Talk:List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim

Recent changes
I am requesting the person who keeps removing all of the info to stop what he is doing. Even if it contains original research it is no reason to delete everything. Original research is deleted anyway unless it has actual proof, which pretty much everything does! This page has been like this for years with no problem. I don't see why it needs to change now. This is useful info you can't get anywhere else. Stop changing everything. It pains me to see such an excellent page be reduced so much. And also, this page is VERY navigable. I have the slowest computer in the world and this page loads up perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made some adjustments. Though most of the "Description" sections are completely unsourced and in many cases are outdated, I've instead just removed the rating column which is not notable, removed unnecessary table formatting like colors, and restructured the page to match other Lists of programs broadcast, like List of programs broadcast by NBC or List of programs broadcast by Comedy Central.  Should be organized by current, upcoming, and past programming, not original and syndicated programming.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * c cvcvb cvbcbcbc 105.162.34.226 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I in fact think the rating is very notable, and tells you more info about the show. It's notable to me. It's notable to somebody. You should not say it isn't notable, when people like me think it is VERY notable and in fact INTERESTING because it tells you something more about the show. The only reason ratings are not on pages like NBC and Comedy Central, is because the ratings are not kept track of, and adding them now would have no meaning. Most pages show the ratings in some form. I honestly think the colored tables are better, (and I know this isn't really a legitimate argument) but it seems to organize it better, and it feels much more pleasant than white boxes, and actually makes me, at least, feel more comfortable while I am on here, and I can concentrate better. With white tables, I got lost easily, and I'm sure others do, too. It may not be best for other pages, but it's better for this one (at least in my opinion). Besides, this page has been like this for as long as I can remember: I see no reason to change it now. Same goes for the ratings section. Unaired content should at least be noted somewhere, or put in a different section, as most were pilots made by the network, and planned to air, but did not. Also, things like NBC and Comedy Central are different. Those styles work for them, as they have more shows to deal with, and less info. However, since Adult Swim does not have many shows, a large portion of which are syndicated, with a large amount of info, this works best. One last thing, you are not permitted to make giant changes without at least discussing it. I learned that the hard way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This page should absolutely be consistent with other television 'programs broadcast' lists. The colors and formatting choices used on this page are arbitrary and inappropriate.  Also, there should be an encyclopedic reason to include rating information other than "it's useful."  With regards to unaired pilots- if unaired pilots on broadcast networks were listed, that section would be longer than the actual produced shows.  That information is not appropriate for a "programs broadcast" list, since they were not broadcast.  Finally: on Wikipedia, in your comments and edit summaries please remember to be civil and not resort to threats.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm legitimately sorry, but nobody wants these sudden changes. I do not want to resort to threats, but I am at the end of my rope. Practically every page is different, and is kept up by the same people. Nothing needs to be the same or perfect, this is what has worked for us for years. No offense, but we can't have a person coming in uninvited making massive changes without permission. I have made MUCH MUCH smaller edits and have been told this. I'm sorry for getting angry, I am only human. Either way, unless you can get the people keeping this page alive to agree with your decision, if you massively edit again, I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not resort to threats. As I have said and as you have mentioned in your comments above, the unique formatting with colors is purely decorative and inappropriate.  I believe that the page should be consistent with other "programs broadcast" lists, and thus it should be organized by airing status (current, upcoming, past), not by type of content (original programming, syndicated, etc.).  You have not mentioned why a Ratings column is needed.  Finally, no one needs "permission" to make changes on Wikipedia.