Talk:King of the Hill/Archive 1

Character List

Please leave the character order as it is now with all of the Souphanousinphones together, the four alley guys together, the Hills together, and so on. It simply makes more sense this way. If you wish to change simply state why and how it would make more sense, otherwise please leave it as is.

Children's TV show?

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)

Seeing as BOTH shows frequently feature sexual references and "foul language" and such, neither can be considered a "children's series." After all, by definition a children's series is a series intended for and suitable for children, and those aspects of the shows very clearly do not fit that criteria within the U.S., which is where the shows are written and originally air. Anyone who thinks The Simpsons is a "children's show" probably thinks all animation is "for children", a common but I think rather perplexing bias that many Americans still have towards animation, thanks to years of both comics and animation being primarily a child-oriented medium in the U.S. (I say this as an American, too). The Simpsons and (to a slightly lesser extent) King of the Hill are both clearly and squarely aimed at teens and adults. People who think these shows are "for children" probably would think South Park is intended for kids, too. 4.235.6.236 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Good point." I am glad this conversation was held in January 2005 so that it was taken care of then. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Boomhauer's first name

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)

• I am pretty sure they reveal his first name when his brother Patch comes to town. -nit

Misc. additions and changes

• 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]
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

On Arlen, Texas origins

It is believed that the fictional town of Arlen, Texas is a combination of two actual towns located near Dallas, Texas. The city of Garland, Texas(located just north of Dallas) and the city of Arlington, Texas(located between Dallas and Fort Worth). Combining the two city names comes up with Arlen, Texas.

Deleted info

The minor characters should 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:

1. 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
2. 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.23.48.38 (talk • contribs) 18:58, January 4, 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading and I whole-heartedly agree. The article goes over Hank's "by the book" lifestyle, which is clearly created to ridicule many conservative's view on life. Someone needs to fix up this seciton of the article. _mich 02:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hank Hill is just a character based on Mike Judge's dad, that's all. 65.95.42.235 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Bill attends Arlen First Methodist, just like the Hills and the Gribbles, so a case can be made that he's also a Methodist. For one example, see the season 3 episode "Revenge of the Lutefisk" where Bill confronts Cotton inside the church. — EagleOne\^Talk 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued that he goes to Arlen First Methodist just to be around everyone else. He is a lonely man, and has done stuff like that before (I believe it is in the first season that he's at a stop smoking group, despite the fact that he doesn't smoke.) We may never find out. Robotshuffle 03:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Location of Arlen

Does anyone else think that this section 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, I think this section is still overdone - I got about halfway through, said to myself 'alright, I *get it*,' and scrolled down past it. FWIW. 74.227.120.238 19:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll try to clean it up some tomorrow, if I get a chance. --Milton 04:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of this section is incorrect, as Mike Judge was born in Ecuador,and was raised on New Mexico. He never lived in Garland, TX.24.160.99.140 06:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike could have lived in Garland after moving back to "Dallas" after graduating from University of California, San Diego. --131.122.63.45 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm....for some reason Arlen reminds me of Arlington, Texas. it kinda reminds me of it for some reason...--Mr.Somebody 17:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the section regarding Arlen's possible real location is noteworthy. While it doesn't necessarily need to include every tiny clue scattered throughout the show, it is interesting and useful to someone reading the article. --Milton 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Th3darkforce (talk • contribs) 16:49, January 22, 2006 (UTC)

Recently an anonymous editor inserted this paragraph into the History section: "Regarding the last two paragraphs, it has been announced that King of the Hill has been picked up for another 20 episodes. The season airing these episodes may or may not be the final season. It is unclear at this point." While this news is indeed heartening, I had to take it out beacuse it didn't properly cite its sources. Has Fox really renewed KotH for a new season? If so, can someone provide a link to this announcement? — EagleOne\^Talk 16:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[1]

Best KOTH episode ever

Does anyone remember the episode where everyone spoke like Boomhauer except for Boomhauer? It is by far the funniest show ever made but I can not find it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acs54 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 2 April 2006

I think the episode was called A Fire Fighting We Will Go, the one where Hank, Bill, Boomhauer and Dale become firefighters, and when they are accused of burning down the fire station, they each tell their own story on what happened. When it was Boomhauer's turn, everyone except him spoke like him. --FlyingPenguins 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe FlyingPenguins is correct. If you're looking for a copy, it's on the S3 DVD. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the show

Is there a section about backlash against this show? I tried finding it, but nothing about it. Would it be better if they do so?

