Talk:King of the Hill

Archive of Pre-2007 Discussions

Archive of Pre-2009 Discussions

Dates of run

Do not change the end date for the run of the series to the last episode. This makes it seem as if the series has ended, and is misleading. See the article on The Simpsons for precedent. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

People are fast with the updates. Wow. Now I'm hoping they bring back one of the greatest shows: Beavis and Butthead.(BaldKojak (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

• With sufficient warning having been given, changes of this type are simply being reverted as vandalism. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture

This section is not a random collection of trivia. It is a list of discrete references to this show in other shows. There are entire articles like this, it should stand as a valid section to have in this article. I removed the trivia tag.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cancellation

"It has been reported that ABC might secure the rights to the show. It was reported later that the deal had fallen through." The news article cited here (7th citation, I believe) makes no mention of the deal with ABC having fallen through. Is there any source for that? Th 2005 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King of the Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

• There is insufficient references. A lot of information lacks inline citations so they cannot be verified.
  • "Episodes" is completely empty; at least list seasons
  • "Origins" has a cleanup template, plus the last paragraph has no references
  • "Characters and Themes" is unreferenced
  • Same with "References in popular culture"
  • And "Awards"
  • And "Trivia" (a section which should be merged and/or removed per WP:TRIVIA)

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Political neutrality, accusations of homophobia

On descriptions of hank hill there are descriptions that aren't entirely politically neutral. Specifically on this page there is:

"...Hank is also known to be passively prejudicial in a sexist manner, disallowing his son Bobby from any nontraditional and "feminine" activities..."

and While on the list of characters page there is a more blatant example : "...and it is made clear he tries very hard in many ways to prove his masculinity and tends to be somewhat homophobic, but has a healthy relationship with his family..." I haven't looked on other pages about him, but I'm fairly certain that this'll be continued. If anyone wants to word it better, please do so. I can't think of anything at the moment but deleting these mentions. Wolvenmoon (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering his overall politics he's really very accepting of homosexuals. (Somewhat unbelievably so, IMO, but to portray the likely attitudes of a small-town Texan Reaganite over 40 might be too offensive to some viewers) In My Own Private Rodeo he was maybe a bit uncomfortable with the "gay rodeo", but mostly more respectful to them than Bill or Boomhauer. He was generally nonchalant about "Earl" the black-gay gun-club member, not even indicating any suprise or amusement on Dale's group having a black-gay member. Even his attitude to Bobby is never spelled-out as being about fears he's gay, although I'd agree it was implied a fair amount. He was upset that Peggy's "first time" was with a gay man, but this is the only clear example coming to mind. On the other thing I think his "passively sexist" thing isn't just about how he views Bobby. He only reluctantly hired a woman in one episode and seems to have some preference for traditional views of women. Although mostly it's a mild sexism and he seems to see his Dad's, as well as Buck Strickland's, tawdrier sexism with disdain.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The real reason that Hank was upset about Peggy's "first time" was that it was not with Hank himself. Peggy allowed Hank to believe she had no previous partners before him and therefore that they were both virgins and lost their virginity to each other. Hank only learned years later that he was not Peggy's first. Hank is typically uncomfortable with many "personal" matters such as the issue of sexuality, regardless what orientation. Hank's issues with Bobby seem mostly to deal with Bobby's overall eccentricity which Hank has trouble relating to. Bill pretended to be gay in one episode because he found it made him likable to women and helped him get a job at a hair salon with Luann. Bill seemed to enjoy playing the role of a gay man. Galeforce winds13 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as "is"

It still is a show, even if it's canceled. Look at all the other shows that have been canceled and you will see they all say "is." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belasted (talk • contribs)

See here and here.   — C M B J   09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review 2

The article has improved since the last nomination, but it still doesn't meet the good article criteria. A lot of information lacks inline citations so they cannot be verified. For more information, see the previous GA review. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. —TheLeftorium 21:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan1234 (talk • contribs)

Clarification of appearance in Adultswim

Can someone clarify the significance of KOTH scheduling to Adultswim? As it is, I am not sure if the series is moving to the network or if the network merely earned syndication rights.--Kencaesi (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that it is just syndication. I am not sure how that is really noteworthy - many networks around the world have syndication rights so I am not sure why this particular one is mentioned. So I've removed it rather than clarifying the statement. Wolfrock (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK now someone has put this back in, although in a different section this time. So are we going to add in every single station on which King of the Hill is syndicated around the world? If not, what makes this one so noteworthy? If so, why? I would prefer just to get rid of the mentions of the particular networks that show it in syndication and just leave the fact that it is syndicated around the world in the lead. Surely, that is enough detail for a minor fact like this. Wolfrock (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this sentence is written like an advertisement. The broadcast schedule for all the networks the show is syndicated on (or a particular network as it is now) is not really in the scope of this article. So, I am going forward with cutting this again. Wolfrock (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity voices

Is the Celebrity voices subsection needed? There are a few voice actors worth mentioning, such as those who voice the main characters, or regular guests such as Chuck Mangione, but they are all mentioned in theList of characters in King of the Hill article. I don't feel that Celebrity X's guest appearance is really noteworthy of mention in the main article about this TV show. Articles that I have read for other TV shows don't discuss guest appearances.