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedical, if you are going to edit anything, edit the colors. That was likely a mistake. A ratings coulmn is needed, as it is just as vital as any other type of information, and there really is no need to delete it, because it could in fact be useful in some way, just like any other coulmn. I do not believe we should be the ones to decide what is useful to somebody and what isn't. Also, if information is useful, and is not harming anything or anyone, it makes no sense to delete it. One more thing: While this is in fact a database that anybody can edit, that does not give you permission to edit out large, vital amounts of information without at least discussing it first. I know you are trying to help this article, and I respect you for that, though what you are doing is arguably hindering the artcle, rather than helping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.222.242 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How exactly is having a TV ratings column "vital information" the article? Including it in the article is extraneous and its existence doesn't meet the notability guidelines. It's existence is merely decorative. Likewise, having random color palettes is just as decorative, and aesthetically it makes it look inconsistent with other programing list articles (see WP:COLOR and WP:DEW). I'd also advise you'd read WP:DRNC and WP:OWN: "No one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you can not prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their efforts without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page." Whister   nefet  ©®℠℗™ 01:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, how are ratings not important? I find them very important, and I in fact come here to check them on occasion, for my own projects. I am also not supporting the random color palettes. I do not mind if they are changed. Also, I know I do not own the article. That's basically one of the things I am telling the other person. He made the massive edits first, I am just trying to perserve the older version, (which existed unchanged intil mid December, by the way) as it much more informative. Wikipedical truly does not have the authority to make such changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.222.242 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedical isn't trying to assert ownership here. He brings legitimate arguments against the existence of certain issues of the article in this talk page through WP:DR. Had he not have discussed it, the argument that he is dominating the article would hold more water. So far, there hasn't been anyone properly refuting Wikipedical's arguments, aside claims that it is informative and somehow vital to the article, without proper reasoning. The fact that you find the content in question important isn't grounds for its existence on Wikipedia, please see WP:DRNC and WP:JDLI. Whister   nefet  ©®℠℗™ 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your points, and do not disrespect Wikipedical for making these arguments. However, I think it would be best to keep information instead of deleting it, as the article would be much more useful and informative. I truly do not mind him cleaning up the article, as long as he keeps it organized and keeps information that was in the original article, discusses it beforehand and does not delete massive amounts of info. I am not saying that he does not bring up unreasonable arguments, it's just that I am much happier with the original version of this article, as it had large amounts of useful information that could be used in research, or things of that nature. Either way, the main reason he has said that he changed it was when he stated in an edit "Changed the page to make it more organized, like channels such as NBC and Comedy Central", which is really a invalid point, as this is actually more of a block, and therefore may need to be treated differently. Also, responding more deeply in the "do not own the article" discussion, how exactly is restoring an article so it may help others find info quickly and easily any worse than making extreme, uncalled for decisions and continuing to restore them with no permission?UPDATE: Alright, I think all I did was continue to argue, which was very rude and probably made me sound a bit childish, but I get what you are saying now. So, you are saying we should reach, more or less, a compramise or an agreement?65.121.222.242 (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sym Bionic Titan, ThunderCats, and Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Should these even be in the Original Programming section? They do air on Cartoon Network, the daytime portion of the channel, but they are not originals, due to Adult Swim and Cartoon Network technically being different channels. Also, Sym-Bionic Titan is the only real "original" program of any network. ThunderCats & Star Wars: The Clone Wars are technically Syndicated. I recommend they be moved to the Syndicated programming section.--173.53.83.234 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Toonipedia (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They're only different according to Nielsen ratings, but they're both part of the same legal entity. All original content produced by either side of the channel is property of The Cartoon Network, Inc. Syndication implies the network is renting programs from a third party company and those programs will eventually leave the network once the contract is not renewed. Cartoon Network and Adult Swim have the ability to run each others' original content forever, because they're both under the same corporate umbrella. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, they definately should not be in the "Original Programming" section. That's for Adult Swim originals. Perhaps a new section should be included. --Toonipedia (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Home Movies and The Ripping Friends
