining than the inability to refrain from soiling your pants. Our own article on fecal incontinence has this to say about its "life altering" characteristics: Subjects relating to defecation are often socially unacceptable, thus those affected may be beset by feelings of shame and humiliation. Some do not seek medical help and instead attempt to self-manage the problem. This can lead to social withdrawal and isolation, which can turn into cases of agoraphobia. To me, this seems at least as noteworthy as an aesthetic change to one's appearance.KlappCK (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC
I moved this paragraph. Please don't put responses inside other's postings. It's a bit rude. Also, no need to (boldface) shout. I answer below. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not opposed to this idea, as long as we can reach a consensus that that is the best course of action. I would also prefer not to be on the hook for doing all of the prerequisite research and subsequent development on the subject.KlappCK (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that Joe's incontinence is referenced in more than one episode qualifies it as a recurring character trait. As Wikipedia's article on paraplegia indicates, paraplegia does not necessarily imply incontinence; so Joe being a paraplegic does not make incontinence a given, nor is it redundant. There shouldn't be an issue having this information in the article. It being trivial is merely an opinion. Geeky Randy (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if its triviality is a matter of opinion, then its triviality relative to other character traits that have been mentioned in this article (and specifically this discussion) should be self-consistently reasoned. I have not yet received a reasonable explanation as to why the way I maintain my facial hair is more important than my inability to choose when to defecate. Failure to do so, as I have indicated earlier, relegates this editorial decision to (cultural) bias regarding a taboo subject.KlappCK (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This series' foundation is triviality. But I digress, it is a pretty frequent and notable aspect of his character that he is unable to have sex and wears a diaper. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You are so right. Much (if not all) of this entire article is trivial. However, I am of the opinion that every trivial detail is created equal, as it were. We (the Wikipedia community) clearly have different ideals on what constitutes triviality even in a fictional universe. We now have five users on this thread (2 for and 2 against- I leave myself out since I started the discussion). How do we reach a consensus?KlappCK (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Since you asked...with regards to triviality, I'd fall back on the question of, "has it received any significant third-party coverage?" If so, then I would argue it's worthy of inclusion. If not, then I think the argument that "it's trivial" has merit and the mention should be omitted, especially since while it may have been mentioned frequently, it hasn't (as far as I can recall) been a key factor in any episode to date. Doniago (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I am behind you 100%, Doniago, provided that we are willing to apply the same standard in every instance of triviality. By way of example, I have pointed to Bruce's mustache and Barbara's pet name as at least equally trivial pieces of information (which, by the way has not received any significant third-party coverage). Conceding at the outset that I am an inclusionist, I am of the opinion that we would not have much left on this page if we removed every character detail that was at least as trivial as the one under discussion. In fact, this has been a key point in my arguments: Either we include what I believe would be an absolutely non-trivial detail about Joe Swanson, at least if he were a real person, or we begin the arduous process of cutting out a lot of fat from this article to get each character description to conform with the inclusion rules you (and others) have proposed. I believe that the majority of Wikipedians, myself included, would prefer to have the content they have added remain on this page, which is why I am in favor of keeping this detail about Joe on it.KlappCK (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to go either way on it (most particularly, I'm not likely to cut a lot of material from an article of this nature), but it has been my observation that articles like this one tend to acquire a lot of material that really probably isn't of interest to a general reader, and drift away from WP's general standards and ideals. I think there's a valid argument that while the article might contain less material if anything not covered by third-parties was removed, it might also improve the quality of the article overall and in particular make it more encyclopedic rather than a hotbed of cruft or trivia (which is not to say that is how I currently perceive it). Just my two cents...I'd certainly want the input of others before making any drastic changes. Doniago (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we stand at relatively similar positions on the subject, my only difference being that I ultimately favor just adding the aforementioned hyperlinked "incontinent" adjective in Joe's character description. Perhaps someone with a little more experience than me will know how (and take the initiative) to call a vote on the subject matter, if we only we could come to an agreement one what we would be voting for or against in the context of this discussion.KlappCK (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd still like to see a source (surely there's DVD commentary on this?) of some sort. We should also mention his erectile difficulties, as those are mentioned at least as often as this detail and are (perhaps) stressed more due to its affect on his relationship with Bonnie as well. Also, the mustache stays! It's a basic descriptive element (like Louis' red hair, etc). DP76764 (Talk) 23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I can agree with the keeping of the mustache on the grounds that it's clearly visible in any episode in which the pertinent character appears. Pretty much agreed on the rest of what you said as well. I don't recall anything being said of Joe's incontinence in earlier DVD commentaries, but I don't have most of the later sets. Doniago (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Above, Klapp wrote "In real life, I would still imagine that whether or not one has a mustache is less self-defining than the inability to refrain from soiling your pants." Some thoughts on this. Firstly, when describing a fictional character, especially a drawn one, aesthetic appearance is very important; it is one of the key ways that characterization is expressed. Bruce's mustache, and name for that matter, are stereotypes of gay men that were common in the early 80s; their use reinforces the nature of the character as a stereotypical (presumably) gay man (never actually been said, as a matter of fact). It's not trivial, it's part of how the creators have defined the character. So describing what the character looks like is something we should definitely be doing.

