Talk:King of the Hill/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Arlen / Garland / Richardson

In the cited article in the "Conception" section, I could not find any reference to Arlen being based on Richardson. I did track down the quote in a New York Times article, and updated the citation. The NYT article loaded for me the first time, but the second time the paywall garbage popped up. Anyway, here's the relevant section:

>>> Q. You’ve said that the Hills and their fictional home of Arlen, Tex., were inspired by your time in Dallas. Any place or person in particular?

A. It’s Richardson, a suburb of Dallas. I actually grew up in Albuquerque, N.M., and had a paper route in a blue-collar neighborhood. West Texas and eastern New Mexico blur a little bit, and I remember my brother and I just noticing that every adult authority figure used to have a Texas accent. There was always someone going [with a twang], “Excuse me, boys.” <<<

The park scenes in the first episode of season three are doubtless based on a 1990's version of Heights Park in Richardson -- down to the rocket ship slide and creepy metal animals on springs, all of which has since been removed for what I assume is fear of lawsuits.

--nathanbeach 12:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

King of the Hill → King of the Hill (TV series) – This TV series is not significantly more prominent than the Steven Soderbergh film. WP:PRECISION. Film Fan (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose stats don't lie. "King of the Hill" has been viewed 329,145 times in the last 90 days (that includes a 1-day outlier of about 67,000). In that same time frame "King of the Hill (film)" has been viewed 14,778 times, "King of the Hill (disambiguation)" 2,352 times, "King of the Hill (game)" 5,137 times, "King of the Hill (The Simpsons)" 7,279 times, and "King of the Hill (board game)" 656 times. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hot Stop. This is most common, actually. TBrandley 05:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On deleting Family Guy trivia from King of the Hill page.

My opinion is that it's trivia and, as is, takes up an undue amount of space for its significance. It was an extremely minor cameo (10 seconds) during a cold open for Family Guy. If anything, the information belongs on Family Guy's page. Jb 007clone (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Secondly, I understand how it can be viewed as trivia, however the trivia guidelines do not actually suggest to remove trivia. Please remember that it is a guideline and not a policy. Trivia is defined in the guideline as:

"In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information."

It is not a disorganized list of facts. The guideline proposes that trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text. I included it under the "History" header for a reason. It was an event after KotH's cancellation. I suggest that we keep the paragraph. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In plain English, "it's trivial" is often a shorthand for WP:UNDUE, and that's what that material is. It's an unimportant fact about a random gag on a different show, and isn't worth more than a sentence in this article, if that.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From that policy:

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

Here are few reliable sourcers:

• http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/12/family-guy-king-of-the-hill-american-dad-video/
• http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2013/04/15/watch-what-happens-when-american-dad-meets-family-guy-meets-king-of-the-hill/
• http://thecomicscomic.com/2013/04/15/mike-judge-brings-hank-and-king-of-the-hill-for-a-family-guy-crossover/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/king-of-the-hill-family-guy_n_3085531.html
• http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/First-Look-FOX-to-Present-FAMILY-GUY-AMERICAN-DAD-Crossover-Episode-This-Sunday-20130412
• http://www.avclub.com/articles/bigfat,95983/

MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally a pile of blogs. The weight of the one legitimate source about this particular gag vs. the weight of all reliable sources on "King of the Hill" supports my statement: it's worth a sentence, no more.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I added more sources to the above list. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but nowhere near enough to make a random Family Guy gag deserve greater prominence than any individual character, episode, writer, or actor. The text that was originally in the article made this one joke on a different television series appear to be one of the most important aspects of the show.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much written for a minor, one-off cameo in the cold open of another show. The information should be presented, as it currently is, on the Family Guy 'Bigfat' page. Jb 007clone (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wings of the Dope

Can someone find a reliable source about the story about the Columbine survivor who wrote Judge about the impact of "Wings of the Dope" on her and her grief? If I remember correctly, she had a crush on one of the shooters and finally decided while the shooting was going on to tell him, then found out that he was responsible and she was too late. 71.50.238.51 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I found this, but where would it go in the article? http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1330542-i-don-t-get-as-much-fan-mail-as-an-actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by HLJ007 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Impossible King of the Hill Fact

"The series had a total of 259 episodes over the course of its 13 seasons, briefly making it the second-longest running animated series of all time behind The Simpsons."

