Talk:Perfect Hair Forever

VFD

The vote for deletion debate for the article Perfect Hair Forever is over. The result of the debate was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Perfect Hair Forever for a record of the discussion. Sikon 11:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect Sound Forever

Any official word on whether this magazine was the inspiration for the name? I assume that it is.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.124.11 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Young Man

I don't really think Young Man (King of Animals) resembles Yugi Mutou, other than his necklace/amulet. Is there a closer analog to a different anime character?

Same goes for me, he doesn't... if they wanted that they would have made it more obvious... --FlareNUKE 07:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, if you ask me, he's a mismash of random Anime Characters. The Commander of animals thing could be a pokemon Refrence, and his suit kind of looks Like Spike's from Cowboy Bebop, albiet Spikes was blue, and didn't sparkle.

I don't think he's any anime character, just a stereotypicial anime guy...--FlareNUKE 12:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think he may be loosed based on Yugi, but it probably wasn't intentional. Karmafist 06:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Model Robot

The robot is very much an homage to ideon. Look it up.

Consider it looked.

A-bomb is more a reference to Episode 3 when he says "Let's drop an attack bomb on 'em" than "Atomic Bomb."

Thing is...

There is no way to verify if a character or sence is based on anything, I think we should just eliminate them all, expect for the obvious like "Gerald Bald Z". --FlareNUKE 08:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why people think "Woke Up Drunk" is episode 5 rather than episode 6 as it was aired. The ending of "Tusk" has Gerald riding his motorcycle into oblivion, and near the ending of "Woke Up Drunk", when Space Ghost and/or the narrator says "Computers" and goes back to the journey, you can SEE HIS CRASHED MOTORCYCLE IN THE BACKGROUND! Clearly, this episode should fall as episode 6, otherwise, how did the motorcycle (which is the same type as the one Gerald rode off into the explosion) get there?!

There was a 'bump' during the marathon saying that Woke Up Drunk was actually the 5th episode, and that Tusk was the 6th.

If you have time warner cable and go to the Adult swim section of cutting edge on demand it says"Perfect hair episode 6" the title of episode 6 is tusk..its been proven P.S. i dont know when theyre gonna replace that episode so hurry up and go there P.S.S. cutting edge on demand is chanel 1007(Time Warner cable, New York)

Tusk as the 6th, rather than 5th episode is supported by the order of the recently re-running of the episodes -- Woke up drunk was 5th, and Tusk was 6th. Michael.Urban 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

quest = aimless ?

If Gerald is "on a quest to find the perfect hair," how can his wanderings be "aimless"? (See 2nd paragraph)

His wanderings aren't aimless so much as they are surreal and technically absurd. It's not the goal, it's the journey. I'd agree that aimless doesn't seem like the perfect word, but I'm not sure what the perfect word would be exactly. Perhaps I shall undertake a quest. --24.20.129.61 06:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of Episodes

Is there a final count anywhere? Sweetfreek 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see six episodes on isohunt.com Family Guy Guy 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 episodes in Season 1 (including the pilot) and 1 webisode for Season 2. -anon, 01:40, 06 May 2013

gearald the hotdog and the tree

instead of the spaceghost thing in the begining wouldnt it make more sence for a piscture of those three to appear or at least somewhere in the article?

Notes section

I added a notes section for the main benifit of stating the "Uncle Grandfather" observation I made. If I got any of the japanese wrong feel free to correct me. I was working from an english/japanese, japanese/english dictionary and an online translator. Nadiasama 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait, observation you 'made?' That's OR, dude. 72.72.237.185 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuity in other Williams Street shows

