Talk:King of the Hill

Does anyone think this should remain in the "animated children's series" category? It isn't really a children's show. -jules991

I don't consider it as a children's show, either. However it is not harmful for them but they wouldn't get conservative/redneck jokes. Plus, it is in primetime television which is not children's hours. I'm removing it from the animated children's series and put it in Animated television series. In fact, I remember "The Simpsons" was putted in that category. (children's series) --Anonymous Cow 03:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed "typical American family" to "typical Texan family." The Hills wouldn't live in Kansas or anywhere else. They are specifically created to be Texans.

In Texas Monthly October 2004, Judge says the show is based on his neighbors in Richardson. I don't think he ever lived in Garland. [WayneR]

Boomhauer's first name has never been revealed on the show. Several websites list his first name as "Jeff," but this has no basis in the series. As such the article title and link name were changed from "Jeff Boomhauer" to "Boomhauer." -Lockeheed 18:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Inserted Reese Witherspoon after Debbie Grund as she played Buck Strickland's mistress. - Tillermo

This Article Needs Work

This article really should be cleaned up. A brief lisitng of the main characters is important, but any further mentioning of less significant characters should probably be saved for a seperate article. Perhaps more background on the show and its roots in popular culture and its basis on Mike Judge's own personal history would be apropriate.

It seems ok. Look at the Seinfeld article and it's various expansion pages (Seinfeld characters and culture and List of Seinfeld episodes) if you want to see how an article should be split up. I know the King of the Hill page isn't quite as long though. I mean, even Festivus has it's own article. And if you want a long article, check out Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary or the horribly organized Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Full Plot Summary. -Hyad 22:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Unless more arguments can be brought forth as to why this article needs a rewrite, I am going to remove the notice on the main page soon. jglc | t | c 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true KING OF THE HILL has been cancelled?:

At the very least, the article should either be expanded, or split up into seperate pages. As for the show, it was renewed for next season, which will be composed mainly of epsiodes from last season which were pre-empted, and a handfull of new episodes for this season, including the series finale.

I would agree that it needs some work, but a complete rewrite seems unneccesary. Better divisions in the characters, maybe split up by family. -Platypus Man 05:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone decided to remove all the minor characters, as well as some little details. I thought it was decided here not to do that? If it's really bothering someone that much, could we maybe move them to a new article, like "Minor Characters in King of the Hill"? Normally I wouldn't care, but someone obviously put a lot of time into writing about various characters, and I think having the extra things describes the show very well. -(the guy formerly known as TehDrew)

That was me, I think, and I thought it was unnecessary information as not every character of every cartoon is listed with such detail. If there is consensusto have it then by all means, but that was why I did it. The fact that someone put alot of time into it isn't a reason in and of itself right? I just felt that it was more information than was needed. Maybe a section called minor characters with just they're names without so much information? I just felt hte article was much more streamlined adn better looking after the edits, but I will defer to the majority here.Gator1 13:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote.

I have started editing and improving the King of the Hill wikiquote page. I have tried putting a link to the King of the Hill quote page but it links to the T.V. Series. Whoever started the article originally didn't add the T.V. series part. Now it won't link. If someone can correct this that would be awesome. I would hate to have to start all over just to tack on the T.V. series at the end. --Guitarist6987876 02:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Owen× ☎ 03:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I am new at editing, so some things are still a mystery. Thanks for helping me out.--Guitarist6987876 15:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Drop me a line on my talk page if you need anything else. BTW, you may want to spend a few seconds and get yourself a Username; this will allow you to rename articles, get recognition for your work here, and distinguish you from random vandals using the same IP. You don't even have to give any personal details. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have been reading on here for over a year; it never hit me to get a name. --Guitarist6987876 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted info

The minor characters shold stay because Wikipedia has to try to be as informative as possible. The "delete everything that is non-notable" policy is ridiculous.

That is actually the epolicy. Things that are non-notable shouldn't be here. You might think it's ridiculopus, but that is the policy. I deleted all that info because it is non-notable and takes up too much space on the page. We should be careful not too turn these pages into long pages packed with every piece of informatiuon we possible can. That's just not how it's done here and will earn this page a clean up tag if we're not careful. If the polcy in Wikipedia were that all information including non-notable info gets ont he apgges, this place would turn to pot really quick. Now I deleted all that info a LONG time ago and no one complained. I vote the following not notable info be removed:

the "minor" characters. They're minto for a reason. They're not notable adn don't need to be on the page. None of them need to be taking up space
all the info that speculates on what town Arlen is supposed to be. Seriously, bnnot even close to important and is just speculative nonsense. That kind of thing shouldbe on the talk page, not the article in my OP.