There were no TV-14 episodes of Home Movies and The Ripping Friends was rated TV-PG, which makes sense since the show was barely edited on Fox Kids and aired with a TV-Y7 rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.137.69 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Tenchi Muyo and Outlaw Star were rated TV-Y7-FV during their [adult swim] run. SOURCE: http://www.toonzone.net/forums/adult-swim-toonami-forum/19729-official-adult-swim-action-content-ratings.html#.UYVS3qKSjf8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.137.69 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Home Movies occasionally will receive a TV-14 rating. It is very rare, but this does happen. As for The Ripping Friends, the show was indeed edited when it aired with a TV-Y7 rating on Fox Kids, and was not renewed for a second season because of it's content. Select episodes were also skipped during the programs run due to being deemed unsuitable for children. If you have a source, please share. As for Tenchi Muyo and Outlaw Star, I am uncertain of the legitimacy of this, considering that the source is from a forum. While I do indeed believe that Tenchi Muyo! and Outlaw Star were given TV-Y7s, please understand that we can't allow rapid changes of content without a proper citation. If you can find legitimate evidence that this was the case, by all means go right ahead. --Toonipedia (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any legitimate evidence Tenchi Muyo was rated TV-PG/TV-14 (Not counting Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki! which was rated TV-14-LV)? I know Outlaw Star was rated TV-PG on the Toonami April Fool's, however during its run on ASA, I cannot find any legitimate evidence stating it was rated TV-PG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.118.125 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source from 2002 claiming The Ripping Friends was TV-PG, although it was a forum, I cannot find any source saying it was TV-14 other than an Adult Swim commercial with a TV-14 above it, however that isn't very reliable because Lupin III has had a commercial with a TV-14 label on it, and only 3 episodes were rated TV-14, and they weren't until later in the series. http://www.toonzone.net/forums/adult-swim-toonami-forum/52109-ripping-friends-really-uncut.html#.UbkHs-dujf8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.118.125 (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find some concrete info for Tenchi Muyo and Outlaw Star being TV-Y7, I see no problem in altering it. I personally doubt Tenchi Muyo! and Outlaw Star were rated TV-PG/TV-14 on Adult Swim (I'm almost certain they were TV-Y7), as they were merely slightly less edited versions of the Toonami airings. I hate to be a source shark, and I'm aware how difficult it is to find official evidence of television ratings, but sources are needed to change things like this. I recommend searching through past schedules, etc. using WayBackMachine, a website that allows you to see past versions of articles and websites. As for The Ripping Friends, the rating that is displayed during commercials are mainly what to expect from the show, or the highest it may go, so its possible that one or two episodes, for example received TV-14 rating, or this is just a very edgy TV-PG rated show. It also makes sense that, if a user was adding ratings, he would simply look at a commercial and copy down the rating displayed in the trailer, as recordings are hard to come by. That said, I find it very likely that thre would be a few TV-PG episodes and a few TV-14 episodes, but, again, it is probably best to use WayBackMachine. --Toonipedia (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here it lists Outlaw Star and Tenchi Muyo! as TV-Y7-FV. http://web.archive.org/web/20020305211522/http://www.adultswim.com/action/index.html This one (http://web.archive.org/web/20020802184225/http://adultswim.com/action/index.html) lists Gundam 0083 and Mobile Suit Gundam as TV-Y7-FV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.119.182 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, this is an acceptable source. You can go ahead and change it. Thank you for your helpful contributions! --Toonipedia (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Home Movies definitely had no TV-14 episodes. I have the ratings list: 1. TV-PG 2. TV-PG-L 3. TV-PG-DL 4. TV-PG-L 5. TV-PG-L 6. TV-PG-L 7. TV-PG 8. TV-PG-D 9. TV-PG 10. TV-PG 11. TV-PG-L 12. TV-PG 13. TV-PG-L 14. TV-PG-L 15. TV-PG-L 16. TV-PG 17. TV-PG 18. TV-PG-L 19. TV-PG-L 20. TV-PG 21. TV-PG-L 22. TV-PG 23. TV-PG 24. TV-PG 25. TV-PG 26. TV-PG-D 27. TV-PG-L 28. TV-PG 29. TV-PG-L 30. TV-PG-L 31. TV-PG 32. TV-PG 33. TV-PG-L 34. TV-PG-L 35. TV-PG-L 36. TV-PG 37. TV-PG-L 38. TV-PG-L 39. TV-PG-DL 40. TV-PG-DL 41. TV-PG-V 42. TV-PG 43. TV-PG-L 44. TV-PG 45. TV-PG-L 46. TV-PG-DL 47. TV-PG-L 48. TV-PG-L 49. TV-PG-L 50. TV-PG 51. TV-PG 52. TV-PG

