Talk:King of the Hill

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King of the Hill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 1 year

King of the Hill was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 8, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

United States: Television / Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation: American Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance).

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

20th Century Studios Mid‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bless the Harts[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sitcom[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Middle Class ?[edit]

This term used here may need a gloss or a link to explain it.

To persons outside the USA, Hill and his friends don’t seem ‘middle class’. They are too vulgar, ignorant, narrow and gauche. Elsewhere in the Western world, they would rank as ‘lower-middle’, the class to which tradesmen and van drivers and shop-assistants belong. Hill would rank low even within that class, being too dumb even to have learned a trade.

‘Middle-class’ elsewhere implies education and professional status, plus a higher income, sophistication, good taste...

Perhaps the term ‘middle American’ might apply to Hill & Co. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:F1CE:2CA6:AC9A:459C (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since nowhere in the article does it contain a source for the "middle-class" or "upper-middle-class" assertions, I have removed them from the article. There is much more that is unsourced. Someone probably needs to go through this with a WP:V-toothed comb. Elizium23 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential 2022 Revival/Second run[edit]

Present in the infobox is already pushing it, but better than nothing for editors who won’t let this go. Long gap leads to revival, or second run, not an ongoing series from 1997; see The X-Files, Doctor Who, Futurama, Cold Feet, Twin Peaks, Beavis and Butt-Head, Arrested Development. Project is in development, does not mean it is renewed, does not mean episodes are being actively produced, does not mean a syndication deal has been signed, and when any of those happen, still need a confirmed/cited start date before there’s really anything to insert in the infobox.

For now, cited references say it is in development. Hopefully it does not end up in tv version of development hell and will soon advance to pre-production, which still is not a done deal. With luck, will soon thereafter move into actual production, post-production, and then start airing on our TVs and streaming platforms.

Really hoping Judge pulls this off, this is a great show. For now, we can cheer for him, cross our fingers, use our birthday wishes, but this article can not state possibility as fact until he succeeds, with a product on the air. Jmg38 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revival canceled.[edit]

We received news that the development of a King of the Hill revival is now canceled. Can you remove all mentions of the proposed revival in this page? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Dimadick (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I put "We". It was revealed by Fox president Michael Thorn saying that they want to focus on new shows. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disney owns the rights[edit]

Yeah, 20th Television no longer distributed their own material anymore. I'm sorry, but Disney-ABC Domestic Television distributes all the 20th Century Fox shows now. FlapjackRulez (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]