In 12 Oz. Mouse, it appears that the seeds of an ongoing plot are growing with the Shark/Square With No Eyes cabal doing something insidious and Fitz/Skillet doing something for some reason, but otherwise, I can't think of any times Williams Street shows had any real chronological story sequencing to them other than mention of Banjo's death in SGC2C. Other than perhaps that instance(and even that is a stretch), you could watch just about any Williams Street produced show in any order without missing out on anything -- every episode was fully encapsulated in itself(and 12 Oz. Mouse is only a slight derivation on that trend). The "journey" backbone of PHF makes that impossible here. Karmafist 06:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This comment is outdated, for now there is Metalocalypse which contains much ongoing plot: for instance Toki's dad dies and in later episodes he becomes more depressed and crazy and also there is a very complex subplot going on now of some evil guys trying to take over the world I think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.165.85 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ep 2 ending theme

Does anybody know who composed/performed the end theme to episode 2 (the king of animals)? You know, that haunting guitar song played when Gerald and his bunch head out towards Tuna Mountain. - Tronno ( t | c ) 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I can tell you it's a remix of the song Time Scar from Chrono Trigger. 64.121.36.5 04:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of episodes 5 and 6

Does anyone know why the "official" order seems to be different from the order the show is played in? I saw Tusk played before Woke Up Drunk in a marathon. Also, I seem to remember the ending of Woke Up Drunk showing Gerald walking away from a wrecked motorcycle which is probably the result of him launching toward Tuna Mountain in Tusk. Is this just Adult Swim screwing with the viewers? Should something of this be mentioned in the episode summaries? --DeathByNukes 08:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The marathon was completely out of order. I even believe they showed the series backwards the third time around. Anyway, Episode 5 was a completely non-sequitar episode that had nothing to do with the storyline. It was basically a filler. In effect the storyline goes from episode 4 to 6 with 5 basically not even referenced in the next two episodes. Gdo01 08:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to an earlier marathon that happened on a Saturday in which all of the episodes except the last two were ordered correctly. I know the episode has no impact. I simply thought it was strange to give it that order. The release date of #5 is later than #6 as well. --DeathByNukes 08:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DeathByNukes is correct, these episodes are reversed in this Wikipedia entry. The 5th episode is Tusk, the 6th Episode is Woke Up Drunk. Somebody made a mistake somewhere and everybody else copied it. tv.com, thetvdb.com, and imdb.com all have it incorrect. There actually is continuity too, as the ending of "Woke up Drunk" has the three policemen in the bed talking about how Standards won't let them "thrust". This same scene is also the beginning of the first Episode of Season 2, showing continuity. -- Otto42 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

After rewatching episodes 5 and 6, it's clear that Tusk is ep5 and Woke Up Drunk is ep6. There is a scene with the destroyed motorcycle in WOD, which only makes continuity sense if Tusk is ep5. Furthermore, the end of WOD has the three security guys in bed, like I stated before, which meshes correctly with S2E1. Given that the air date showed them in this order also (Tusk followed by WOD), the only logical conclusion is that somebody got them wrong elsewhere. If anybody wants to change them back, I submit that you need to put a verifiable reference in pointing out what their episode order is. IMDB is not generally considered a good reference for this (WP:CIMDB) and TV.com is user-submitted content as well, most likely copied from IMDB. --Otto42 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Length of Article

This article is ridiculously long right now, especially for a show that only had seven episodes. It reads like a fan page right now, which is not what wikipedia is for. I am busy right now but I am going to do some major surgery on this article soon if nobody has any objections (probably even if they do). Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this page is "ridiculously long", at only 39k in size. Another show, such as Buffy is 77k, and has way more detail than this page. Most TV shows on Wikipedia generally get a page about them to this level of detail, and more popular ones have their own page on a per episode basis. Some of them even get whole pages just for each character in the show. Given that none of these is the case for PHF, I do not think that any of this information can be easily "cut out" unless you're planning to split it up into other pages. So, be warned that if all you're planning on doing is deleting the information here, I will revert it if you fail to provide adequate reasoning and/or discussion about it here. -- Otto 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For a show that had only seven ten-minute episodes, this is unreasonably long (the collected scripts for the entire series couldn't be much longer and Wikipedia is not a repository for adult swim scripts). Buffy was a multi-season show with a significant fan base, in other words Buffy is notable while this show is not nearly as notable. As far as I can tell, almost all of this info can be easily lost. Warning, I know how to revert as well. Most importantly, this is almost all original research. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your massive deletions have been reverted. Continued abuse of wikipedia in this manner will result in you being reported for vandalism. Reverting your changes back in will force me to report for revert warring.