Unless you are saying it was once rerated TV-14 (which I don't believe in the slightest), then you might as well include Sealab 2021 and Family Guy as TV-MA, since this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcEXydy8zGM) shows Sealab 2021 at one point TV-MA, and Family Guy's episode "The Father, The Son, and the Holy Fonz" was rated TV-MA at one point because of its heavily religious references before recently re-rating it to TV-14-DL.

Super Milk Chan
Just to inform you there were no TV-PG episodes of Super Milk Chan. That schedule post was a typo, because looking at Wayback Machine, it has the schedule and has that same episode (episode 2) listed as TV-14 instead of TV-PG which a person online posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.119.182 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please send a link to the website you are receiving this info from. If it is an acceptable source, I don't have any problem with it being changed. --Toonipedia (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050311164544/http://schedule.adultswim.com/servlet/ScheduleServlet?action=AS& — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.119.182 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there's only one episode displayed - please keep in mind that showing both TV-PG and TV-14 ratings is not a typo, it just means that it alternated between the two ratings. It's not that I don't believe that it was exclusively TV-14, it's just that we may need to look at all 12 episodes and their ratings to know for sure. --Toonipedia (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Explanation
The color codes were used to help readers differentiate between different categorys of programs appearing on the channel. The merging of the "Currently premiering" sections was done because that category is ever changing and it is very easy to become outdated when the article is neglected (which is often is). Theres my reasoning I thought I'd try even though you all will just bypass it and continue the cyberbullying. Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It was decided not long ago that color palettes were not needed. Very few pages, if any, have color palettes. Pages that do not are tpically perfectly navigable, so there really was no reason to keep it. For the currently premiering section, it's kept track of, no matter how rapidly it changes, and while I think it's a helpful thought, merging it into other spaces, that is something that should be discussed before adding. Also, do not say this article is "neglected". I check over practically every edit that is made to see if it is up to Wikipedia's standards on a regular basis. One more thing: I said nothing to "cyberbully" you, I'm just saying that it is not up to Wikipedia's standards, which is something that is said quite a lot on here. If anything, you are the one cyberbullying, saying inappropriate things to other users as well as myself. Not only are you flat out being disruptive, but you are in clear violation of community guidelines. Bottom line: The article is perfectly fine the way it is, so these edits are not necessary.--Toonipedia (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

fine do whatever you want. sorry I was a dick. just leave me alone. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Pilots Section
I think it's time to collapse this section and merge it into the Specials column, and possibly rename it "Specials/Pilots." There is never enough concrete information on what happens to pilots after they're not announced for a series, as networks typically don't announce when they strike down their pilots. I suggest there be a new column for all pilots that have been broadcast, but never went to series afterwards; a combination of the "Pilots of unknown status" and "Failed pilots" sections. The pilots in development should go the way of the old "Series in Development" section from years and years ago, and then development statuses should never be listed here again. After all this article is called "List of programs BROADCAST by Adult Swim." --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However, instead of moving Pilots into the "Specials" category, it might be best to merge the different "pilots" sections into one section. Other than the first part, I agree with this idea. --Toonipedia (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not merge the failed pilots into the ended original series, as they were created to be actual shows not made as specials. PS Willis said Cheyenne Cinnamon failed on twitter a while back. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering they were never original series to begin with, I can't say I agree. For Cheyenne Cinnamon, send a source and I will add it into the article. --Toonipedia (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * They were never really specials either. Shows in the failed pilots section such as Welcome to Eltingville and Korgoth of Barbaria were television pilots made with the original intention of become a full series. Whereas shows in the specials section such as Young Person's Guide to History and Freaknik: The Musical were made as one-off specials with the intention of being just that.Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not agree to merge Specials with Pilots, I agreed to merge Pilots sections together. If everybody is fine with that, I will merge them. If not, they will stay separated. --Toonipedia (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with this. More than anything, I want to get rid of that speculative "Pilots of unknown status" section, since they'll often get announced or made, and then never spoken about again, but as long as officials don't confirm their death any attempt to remove them gets undone by people still holding out hope. At least for pilots that have been finished and broadcast, be it on the air or online, we can have an entry for them, and I'd only want to focus on those any not anything that's in development limbo. I mean how much longer is "Let's Do This!" going to be on this list? --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure but the note box for each pilot should mention if it was picked up or not. Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Online Exclusives Section
I have noticed that there are some programs on this page that were never really aired on the network itself, but were instead aired on its website. I don't want to move them out, as it would be inconvenient, so should there be a section noting these programs? --Toonipedia (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not? Adult Swim has several web-exclusive series', not just "Rude Removal", such as Carl's Stone Cold Lock of the Century and On Cinema at the Cinema. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On Cinema at the Cinema is borrowed from Thing X, Adult Swim's latest web comedy portal attempt. Likewise they did the same with Super Deluxe, so you may want to think carefully about this section. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocks section
The Blocks section should be moved to a separate section as neither are shows but rather blocks of shows. They should also not be italicized as they are titles for programming blocks and shouldn't be italicized see: WP:ITALIC. Grapesoda22 (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempt at revision
Having verbose summaries of every show, with inconsistent, poor formatting in the 'Description' column (I copy-edited probably more than 10-dozen grammatical/formatting errors) was my primary concern with the article. Such information is readily available in each show's respective article. Acknowledging in mind that removing the descriptions would probably be met with poor reception, I relegated it to only the most relevant information regarding its broadcast status to make sure that I wasn't removing most every source (as practically all sources dealt with scheduling); any series that didn't have an article would retain its description in the 'Notes' section.