Anyway,you asked why and I've explained. I would ask Remington not to add any more deleted info wthout first discussing it as it's just cluttering up the page with info that might be removed anyway after other people have their say.

What does everyone else think?Gator (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The information does not have to be deleted, but for the welfare of the article, there could be a List of characters in King of the Hill article, as many, many characters, that only appear for a few frames in each episode, are reused. Jimmy the Racetrack Driver, for example, and the mother of the "Flying Hawaiian" later is revealed to be working as a car insurance salesman, selling to Hank. All of Hank's co-workers consistantly reappear, too. Link to the newly created list under the Characters section, which would only discuss the Hill, Gribble, Souphanosan--that family I can't spell---and Hank's friends in the alley. Out of all characters, those are the most major characters. Toothpaste 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, wht do you think of all the informaiton concerning the "true" location of Arlen?Gator (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not as a list. Turn it into a few paragraphs of straight writing, as lists tend to look tacky in these situations. Toothpaste 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One minor point about Alihi's mother, though: she's a claims adjuster, not an insurance salesman. She works with Hank after he and Kahn ran into each other while backing out of their driveways. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to beleive that Remington's edits reverting my edits were made in bad faith (see his user and talk pages). I made those edits a long time ago with no protests and I belive that the clues to the location of Arlen and the list of minor characters (many of whom are only in one episode) takes up a ton of space for next to worthless information. I just wanted to let everyone know.Gator (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this information is made in bad faith. All this information should stay. I hate the tiny pathetic version of the page. Werxaddamill. Your welfare bill. 15:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to like one version over the other, but there was nothing in bad faith about my edits, Remington is a known vandal (now blocked indefinately) and I did not believe that his edits were in good faith or in the best interest of the article. Please leave this a that.Gator (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added DVD releases section

Is the "Disc format" section OK with everyone? Should I add more detail about the extras, or will the current tables suffice for the article? Wezzo 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What we have in that section is fine for the main article, but if we expand it we could do so in a separate article, a la The Simpsons DVDs. — EagleOne\^Talk 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for that, definitely, assuming others agree it warrants its' own article. Wezzo 08:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Written - see King of the Hill DVDs. Hope it's OK with others. Wezzo 10:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism?

"There are political and social undertones to many episodes, many of which generally ridicule the 'liberal' side of pertinent American issues." "This presents the Republican criticism that an oversized welfare state creates laziness and hinders productivity." "This episode ridicules both extensive business regulation (which Republicans tend to oppose), and the absurd technicalities that an enormous federal government entails (another Republican criticism)."

Liberals, hippies, and the politically correct are equal targets of the subtle social satire, but I wouldn't call the show specifically sympathetic towards Republicans, it's clearly centered around lampooning the socially conservative, middle class outlook on life, although essentially every character is portrayed in a sympathetic light. I'd say the show is equally disparaging to both liberals and conservatives, and some of the former is a comment on conservatives' perception of liberals.

trivia question

With the main characters (the Hills and Gribbles) being members of Arlen First Methodist, is Bill also a member or is he Catholic? Abstrakt

Location of Arlen

Does anyone else thinkt hat this ection is a bit overdone? I think it could benefit from a good reduction. It's got to the point where every clue is on their and it's just a jumble of speculation and useless information. Also, whatever happened to the part that said that the town is supposed to be from "nowhere" or somethign like that? Why was that removed? Thoughts before I have a go at it?Gator (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone?Gator (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is overdone. It provides a lot useful information. The section was asked to be expanded earlier on, and now it is. --FlyingPenguins 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the history, the current section was reduced first from a massive and ugly list to prose (by me) and then again to trim out some unnecessary episode details. Please don't remove any information or turn it back into a list. — EagleOne\^Talk 03:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None? No information whatsoever? None? Completely off limits? it;s absolutely perfect the way it is?! Come on. I will remove some. Lord knows it needs it. No one owns this section.Gator (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm really asking is that you do not delete the section outright, as you have done in the past (without any discussion, I might add). — EagleOne\^Talk 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we don't really know if it will really end. because i read alot of news sources on the web that is saying that it will maybe come back for another season. Because of cancellation of Malcolm in the middle and That 70's show. Also there hasn't been an official announcement from FOX, it was just from Mr. Judge.

Not the ending?

we don't really know if it will really end. because i read alot of news sources on the web that is saying that it will maybe come back for another season. Because of cancellation of Malcolm in the middle and That 70's show. Also there hasn't been an official announcement from FOX, it was just from Mr. Judge.