Anyway, this show received heavy criticism because many assumed that it stereotypes everyone and everything in every single episode aired and produced. For example, young generations, blondes, ethnic groups, gays, etc. Does this sound reasonable? —70.234.85.199 04:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Many shows have characters that are stereotypes. The Simpsons entire cast of chracters is nearly all formed of stereotypes.Throw 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found any backlash, and I don't think there has been any; I also don't think the show uses very many stereotypes if at all. I'm not sure what you're referring to. There is that episode that stereotypes dogs as interested in having sexual intercourse, and I was a little offended by that generalization. I know lots of dogs who would much rather chase a ball. --Chris Griswold 07:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Guest Stars

I wanted to point out that the band No Doubt and Sarah Michelle Gellar were both guest stars on King of the Hill (in separate episodes during the first few seasons). I'm not sure which episodes, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.244.188.30 (talk • contribs) 11:19, May 10, 2006 (UTC)

You're right; the episodes are, respectively, "Kidney Boy and Hamster Girl: A Love Story" from Season 5 and "And They Call It Bobby Love" from Season 3. I've added notes both appearances to the article. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Theme Song

According to IMDB, only former members of The Refreshments are given credit for the theme song, and not the US Bombs. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong? --JWZurawski 00:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Themes and analysis section

This section is uncited, and it reads like a non-neutral POV and original research. I'm not really sure what to do about the section other than to start removing indivual uncited claims or take it down. --Chris Griswold 05:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good example of what happens when Wikipedians start congratulating themselves in addition to the various interests they delight in. The simple fact of the matter is that the section is superfluous and rife with uncited (and uncitable) research that completely eschews the "no original research" tenet. I highly suggest taking it down, but I'll at least see if anything can be salvaged from it. Charles M. Reed 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuity Errors

The continuity errors listed on the page are all plot errors, that is, they deal with errors in the fiction world (see Continuity (fiction). Some people seem to want to add other kinds. I'm proposing a vote on whether the article should only have plot errors, or should include all three kinds. If the latter, I think a seperate page should be added (List of Continuity Errors in King of the Hill) or something like that. --Milton 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the three kinds? --Chris Griswold 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the continuity errors entry is a bad idea.

I agree - I checked some other articles in the same vein, and didn't find this section. I vote delete it, on second thought.

The three kinds are editing (e.g, character refers to an event that occurs later), visual (e.g, character's hair color changes), and plot (e.g, the first episode, the character is an orphan, but 5 seasons later his parents come to visit). See Continuity (fiction). --Milton 05:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason why my item on Dale's changing voice was deleted?Vidor 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the same voice actor, right? People's voices change. Compare Homer in early Simpsons episodes to more recent ones. It's not a continuity; time passes in King of the Hill. --Chris Griswold 04:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the same actor, but that's irrelevant. The voices of adult males do not go up noticeably in pitch when they are in their early forties. Hence, a continuity error.Vidor 05:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dale's did. (Most adult males are not a paranoid conspiracy theorist who works as exterminators for a living and have a Native American son. It's a television show. --Chris Griswold 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dale's did.". Yes, it did. Hence, CONTINUITY ERROR. From the Wikipedia definition of continuity--"In fiction, continuity is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, places and events seen by the reader or viewer." So, inconsistency in characteristics, like the voice of an adult male character increasing dramatically in pitch, is a continuity error. I'm not sure what "It's a television show" is supposed to signify.Vidor 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't his voice change a little? --Chris Griswold 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that this is not a continuity thing. As a series progresses actors get more comfortable with their roles and become more into their characters. It happens with any tv show. An error implies that something is screwed up. If anything, this is a sign of an actor becoming better. One could argue that the animation and character/background design has improved drastically on the show (and it has), however this is not a continuity error. It is the mark of improvement. --Robotshuffle 05:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah-every character's voice is different, as is usual with these types of shows. Also, the universe is much lighter in the first seasons, but later on apparently warm colors were invented. And maybe Dale got cancer from smoking and alien urine that caused his voice to raise. --Milton 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote that this entire section be removed from the article. The Simpsons doesn't have a continuity error section, Family Guy doesn't have one, neither do Beavis and Butt-head, Futurama, American Dad!, on and on. In fact, I've been looking, and I can't find any animated shows that do. Hence, why should this one? There are far too many, anyway. --Milton 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it really oughtn't. This isn't a trivia site. --Chris Griswold 07:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So that's 0 for, 2 against. --Milton 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Make that 1 for, 2 against, if you will. Re: "trivia site", I have found sections marked "Trivia" for Night Court, The Office (US TV series), My Name Is Earl, Happy Days, M*A*S*H (TV series), and The Wonder Years, just to pick a random sampling of TV sitcoms.Vidor 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But all of those are live action. You aren't gonna have a boom mike appear in a cartoon, or see the director in the background. None of those you listed are animated. And anyway, "trivia" isn't the same as "continuity errors." --Milton 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not currently editing those series. Maybe some of use can move on to address those articles once we're done with this one. Trivia sections in general are look down upon by the Wikipedia community at large because twivia by definition is not encyclopedic. It's trivial. --Chris Griswold 22:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Dale's father's look really an error? The "Straight Arrow" episode takes place when Dale is a child, as does the later episode when he's traumatized by the doll. His father is still married at the time; it isn't until later, when Dale is marrying his wife, that he's come out of the closet. That's a several year gap: of course he looks different. Still, I don't want to change something everyone might disagree with. 22:19 8 July 2006