I admit that the columns for 'Creators' and 'Co-productions' are considerably lengthy and awkward to look at (I adapted the column largely from the information listed in the 'Description' column), and I propose that they should be omitted entirely per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Similarly, considering the fact that almost every other programming list article is compact (here's a search query) makes me wonder why this article is the odd one out when it comes to presentation.

Perhaps it's because Adult Swim has a bizarre way of scheduling that cataloging this sort of information becomes a hobby for some people, but as I said, it distracts the purpose of this article; conversely, maybe I'm overstepping some boundaries with deciding what is excessive and what is not based on Wikipedia documentation alone, which is why I wish to establish some consensus before going any further.

I apologize in advance if what I'm saying is sort of tangential. — Whisternefet (talk/contribs) 04:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also made some additional comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television (here) after some attempts at revising the article on my user mainspace, awaiting advice on what should be done:

— Whisternefet (talk/contribs) 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that, due to this being an Encyclopedia, it is best to store as much information as possible, as readily available as possible. Keeping this in mind, pages like this one and List of programs broadcast by Toonami, for example, are better off having a "Description" section due to fewer numbers of programs being broadcast, in comparison to articles such as List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, where adding a "Description" section (which has been attempted on this particular article), could hurt the article due to its vast amount of programming and little to no useful or known information about the particular programs. Even if information was added, it would be a nightmare to retrieve sources, not only because of the large number of shows, but because of how distantly in the past that they were aired. For some information posted, if the programs aired in the early 1990s, evidence may not even be retrievable, causing large amounts of info to be deleted. Adult Swim does not have this issue, so it is probably best to keep the section. As for cutting "non relevant" information from the article, be aware that relevance of information depends on the person, and removing the info simply because one person does not think it is useful would likely be frowned upon. Also, numerous "List of Programs Broadcast" have different styles - Adult Swim is not just the odd one out. Many, many lists are done in different ways to complement the channel. --Toonipedia (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ratings Revision
I noticed you all decided to add in subratings for the shows, and I will tell you what I know for some of the shows that have incorrect ratings.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.119.37 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but thanks a lot! --166.61.238.10 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about Soul Eater. Was episode 39 really TV-PG-LV? I ask because I was not able to see the airing of it, and Adult Swim's schedule said it was TV-14-V. --76.120.233.154 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It said TV-14-V on the schedule, but when it aired it was TV-PG-LV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.247.48 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have Sword Art Online episode 20's rating? --74.110.141.34 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Episodes 19 and 20 of SAO were TV-14-LV. I know they forgot to post one of those ratings on the schedule along with episode 25. Also, when episode 28 of Soul Eater aired, it received a TV-14-LV rating for some reason, despite there being no swearing in the entire episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.247.48 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems no source for the ratings may be a problem - would you mind posting some? --74.110.141.60 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Ratings aren't technically allowed anymore, so no need to post any sources. Anyway, thanks for posting the ratings. That was a big help, at least for a while. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're Whole
You're Whole has a TV-PG-DLV episode please note it Source - http://video.adultswim.com/schedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.141.60 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the list getting too complicated?
A lot of Wikipedia users hate these kinds of lists. I don't, but listening to their points, I get where they're coming from about how articles should be timeless. For the AS programs list this thing needs constant updating. When shows premiere, when they leave, when they expire, and so on. It's getting pretty messy. Eighteen categories? Goddamn! So I was wondering what people would think about collapsing a lot of these categories. Maybe into something like this:

1 Originals 1.1 Television Series 1.2 Television Pilots 1.3 Specials 1.4 Online Series 1.5 Films 2 Acquired programming 2.1 Syndicated series 2.2 Pre-owned programming 2.3 Specials 2.4 Films

If a show has been canceled, it can be indicated in the year column. This is just an example of how the categories can be trimmed down. Anyone on a similar page? --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with lots of categories, but I agree that there are at least a few that could be combined, if not cut entirely. We don't need the "Blocks" list. I suppose "Greenlit", "Unrenewed", and "Cancelled" can all be combined into an overall "Television Series" category, but I personally still like the idea of having separate categories for "Currently Premiering" and "Upcoming" shows for both Original and Acquired programming. I also think "Finished" and "Expired" Acquired programming should still be separate, for convenience. The one thing I'm not sure about is films. I don't really have a problem with them being separated into the Originals and Acquired sections, but it also makes a lot of sense to keep all the films together in a third section with the main Originals and Acquired categories sticking to only TV series. Pilots and Specials also don't need their own categories and should be moved into the Originals and Acquired sections. I guess this doesn't really shorten the page all that much, but it does clean it up a bit which is all I think we really need to do rather than doing any significant restructuring.