If you are going to delete *anything* there must be discussion about it on the talk page. One-sided "I don't like this so I'm going to remove it" is not discussion. Discussion must be specific to what you are talking about removing and it must involve more than just you talking to yourself about it.

I will take any actions necessary to prevent you from continued vandalism of this article. So I suggest you relax and discuss your proposed changes instead just of doing whatever the hell you feel like doing. -- Otto 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

report it if you will, but what I did was not vandalism. This page is a bloated fan page, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Please remain civil in what you say to me, as I truly do not appreciate being accused of vandalism. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact. You are what you do, and what you are doing is indeed vandalism. Look, you're removing large amounts of content without discussion of the content itself (other than your opinion of "it's too long") and without any attempt to improve it. This is known as "blanking" (See WP:VAN).

You have also claimed it to be original research, but don't cite anything to back this claim. Many of the facts you are removing could indeed have citations added for them. The correct behavior in such a situation is to add cite tags to attempt to get people to add sources, not to remove the content entirely. Or better yet, integrate these facts into the main article itself. Rewrite the content. The goal should be to IMPROVE the article, not just to trim it down.

For every item you remove, you must DISCUSS IT here on this page and gather feedback. Wikipedia is not a "more reverts wins" operation. If the community agrees and supports the removal of the content, then fine, remove it. But suddenly removing almost 4k of text and two whole sections without any kind of discussion or debate is way outside the correct set of behaviors for Wikipedia.

And before doing anything else, please read WP:DR. The CONTENT should be the focus here, and you're simply ignoring it entirely. -- Otto 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing the changes, you just don't like it. I am removing this stuff, because this page is a bloated fan page. The show had seven ten minute episodes. Have you even read this page? It reads like someone watched each episoded, then wrote down every single thing that happened. This wikipedia page is the single greatest source of info about this show out there and that is wrong. It makes wiki the primary source, which in case you didn't know is exactly what wikipedia isn't. I am removing fancruft, so do not insult me by calling this vandalism. You don't seem to even be reading what I am writing about the content, of which there is way too much here. So I will continue to remove fan cruft and there is more that needs to be deleted here, and I am terribly sorry if this offends you but thats the way life goes. I invite you to take whatever action you feel is necessary because I feel confident that I am working within the rules of wikipedia. Have a nice day. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss it, but you have not even attempted to do so yet. Heck, you're not even doing what you SAY you're doing! Example, you removed the Easter Eggs and the Notes sections, and yet just above you're complaining about the episode synopses being too long. If you think they are too long, edit them down or rephrase them, don't just remove large chunks of OTHER information randomly.

You keep saying it's fancruft. You keep saying that it is bloated. These are just your OPINIONS, as opposed to actual verifiable FACTS. Just because you say a thing is so does not make it so. Furthermore, I'm not opposed to changing the article. I'm opposed to you just removing large amounts of information with no attempt whatsoever to improve the article.