Meanwhile, real life considerations of what are defining are decidedly less important when dealing with fictional characters. Joe's incontinence has only been mentioned in passing a couple of times, and hasn't had any impact on actual plots (though correct me if I'm wrong). That says to me that it's not considered a significant, defining trait by the show creators.

i think we must be careful to not state something as defining a character when it's not depicted as such in the series. I agree that there's certainly a bit of that in the article as it stands. Character name, appearance, occupation, and significant, recurring personality traits are what we should limit it to. There's a bit of leeway in the latter, so future discussions such as this are likely to happen again, but that's a strength of Wikipedia, not a weakness. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel that since Joe's erectile dysfunction is the subject of a plot (or at least what leads into its plot), namely Bonnie cheating on Joe, it warrants mention. It can easily be stated "Joe was injured in the line of duty and made a paraplegic. He is unable to have sex, and his incontinence requires that he wear a diaper." It's different from, say, that one-off joke that Peter used to be a woman - this hasn't been contradicted. Since we discover that he has these problems, we never see him contradicting these facts. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since oknazevad has repeatedly latched onto Bruce's mustache as a very important character trait, although it is clearly no less a matter of opinion than my own about Joe's incontinence, let us focus on something about which no one seems to be arguing: Carter's pet name for Barbara. I would hope that even oknazevad could agree that this character detail is fat, and details like it should be removed for the sake of neutrality, unless, of course, we can just agree that Joe's incontinence is of sufficient importance relative to other character details in this article to merit inclusion. To me, this follows the most basic of human reasoning.KlappCK (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly be okay with removing the bit about "Babs" (or even moving it to the Carter sectio, as; it's more about him and his attitude towards Barbara; even there it's pretty trivial). And I've softened towards the mention of Joe's incontinence, but I still think it's far less important than mentioning his impotence, as the latter has driven some plots/subplots. oknazevad (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Saying that he has a mustache tells the reader a major aspect of his physical appearance. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine, the mustache stays. Would everyone be content if we simply altered Joe's bio to state that he is an "impotent incontinent paraplegic"?KlappCK (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep paraplegic as the primary adjective (ie: listed first) as the other two conditions are far less of a factor in his character than the lack of functioning legs. Something like: "... is a paraplegic who also suffers from impotence and incontinence". $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't give a fuck how the sentence is constructed as long as his incontinence (and I suppose, now, his impotence) is mentioned and it is hyperlinked to our wikipedia article on the subject.KlappCK (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I am going to try editing the page with the phrase Dp76764 has suggested. If anyone still has a problem with inclusion of the material, we can keep hashing it out here.KlappCK (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for the constructive debate.KlappCK (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


I think it would be better to divide the characters into sections to make it better for readers.--BertSampson (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I would note that there's discussion pertinent to this matter in earlier threads above. Also, please outline what you have in mind. Your proposal is rather vague. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I support what he says BertSampson. They should be sections of the relatives of the Griffins, Quaghog families, reporters, etc.-- (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think it would help readers to orient themselves.--ToonsFan (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Reorganization may be ok (depending on how its done) but the addition of minor characters lately is completely unnecessary. DP76764 (Talk) 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to section off anymore than we have. To whom would it be relevant to, if we were to section off the list based on their profession, lineage, etc.? An average person with no knowledge of the series would not care about this sectioning, and the fanbase should have very little trouble navigating the list with minimal sectioning. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tricia Takanawa[edit]

Possibly inspired by assignment reporter for KTTV Tricia Takasugi in L.A.? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Got a source? Otherwise just speculation. DP76764 (Talk) 04:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Swanson[edit]

I don't know if someone deleted him, but he isn't in the list at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He was removed yesterday, I restored him and he is listed there now. Perhaps you're viewing a cached version. –AnemoneProjectors– 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Parts of this Page are a Nightmare![edit]

Jeesh. I just edited the page, changing a whole bit about Joe Swanson. I edited the section concerning Swanson being injured by heroin criminal Bobby Briggs. The writing was some of the worst I've ever read - absolutely not proofread in any way, with poor wording, run-on sentences, etc. etc. I would have taken the whole damn thing out as per "Be Bold," but I'm afraid to violate Wiki's unwritten rule - "don't piss other people off." There was one source for the whole clusterf_-! of a section, and it didn't appear to be reliable. I glanced around at other portions of the writing on this page, and I saw a lot that was pretty horrendous. This is a big article, so it's not like I can fix it all myself, though I'm glad to help, but I request two things: 1)Can someone with a good grip on the English language go through this and fix the poor writing that I see mussing up this article? 2)Can some reliable sources be cited? I know it's difficult to find sources that explain plotlines, etc., but there must be some way - right?