So maybe something like this. Of course, the order of the categories could be rearranged as needed.

1 Originals 1.1 Currently Premiering 1.2 Upcoming Series 1.3 Television Series 1.4 Pilots 1.5 Specials 1.6 Online Content 1.7 Films

2 Acquired Programming 2.1 Currently Premiering 2.2 Upcoming Series 2.3 Finished 2.4 Expired 2.5 Specials 2.6 Pre-owned programming 2.7 Films

Or alternatively we could not add Films to those categories and continue to give them their own section at the end. --WisperGee (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The categories like "Currently Premiering" were what I was primarily targeting, because they require frequent maintenance. Not to mention those description boxes that have to be updated when shows are or are not on the air. The lists for Comedy Central, VH1, Spike, are much more simplified. The USA, MTV,Syfy, MTV2 articles have chosen to break their lists into genres, but I still find those easier to navigate because I'm more aware of their genre than their status in production. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think complaints from a few users are enough to re-do the article. What's the problem with keeping it the way it is? Removing this just makes it less informative. --74.110.141.34 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the information isn't here. I just felt it's overcategorized and makes the information tougher to find. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Parental ratings removed
Hey all, the parental ratings have been removed from this article per existing MOS style guidelines at MOS:TV, per core Wikipedia policy on verifiability, and per a refreshed discussion at WT:TV. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, bring back the TV ratings. That's the only reason I even went on this page, and the TV ratings were very informative and gave me as well as many others an idea of how 'adult' each show on [adult swim] was. So, I say bring it back, and that Wikipedia's new policy is a lousy one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.175.239 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Upset about this too, but if it goes against guidelines, nothing can be done. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not nonsense, and it's not a new policy; it's been in the Manual of Style for a year. You are welcome to join the WikiProject Television community to help shape television articles through discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, one year IS a new policy, and all these new policies ARE annoying. But there's nothing I can really do, because I know you webheads will keep making new ways to screw up the article even worse, so whatever, I'm done. You guys probably are rejoicing at just the thought of me leaving, so whatever you can block my account or warn me or whatever I don't care I'm just so sick of this crap --Solidvaper (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ratings sources
http://schedule.adultswim.com/servlet/ScheduleServlet?action=AS&theDate=6/23/14&timeZone=EST - Link to AS backdoor schedule - this should confirm several entries. I'll post some snapshots or recordings later to preserve them. Wish I backed this up earlier. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Link doesn't work for me, but that's a moot point: the WikiProject Television community long ago decided that parental ratings should not be included in television articles, with some exceptions that are detailed at MOS:TV. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate list, nor a TV guide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the heck did you make a big deal that "there is no source" if they weren't allowed in the first place? Bring that up sooner, please. I've been editing this page for nothing. --Solidvaper (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiability was one of the issues raised, but it was not the only issue. Just for lack of any references the bulk of that column should have been removed. That's standard operating procedure. Looking through the edit history, it was clear that the various ratings were in dispute, were regularly vandalized, etc. The fact that all the contributors failed to take the initiative to remove the unsourced content tells me that the contributors were more interested in submitting original research than helping to bolster the reliability of the article. We can base some information on primary sources, but not large and significant portions, which is what most of the contributors were doing.
 * Verifiability was one of the issues raised, but it was not the only issue. Just for lack of any references the bulk of that column should have been removed. That's standard operating procedure. Looking through the edit history, it was clear that the various ratings were in dispute, were regularly vandalized, etc. The fact that all the contributors failed to take the initiative to remove the unsourced content tells me that the contributors were more interested in submitting original research than helping to bolster the reliability of the article. We can base some information on primary sources, but not large and significant portions, which is what most of the contributors were doing.


 * "Wikipedia is not TV Guide" is a policy that has been in place since at least February 2012 when WP:NOT was created--that would govern the ratings content here as well. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" has also been around for the same amount of time. Both of these policies predate your account, as does the instruction at MOS:TV. These are all publicly available on pages that regular users commonly access. So it was brought up sooner, and active users should know about these concepts. Further, editors are welcome to participate at WikiProject Television where these sorts of discussions typically come up. Editors with accounts (not IPs) can add articles, including MOS:TV, to their watchlists, where they will be notified that something has changed in the MOS.