I have a major problem with this fact, as it is full of baloney. Before King of the Hill even aired its first episode, an animated series in Japan had already been over with (aired its final episode in 1996), and had more episodes (same run time as King of the Hill episodes, give or take a minute or two) than King of the Hill would have by the time it would end in 2009. That series is DragonBall Z with a grand total of 291 episodes. Thats not to say King of the Hill didn't achieve a major feat, I'm only stating that this statement is false based solely on this one show. This isn't even counting the several other animated shows (Ones I'm unfamiliar with) in foreign markets that have episode counts (again, comparable run time to KOTH) that make BOTH aforementioned shows look like childs play. My point is, if you're going to add the word "American animated show" thats fine, but it was never second place for longest running animated show of all time. Not once. While we're on the topic, by this logic, Simpsons also is not the longest running animated series of all time... just American based. 45.47.204.37 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's never even been the second longest running American animated show. Arthur has been number two since it premiered before King of the Hill and is still on the air after King of the Hill's cancellation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:FFC0:7B:5C96:4302:7921:8654 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King of the Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413172935/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314121838/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King of the Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015225616/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-05-28-year-end-chart.htm to http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-05-28-year-end-chart.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ended in 2010

The last four episodes were aired in syndication in 2010 and a user going by "grapesoda2020" I think keeps reverting the edits to 2009. 2009 was when the last episode was broadcast on Fox. The show aired 4 more new episodes into May 6, 2010. Dpm12 (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Had to add footnotes

Vandalizers keep reverting end date to September 13, 2009, but that was when the final episode aired on Fox. The final four episodes aired in syndication on May 6, 2010. Finally had to add footnotes to try and prevent further reverting. Dpm12 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

fancruft?

I'm a huge fan of the show, but there is a lot in this article that is not encyclopedic, or is presented very haphazardly. For instance, one of the first things said about Hank is that he takes good care of his dog and treats her like a member of the family. We really should hear about the family first. PurpleChez (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Final 4 episode airdates

The article repeatedly states that the last four episodes of the series aired from May 3–6, 2010, but the only sources I can find for these episodes show original premiere dates on Adult Swim from May 17-20, 2010. The sources I've found are not up to WP's reliable source guidelines, or I would've already added them. However, I can't even find a secondary, unreliable source that covers the May 3–6 airdates. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.fox.com/kingofthehill/

dead link in the info box https://www.fox.com/kingofthehill/

official site seems to be http://www.cc.com/shows/king-of-the-hill these days

I don't know where it's pulling in from; can't find it if I go to edit source mode. help!! skakEL 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:King of the Hill (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bless the Harts

Which means they're set in the same universe because they share a store. 104.172.56.54 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say this? Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It says they both use the mega-lo-mart name, hence throwing them into the same universe. Highly unlikely another universe uses that name. 104.172.56.54 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It says they both use the name, and that is as far as the source goes. Your determination that they use the same universe is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sitcom

I've changed the genre in the infobox and wording in the lead to use the term animated sitcom. This is backed by reliable sources [1] [2] [3]. In response to another editor's concern that show doesn't have a laugh track (and thus can't be a sitcom) [4], I would point to The Simpsons (a featured article) South Park and Futurama as similar examples of animated sitcoms without a laugh track and to The Office (American TV series), Parks and Recreation, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Modern Family and 30 Rock as examples of live-action shows we describe as sitcoms despite the lack of a laugh track. Further, to suggest a show cannot be a sitcom without a laugh track is original research. Calidum 19:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Funny, our own article on Sitcoms seems to disagree with your last sentence. "Other topics of debate have included whether or not cartoons, such as The Simpsons or Family Guy, can be classified as sitcoms.[3]" And that's in the lead. Maybe your opinion is the actual original research? JimKaatFan (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored the sources I found that call King of the Hill a sitcom. Calidum 16:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I saw those myself. There's far more sources on that show that don't call it a sitcom, of course, but if you're that married to your version of the lead I really don't see the point in fighting about it. Just wanted to point out that when you said "to suggest a show cannot be a sitcom without a laugh track is original research" - yeah, that was made-up BS by you and you alone. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)