Cheers! "Yes...It's Raining" 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya, too many fans just add random stuff and poorly write it. If I'm bored at work some night, I'll read it over. CTF83! 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright, deal. I'll do some, too, when I have a few minutes break from college work. It just seems like such a shame; it'd be nice to have a reasonable list of characters and simple backgrounds for them, but Wiki's rule that anyone can edit is definitely not doing this page any favors. Please, people, if you're reading this before altering this article in some way - at the very least, type it up in Microsoft Word, since it'll tell you if your spelling or grammar are completely wrong. I love Wikipedia, and I understand the "anyone can edit" idea, but I really think it and voting for president should be handled the same way - anyone can do it, provided they can score over 100 on an IQ test first! Cheers, "Yes...It's Raining" 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

God and Jesus Christ[edit]

I noticed there's no entries for God or Jesus Christ in the article, yet both play significant roles in a number of episodes throughout the series (especially Jesus, like in "I Dream of Jesus" or "Family Goy"). Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 11:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Then by all means, proceed. I'm sure you have their blessing. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Was Carter Pewterschmidt based on Wade Gustafson in the film Fargo?[edit]

I've just watched Fargo and couldn't help notice the similarities between the character Wade Gustafson (rich guy whose daughter is kidnapped) and Carter Pewterschmidt. Both are rich and very determined, but their voices are almost identical. Has anyone ever heard (and can cite) whether Seth MacFarlane used this character as a reference for Carter?ML5 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe Swanson, concerning Bobby Briggs[edit]

The whole section about Bobby Briggs is far too detailed. I'm all for citing the information that Joe was actually crippled by Briggs, but it is absolutely unnecessary to include almost a whole plot of the episode. After all, the section should be about Joe, not Bobby Briggs. You could just say that Joe eventually and unintentionally killed Briggs by shooting him in both legs and finally got his closure on the whole thing. That section really has to be revisited. Chris-schannes (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


I accidentally deleted the majority of the page. Please help! Crummymummy (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Why does Joe not have a page when the other characters do?[edit]

Created the Joe page last night but it was redirected. All of the other characters in the bear as well as Mayor West off the top of my head have pages. Joe is a major character (his voice actor isn't credited as starring) but that, I feel, here is irrelevant. What I want to know is: how come Peter Quagmire and Cleveland get their own pges while Joe does not? Thank you The brave celery (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@The brave celery: You might want to ask Dp76764 directly who with this edit created the redirect in the first place. I have pinged them now, hopefully they will be alerted to this discussion and point out where the consensus to redirect was established. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that was 6 years ago. Apparently it was decided on the talk page or something. Looking at the article previous to it, there was very little, if any, sourcing and barely any content. That's probably why. I'm not against having an article, but if it resembles the previous incarnation then I'd have to disagree DP76764 (Talk) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

New episode with the death of Angela Jones[edit]

Peter's boss, Angela will die in Season 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylerwyler1 (talkcontribs) 09:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Death of Diane Simmons[edit]

Has anyone ever found any interviews or anything with Seth as to why he killed off Diane Simmons? Spartan198 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Table order[edit]

Is there any reason why Quagmire appears after Diane Simmons in the "Appearances" table? It would seem more sensible to me for Quagmire (main character for all 17 seasons) to be listed before Simmons (recurring character for 8 seasons then guest for 1 season). For that matter, I'd put Joe Swanson (main character for 16 of the 17 seasons) ahead of Diane Simmons as well, although I acknowledge that Joe was only a guest character for the first season, whereas Diane was a regular character. An earlier discussion suggests that back in 2011, the table was ordered as the Griffins, followed by the other 3 main characters, then the remaining recurring characters ordered by first name, but that no longer seems to be the case. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I've moved Quagmire and Joe above Diane. DH85868993 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Appearances table formatting`[edit]

I suggest this table be reformatted to not take up as much horizontal space. Even on a full-sized screen, it's too wide for most windows, and it's almost impossible to read on a mobile device. Perhaps change the column headings from "Season N" to just "N", and eliminate the Main/Guess/Recurring text completely, leaving just the color coding, with a color key at the bottom? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree about reducing the table width (although I tried changing the column headings as described above and it didn't seem to make any difference), but I note that MOS:COLOR advises against using only color to convey information ("Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"). DH85868993 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)