So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to wait 24 hours, both for a cool-down period and for you to do what you claim to want to do. Revise the article. That's the way wikipedia works, you REVISE, you IMPROVE. You don't just REMOVE. After that, if you still continue to just remove large chunks of information, then I'm reverting your changes and bringing it up for a request for comments or administrative attention. -- Otto 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Summary: User:Man It's So Loud In Here believes that the article is too long and badly worded. However, instead of fixing these problems, he insists on removing two whole sections of content in order to shorten the article. I've tried WP:DR, I've tried to follow WP:BRD, however I'm unable to get him to stop engaging in revert warring with me over this. I think that what he is doing is vandalism, as he is removing information that could potentially be sourced (as opposed to original research). What do others think about the topic? Is removing these sections the best way to shorten the article? Or should the other, longer, sections be rewritten instead? -- Otto 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think I have improved the article. User:Otto42 chooses to call me a vandal and talk to me like I am a child, but whatever. I think I have made my case very well, and in this case removing content improved the article. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply cutting out 90% of the article is not an "improvement". Improving involves revision, not just hack and slash. -- Otto 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article reads like an actual encyclopedia article without all of the tangential episode summaries. Icarus of old (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think some judicious pruning could improve the article. The easter eggs section, for example, is a bit much. The pilot episode's summary is also ill-written, but I think that could be improved with copyediting rather than outright deletion. It also needs citations in places, e.g. where it mentions the delay in production of Squidbillies. —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some editing and revision and am not opposed to that. -- Otto 06:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've examined several other articles for Adult Swim shows, and other television shows, and the convention seems to be that the list of episodes is kept on a separate page, titled List of X Episodes. These all have a similar format, a table scheme that shows the info in a summary format. To this end, I've moved the episode listing off to List of Perfect Hair Forever Episodes and will put that information there in the same format. I believe this will satisfy User:Man It's So Loud In Here's need to slash the article down to a shorter format for the time being. More pruning will doubtless need to be done, however sticking to the convention all other TV shows use seems to be the correct way to do it, instead of simply deleting the information outright. -- Otto 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed this article and found that it fails may WP Guidelines: WP:V (it has no primary sources), WP:NOT#PLOT (there is too much plot and charcter summary), WP:WAF (the artilce has a heavy in universe perspective with no real-world content, context or analysis), and there are no reliable secondary sources so it also fails WP:N. In its current state, this article is a prime candidate for deletion. Unless it is cut back, I will personally return to ths article and apply the following Cleanup templates:

1. Notability
2. Weasel Words
3. unreferenced
4. in universe
5. Plot
6. Context
7. Fact
8. Who

If after 30 days this article has not been cleaned up, I will personally nominate it for deletion on the grounds that this is self-referencing fancruft. I hope these comments help your discussions. Good editing! --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While it does need cleanup, that is not what this request for comments was about. Thanks for your input though. Also, nominating it for deletion seems more than a bit silly, as the results of that last time were pretty straightforward. -- Otto 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I must echo everything said by Gavin Collins, he was just a lot more articulate than I. While the show may deserve an article, I think the proper course of action would be to scrap the article as it is and come up with a good one-to-two-paragraph summary and call it a day. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Can you give a good reason for such an action? Why should it only be one or two paragraphs? And before you say "it was only seven episodes", I would point you to other short television events like The Lost Room (which was only 3 episodes) and ask why these events deserve more than a couple of summary paragraphs but PHF does not. Everything Gavin said above argues for altering the article to be more encyclopedic, not for removing it or slashing it down to one or two paragraphs. -- Otto 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing two tags

I have removed the {{Plot}} and the {{context}} tags. First, there is very little plot discussion in this article at all, at most a few sentences. There's probably far too much about minor characters. bu that's not plot. Second, the introductory paragraph has just about all the context needed -- it's a animated series, on TV, from America, shown on Adult Swim and The Detour. Anything more than that doesn't belong in the intro, really. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the removal of the tags as I think you may be mistaken: there is extensive plot detail contained in the "Characters" section, and the opening section does not provide any context at all. For instance, it is not explained why Williams Street (and not another company) produced the series, nor why Cartoon Network or Teletoon broadcast the series. These facts do not provide any context at all. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why did John Steinbeck, and not John Dos Passos or another early 20th-century American author, write Of Mice and Men? That's not covered in the introduction to that article, either. I don't see any explanation as to why Simon & Schuster published Catch-22 in the introduction to the Catch-22 article, either. Is Perfect Hair Forever on the exalted level of those books -- well, no, and it would be ludicrous to say so, and the article might have notability problems -- but practically no Wikipedia articles about books, movies, or television shows have any information about why the originator of the media originated it, or about why the distributor of the media distributed it, especially in the introduction. That's what you seem to be asking for with your insistence about retaining the context tag on this article. Williams Street produced it because they came up with it -- which is a normal, default assumption when it comes to television series, even animated ones. Cartoon Network and Teletoon showed it because, well, they're television networks that show animated cartoons -- a perfectly good default assemption, and one that certainly does not have to be explained in the introduction to the article. Cheers was shown on NBC, but I certainly don't see any explanation of why NBC showed it in the introduction to the article -- perhaps you should tag it as having insufficient context?
• There are small elements of plot used to explain the characters. I think most of the minor characters can be removed, but not due to excessive plot elements, but because it's way too much detail for the characters, not because most of the article consists of plot summary, which it doesn't.
• The two tags I removed should stay removed.

-- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We know that Steinbeck wrote Of Mice and Men from his own experience. However the open sentence of this article does not provide little information that provides context. I think you should restore the Context template, at least until the start of this article is improved. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd agree that Perfect Hair Forever isn't as deep as "Of Mice And Men". Most media, be they books, movies, tv shows, don't have deep reasons why they were created. Most of the time it's "Somebody has a idea, and they write it".
The start of the article is perfectly fine, and the context tag is not needed. The rest of the article needs serious trimming and serious work. The remaining tags are a clear indication of that, and should stay until the article is fixed, but the context (and plot) tags are not needed. There's no need to pile on tags of dubious applicability when other tags are sufficient and applicable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the introduction could be expanded. I disagree with your approach that cleanup templates are a bad thing, but I a am happy to let go of the plot template even though you agree with me that there is too much character summary. However, restoring the context template may encourage someone to expand it beyond one line; even this topic deserves a better intro. How about restoring the template? What harm can it do other than encourage improvement? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think cleanup templates are a bad idea. The other cleanup templates on this page are useful and needed. What I don't like are inapplicable cleanup templates, or (nearly as bad) applying cleanup templates based on a novel, stretched interpretation of the guidelines. If there was a template saying something like "The level of detail given to minor characters in this fiction/movie/television article throws the article out of balance" I'd be all for that one.
About the context template -- I think that Perfect Hair Forever is destined to be a short article -- not every article is lengthy enough for a more than one sentence introduction, if for no other reason than balance. I hold no particular brief for this article - -the only reason I looked at it is because it came up on one of the incident boards as being vandalized, and I like to peek through some of those articles -- it's as good of a way as any to choose random articles to look at. i do think I'm goign to cut the character detail back somewhat. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think there is too much character description (none of which seems to have any influence on the development of the story, let alone notability), and again I disagree with the lack of context in the intro. As it stands, I think this article offers little in the way of encyclopedic value. Unless you restore the cleanup templates, I will have to refer this article for RFC to see what other editors have to say. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