Moreover, this section is riddled with errors. Many one-time guests are listed as having recurring parts in the show. I thought of carefully correcting this section but I'd rather just get rid of the whole thing for reasons mentioned above.

Any thoughts? Wolfrock (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the older revisions of this page to see how lengthy this section can get. For example this version of the article has eleven sentences just containing the names of celebrity guest stars on King of the Hill. It's been trimmed down in the past only to grow again. The current state of the article isn't that excessive, but I still question why it should be included for the reasons given above. Wolfrock (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as there has been no response over the last couple weeks I am going to be bold and cut this out for the reasons given above. Wolfrock (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note on "Nancy Does Dallas"

I didn't know where to put this, but I think it would be interesting to note somewhere that Hank and Dale's discussion in "Nancy Does Dallas" about installing an excessive amount of air conditioners is at one point almost identical to the one about global warming in the episode where Bobby gets hit by a baseball and someone calls Child Protective Services on Hank out of suspicion. I forget that episode's name. --63.230.10.209 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be interesting. I would think the best place for such a fact might be an article about the episodes in question. Many episodes have articles so you might want to check on articles for these episodes (if they exist) Wolfrock (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The episode in question concerning Child Protective Services was the series' pilot episode. It is actually called Pilot. Galeforce winds13 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from WP:GAN

This article was once again nominated despite several obvious concerns. There are several unreferenced sections and multiple "citation needed" tags. It is also missing a lot of information - many sections present in The Simpsons are not included here, which leads to a lot of unanswered questions about production, themes, reception, merchandise, etc. I urge you to use that article as a guideline (not every section will be appropriate, obviously) to add the necessary information. Once that is done and the article is fully sourced, another Good Article nomination might be in order (although a peer review would be useful. Best wishes with your future improvements to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cleveland Show

How much detail do we really need about the Cleveland Show? I cut it out once and now I see it was just added back in yesterday. This is, after all, an article about King of the Hill. Wolfrock (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; more than a passing reference to The Cleveland Show is totally unnecessary. I've removed all but the name and the fact that it's a Family Guy spin-off. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding the end of the show

There has been what looks like the start of an edit war in this article over the last couple of days. I'd like to attempt to cut it off now and start a discussion here rather than continue with all the reversions.

One part of a sentence that has been taken out and added back in several times is:

there will be no chance for a Family Guy/Futurama-like resurrection

Several editors have noted reasons for removing this. My main problem it is that the source in the sentence clearly does not say anything like this. Why should this be included?

More broadly, there have been several hard facts added to the article without sources, primarily regarding the end of the show. If you know something as specific as the end date of the show please add it along with a source. Surely if you know something as specific as "it will air its last episode in December 2009" you can add a reliable source to ensure the article is verifiable? Similarly, fact tags have been removed for statements like these. How can the article be verifiable without citations for those facts?

There are a number of problems with the statement claiming a final season of 13 episodes will air between September and December 2009. For starters, there are no citations. Secondly, Fox has never aired 13 new episodes of King of the Hill in the fall season. The most ever was 11 and this was the second season. The average is around 8. Last Fall, they only aired 7. Due to Fox's NFL and MLB coverage, they only have so many slots available on Sundays in Fall and if The Cleveland Show and Sit Down, Shut Up are set to premiere this Fall in addition to The Simpsons, Family Guy and American Dad, when will they have time to air KOTH? Remember when KOTH was moved to 7:30 EST it was regularly preempted by football. Also, I question why Fox would announce they are canceling a show over a year before it's final episode will air. Normally when a show is cancelled it is done in the middle or at the start of the season that is to be it's last, not "it's cancelled" but then "there's one more season". This just doesn't add up and the un-cited information leaves more questions than answers. 71.207.109.181 (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we would all like to make this article better. One thing that has been noted in the failed Good Article reviews (see Talk:King of the Hill/GA1 and Talk:King of the Hill/GA2) is the small number of citations in this article. So I would like to propose that we stick to only adding material for which we have citations (and, of course, add citations for the material that is already here). Wolfrock (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I heavily agree with this statement. The lack of citations in the article is outrageous and despite my attempts at adding more in, there is just too much for one person to do. Add information you can cite and find citations for the present information. Eoghan1234 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the current state of the Cancellation portion of the article is exactly as it should be, and should be left as is, unless new facts arise. It's clear, concise, and free of speculation. The "resurrection" line was someone speaking in their own words, without a source, and was unnecessary. 24.185.87.88 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I just want to point out that this article is very short on citations and I just want you guys to try to find more citations. That has been the main criticism of this article in the good article reviews. Eoghan1234 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The character section of the article doesn't have any citations as far as I can see. I have looked for one but I can't find any. Can someone try to find a citation for the character section. Eoghan1234 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to add citations for that section, too. I think it's harder for the information given in the characters section. The other sections have more hard facts that you would see in a newspaper article, for example, but some of the specific details in the characters section are too fine-grained for your average newspaper article. Well, I'll keep trying. Wolfrock (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Characters

I was wondering should Bill, Dale and Boomhauer be added to the character list because they seem to be just as important as the Hill family?