 * And beyond even all that, editor removed most of the problematic data and voiced an objection to the inclusion of this information in January 2013 (see top of talk page), but his position was trumped by some IPs that were attempting to take ownership of the article, even criticizing him for being "uninvited"--as if you need to be invited at Wikipedia. His position, that the content was original research, was the stronger argument, because it cites policy, whereas the IPs "arguments" were emotionally-based: "STOP CHANGING THIS. PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING HERE IS FACT. IF NOT, IT IS NO REASON REASON TO DELETE EVERYTHING. I WILL REPORT YOU IF YOU CHANGE IT." and "Even if it contains original research it is no reason to delete everything...This page has been like this for years with no problem. I don't see why it needs to change now." So, had the IPs followed policy instead of trying to force their POVs, the content would have been gone in early 2013 and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I object to the abandonment of TV ratings, especially for a page on programs broadcasted by Adult Swim. In the case of the TV ratings, it is to showcase how adult a program was as far as content was concerned, which I think is rather important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "How adult a program was"? What does that mean, exactly, and how is this information, as you assert, important? If you object to aspects of the Manual of Style, you should take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, but you will need a stronger argument other than "I object" to affect any change. Consensus is not established through voting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Important because this is an adult block, thus it makes sense to have the TV ratings, to signify how adult the program is in content. Right now I wouldn't be able to tell that Home Movies is a rather tame show in comparison to say, The Boondocks. This is not a matter of the Wiki page being that of a TV Guide, but rather providing info on the show, and how it aired on [adult swim]. How it was rated fits into that category. The TV-Y7-FV rating for Tenchi Muyo! and Outlaw Star lets the viewers know to what extent the show was edited for content on [adult swim]. I do agree that the ratings aren't always necessary for a page, but for a page like [adult swim] or even Toonami, I find it crucial. Especially for Toonami, as it informs the reader on the jump in racy content once it was moved onto [adult swim]. You sure wouldn't be able to watch a show like Deadman Wonderland or Black Lagoon on the old Toonami, and the TV-MA-V or TV-14-DLV/TV-MA-L ratings placed on the side let the reader know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, your metric, "how adult the program is in content," seems to mean something to you, but it still sounds meaningless to me, and I don't see how it would mean a whole lot globally. If you're wondering how many bare tits and "fucks" are in an episode, that's one thing, but that's content best suited for a trivia book.  Parental ratings are intended for a specific purpose: to educate American parents on the suitability of television content for American children, not to guide academic research.  Thus far you have not described any academic need for this content, and the MOS, which by now I hope you've at least poked through, makes it clear why this content isn't suitable for inclusion.  What you consider "adult" is what Costa Rica or France might consider teen programming.  If this information is so crucial for you, you are welcome to establish your own web presence and host it there.  Or at Wikia where the standards are far lower.  But hosting it here, whether in the article or in the article talk page, is not consistent with the aim of Wikipedia's television articles, for the numerous reasons listed in the open discussion at WT:TV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. You've actually just proved my point by saying that what I consider "adult" might be teen programming in Costa Rica and France. This can actually help inform readers what is considered "adult content" in the United States. I, myself, was always fascinated with the standards for what different cultures consider "adult content", like in Japan, animated frontal nudity of a child isn't considered a big deal, but over in the States, any type of nudity is considered inappropriate content for anyone other than adults. These TV Ratings Guidelines help the readers know that Black Lagoon's content is considered only suitable for "Mature Adults" in the United States, whereas perhaps, in other cultures, they might not find Black Lagoon as offensive. These ratings do just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Content Ratings
It seems more than just me are upset about the removal of the ratings, so I might as well just post them here.

For many shows, I have individual ratings for each show on my Google Site, Poprojo. Not trying to advertise here, I don't get any revenue from it (no ads are present on the site); just trying to keep these easy to find, due to their rarity. Not sure if posting this violates guidelines or not, so delete this if you must, but I'm just trying to keep these on the web.