outdent: Since we seem to have reached an impasse, perhaps an RFC is the best course. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We have only reached an impass because you have asserted that Wikipedia:Lead section does not apply to this article. On what grounds do you make this assertion? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fascinating, really, how you keep jumping to conclusions about what I assert or what I think. I have not asserted that the lead section guidelines do not apply. What we seem to have is a disagreement about how Wikipedia:Lead section applies to this article (which is a judgement call), and the tags you had applied. Nevertheless, I've re-reviewed the lead section guidelines, and modified the lead paragraph somewhat. I do not think, however, that the level of detail that you had requested a few comments back is either necessary or useful in the lead paragraph, nor is it required by those guidelines. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the template without reference to WP Guidelines, what else am I to think? You now admit that the lead section needs change, and that the character summaries are too long, yet you have still removed the clean up templates I have put there to address these issues. Why not just restore the templates so that other editors can be alerted to the fact that improvements are need? What harm can this do since we both agree this article could be better? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would assume that people would think if I removed the context tag is that I didn't think that the context tag applied to this article, NOT that I didn't think the lead paragraph guidelines applied to this article. There is a strong and clear difference between the two assumptions, and you shouldn't have assumed the latter when the former is the simplest (and correct) assumption. Simple, really.
After review and thought, I made changes to the lead section -- but not to the unrequired and IMHO potentially absurd level that you demanded earlier. I now even more firmly believe, in my judgement, that especially after the changes I made the context tag no longer applies, and the lead section guidelines have been amply satisfied. Due to that, I am not restoring the context tag.
Also, as I said I was going to do, I have shortened the character summary section by removing the minor characters. The summaries given for the major characters are not too long, do not not contain excessive plot summary -- they're one or two sentences at most each. I have done this because the character summaries were too long, not because the article was loaded down with plot summary, which is what the plot tag (which you inaccurately applied) implies. The plot tag did not belong on this article on the first place, it does not belong on this article now, and I am not restoring it.
I believe this article can be better. Templating an article is certainly one method of altering potential editors that improvements are needed based upon failure to satisfy policy and guidelines. However, one must use the correct templates! Templating based upon overly expansive and unsupported readings of policy and guidelines don't lead to article improvements. I don't disagree with the other templates you had added, but the plot and context templates did not apply. (The original lead sentence was sufficient to satisfy guidelines -- the improvement I made to it today was nice but not required.) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

Are you serious? It was notable enough to keep 2 years ago when it was proposed for deletion. The show existed, it has thousands of hits on Google, it's listed on IMDB and tv.com... what more do you want? -- Otto 14:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources are required to demonstrate notability. Entries on IMDB or tv.com are insufficient (see WP:FILM for details). --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I added two reliable secondary sources at the bottom of the article. Look again. Both of these are critical reviews, and not simply listings. They fit the given requirements in WP:RS and WP:NF. -- Otto 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The article is actually pretty good, especially the discussion of how its an inside joke. Its a good analysis of how it might be culturally relevant. BUT unless there are some third party sources about these things, its hard to establish these as facts. Can someone dig up some magazine articles or a reputable anime website that maybe interview the William Street employees about these "inside jokes"? See: WP:PSTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehlkej (talk • contribs) 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Benjamin was not involved with Perfect Hair Forever.

In wikipedia's "Perfect hair forever" page, one of the voice actors is listed as Jon Benjamin. It is a common misconception that he voices Catman, however Carey Means (Frylock) voices Catman.

This needs to be changed.

The proof is on Perfect Hair Forever's IMDB.com page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465849/

Confirmed and corrected. -- Otto 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Johnnystumpsinger, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the sidebar castlist, "created by" should be replaced with "written by" in accordance with the actual show credits. Carey Means should be removed from the Voices Of list. He does the voice of Frylock on Aqua Teen Hunger Force, but nothing in Perfect Hair Forever

Under Production, Scott Fry and Dave Willis should be removed. Scott Fry was the Animation and Effects Producer for Radical Axis, not a show producer. Dave Willis was the voice of Coiffio, not a show producer

Dave Hughes should be listed as Producer Matt Harrigan should be listed as Supervising Producer Keith Crofford should be added as an Executive Producer

Here is a link to the actual episodes on Adultswim.com, with credits intact at the end for reference. Thanks.

http://video.adultswim.com/perfect-hair-forever/

Johnnystumpsinger (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. While I'm not sure I'm following WP:TV norms, I think it looks... good enough, seeing that you've supplied the reference. :) Do you have a secondary source? That would be helpful. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Catman

Catman's character blurb refers to him being in a catsuit. What catsuit?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.177.110 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Perfect Hair Forever. 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/20110427161642/http://www.adultswimshop.com/cat/DVDs/DVD-Adult-Swim-Pilots.html to http://www.adultswimshop.com/cat/DVDs/DVD-Adult-Swim-Pilots.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)