I still think the entire section should be removed. "Trivia" is "Dale's father was played by so-an-so, who also played so-and-so, the father to the character who was also voiced by Dale's voice person." Continuity errors shouldn't be here. --Milton 05:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although I do think, after having watched an inordinate number of episodes recently, that there should be some note of the continuity inconsistencies being prevalent. It is really amazing how much just randomly changes on this show. I am going to research the topic as soon as I have time. --Chris Griswold 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Continuity errors don't belong. Every show has them, and they really aren't worth noting. They aren't trivia. There are plenty of websites that deal with this kind of thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a continuity errors site. This section doesn't belong at all. Nothing else in King of the Hill's genre have anything remotely approaching this. --Milton 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you agree with me. --Chris Griswold 11:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be deleting this section by the end of the day, according to the voting that has been going on for 3 weeks. --Milton 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Continuity errors are fun for lovers of the show. While I wouldn't classify them as "Trivia" these useless facts hold a similar place in the minds of the fans. Plus I just added a few, heh. -nit

I agree, however, wikipedia is not a continuity error encyclopedia. Continuity errors are not trivia, you're right. Furthermore, please find any other articles on shows in the same genre that contain a "continuity error" section. While it may be worth mentioning in the article that there are some, I think it's pointless to mention them here, it encourages what I fear is a trend in Wikipedia towards a random, poorly-written series of pointless facts written by 11 year-old IMDB.com addicts, not an online encyclopedia. --Milton 05:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think the inordinant number of continuity errors for a prime-time show is notable. --Chris Griswold 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"While it may be worth mentioning in the article that there are some, I think it's pointless to mention them here"

That's what I'm talking about. Notable is not the same as mentioning every one of them. The article should mention that the show has issues with continuity errors, but an entire section shouldn't be devoted to listing them. --Milton 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my feeling exactly. We only need a few, and only to illustrate the point. Certain key "facts" that the characters call upon repeatedly in the series but which are altered should be mentioned. The "big game" is one. Peggy's mother is another. --Chris Griswold 07:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have contributed to the trivia and continuity error sections, I am 33 years old, and I am not an 11-year-old IMDB.com addict. The "vote" on whether or not this section should be removed seems to be limited to myself, user Milton, user ChrisGriswold, and an anonymous poster "nit", and the vote looks like 2-2 to me. No one has explained what harm such information does to the article. Persons concerned that the article is too long would do better to edit down the long, windy, and very POV-ish "Themes and Analysis" section. Vidor 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the themes and analysis section needs to be shortened. Definitely. By the way, votes by anonymous, unregistered editors do not count. Not trying to be mean-spirited; just informative. And attractive. --Chris Griswold 08:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the new triva section looks A-OK.NitfromZ 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Someone completely nuked a couple of sections. I reverted the changes to add back the missing info. :) 71.56.86.252 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hank's truck

I added the citation needed tag to this trivia item because I can't remember which episode identified the truck as a 1993 model year Ford Ranger. — EagleOne\^Talk 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be a 1993. In the episode "Chasing Bobby", Hank said "This truck has given me 20 years of reliable service, and you cannot put a Blue Book value on that". From this, we know that truck has to be closer to a 1980, and his new truck at the end of the episode had features (Such as headlight wipers) were not available in 1993 model year Ford Rangers. — ahanix1989

Actually, I saw "Jumpin' Crack Bass (It's a Gas, Gas, Gas)", and Luanne mentioned "Uncle Hank, I got the 92 Ford Truck schematic, and I've lined up all the parts"... so his new truck must be a 1992. — ahanix1989

List of Celebrities on King of the Hill

There is nothing listing these. There is a link to the page, but if you click on you you're just redirected to a list of characters. There's no real list for this. --Milton 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They are listed with the characters. Celebrity guest stars are not a huge aspect of the show, unlike the Simpsons. --Chris Griswold 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

why?

"The creators take advantage of the series' format by featuring narrative elements that might cost significantly more if done in a live-action series."

Like what? --Shanedidona 14:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic?

I thought the Hills were methodist, not Catholic, as Peggy stated in the episode where she pretended to be a nun.

You are correct. They go to Arlen First Methodist. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Petty

Should there be something about Tom Petty and his character Lucky?

There is, in the characters article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Important Theme

I find that the show has a great deal of sexism (as a comedic theme). Perhaps this theme should be expanded by someone who knows more about the show.--Kelly Chartier 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think not, Mrs Chartier. The glovebox is full of rotting ants at the moment, the line must be traversed. A crow 'pon my shoulder.--R.A Huston 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of the "vaya con dios" priest

Does anyone know the name of the show where the priest appears or his own name? --Impaciente 08:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Monsignor Martinez R.A Huston 08:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wasonasong (sp?) - Chinese or Lao?

I just watched that episode when Ted Wasonasong invited Hank to join Nine Rivers. Kahn says he's Chinese, yet in another episode, he and Mr. Ho scold Kahn for forgetting about his Lao roots, while they haven't. So what are they, Chinese or Lao?--DethFromAbove 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)