All are taken from recordings, archives, and Adult Swim schedules. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The first episode of Black Lagoon: The Second Barrage was TV-MAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.172.236 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to totally ignore this block you've put on my comment and just say this. I completely accepted the removal of the ratings. I agree that they should not be part of the article if they are in violation of MOS:TV. I'm just trying to keep them on the internet, because there is practically nowhere else you can find them. Please don't put such blocks on my comment. I'm not trying to reinstate them. If there's something wrong with what I said, just remove it. --74.110.141.60 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is the logo on here?
Is that really neccessary? I mean, logos aren't usually on program lists. If you want to know the logo, that info should already be on the home page, and chances are if you are on the page in the beginning, you would already know the logo. 74.110.141.60 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Infomercials
The fake infomercials are piling up in the Shorts/Specials section, and with In Search of Miracle Man, Book of Christ, and Smart Pipe on deck they show no signs of stopping. Adult Swim's website and DVR guides list all these as episodes of the Infomercials series, so I've considered creating an article called "Infomercials (Adult Swim series)" that can be linked to from this list instead of having an entry for every single fake infomercial. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the WP:V consideration for this content? Series exist and it is pretty easy to verify that they exist, but interstitial shorts, fake infomercials and the such are fleeting. How do the highly-energetic fans of this network plan to ensure that the content being added is verifiable? (Not a dig on you personally, TV. This is more a question for the users who don't participate in any discussions here or at WikiProject Television, but who keep updating the article.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015
I need to fix the syndicated programing because some of the information is edited wrong.

69.248.183.144 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015
There are some mistakes done on this page and I want to fix them.

Demon Vergo (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015
Please add Pound Hole between Paid Programming and Rolling with Dad under Pilots. It airs on April 20th.

108.41.178.243 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —  16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Samurai Jack season 5
Someone keeps moving this show into the Syndicated column, but it shouldn't be there. Any show that's produced by and for Adult Swim makes it an Adult Swim original. The new season is not being made for another network. If it were and Adult Swim was leasing it, that would make it a syndicated series. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should this list be re-formatted to be more consistent with other "list of programs broadcast by X" articles?
Should this list be re-formatted to be more consistent with other "list of programs broadcast by X" articles? What I suggest here is that we abandon the "description" parameter in the tables and arrange the article sections like so:

-Currently broadcast --First-run original programming --Acquired/syndicated programming --Re-runs of ended original programming -Future programming --Original programming --Acquired/syndicated programming -Former programming --Original programming --Acquired/syndicated programming ---Borrowed for broadcast -Pilots and specials --Pilots --Original specials --Syndicated shorts/specials -Films -References -External links

Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 02:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What other TV lists are formatted like this? I just went to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, List of programs broadcast by MTV, List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Comedy_Central, and List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TLC, and none of them are formatted like that. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In relation to what I presented, or what currently exists within this article? If the former, then what you found is along those lines. Not a perfect match, but along those lines. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * yeah, what you presented. There doesn't seem to be one consistent format across the board, and this article already has problems without the arrangement of categories. Personally I think it should be as few as possible, and that "Borrowed for Broadcast" section should just be merged into Syndicated -> Former. --Tv&#39;s emory (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. 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/20150518085050/http://deadline.com/2015/05/adult-swim-2015-16-slate-1201421901/ to http://deadline.com/2015/05/adult-swim-2015-16-slate-1201421901/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62BpuCbyU?url=http://www.adultswim.com/schedule/onair.html to http://www.adultswim.com/schedule/onair.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Originally aired" is confusing
There needs to be distinction between total years a show has aired on Adult Swim and the years in which new episodes were aired.

For example: Mission Hill Rerun: 2002–09, 2011–12; new episodes: 2002

Or something of that nature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4102:46D0:796D:7DC2:6734:976E (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Young Justice
I've heard that Young Justice aired on Adult Swim. Can I get a confirmation on that?68.67.109.78 (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ballmastrz 9669
Can someone create a new article on Wikipedia for Ballmastrz 9669? --2601:2C0:C280:E460:A010:CF00:C95A:3752 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. 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/20150315021551/http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/21870/20150312/attack-on-titan-news-popular-show-returning-to-toonami-replacing-deadman-wonderland.htm to http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/21870/20150312/attack-on-titan-news-popular-show-returning-to-toonami-replacing-deadman-wonderland.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring
I have restructured the page to be more in line with other "List of programs broadcast by" articles. Additionally, I began removing the "Description" column from the article - was there any reason for that to be there in the first place? It was unnecessary, frequently unsourced, and needlessly verbose. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 04:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers and Family Guy
Should we add the fact that Adult Swim has the broadcasting rights for the first 8 seasons of Bob's Burgers and the first 15 seasons of Family Guy in the "Note(s)" section? Because, well... 212.54.101.172 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Former Animated Shows - Dates not added
Relevant Section: - List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim

I noticed that rather than showing the "First Broadcast" and "Last Broadcast", some shows only have the year ranges displayed. Is there any reason for this, especially when the dates in question are already known and can easily be found? 92.5.150.98 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)