Talk:List of The Venture Bros. episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Citation needed

Where do the predicted release dates come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.173.58 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the best reference I could find: an ad that aired on Adult Swim on January 10, 2010. There is a "subject to constant change" disclaimer, though. --67.248.244.225 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're usually pretty close. I've seen them change and then later read that there was a hitch that bumped things back, even when the first release date and said hitch were unknown to the public. I suspect that one of the staff uses this to announce dates. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.175.39 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

I moved the entire section from The Venture Bros.#Episodes and cleaned it up a bit.
This is only temporary though, until somebody can start a Wikitable for the episodes (like List of The Boondocks episodes).

th1rt3en 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've set up the table's "skeleton" below the current episode list. Once it gets complete enough, we can get rid of the old stuff. Aldebaran135 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only that's left to do is add screenshots, perhaps it's time to get rid of the old descriptions. 69.169.74.209 02:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual episode articles

Anyone up for starting articles for each episode? Such a project exists for Drawn Together, and it looks good. Check out the episode articles linked from List of Drawn Together episodes. --Cholmes75 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be up for that. th1rt3en 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd help. Tobias087 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Obviously, I'm the guy adding in the individual episodes, and once that's done, I'd like to try at individual character pages for the show's most famous characters. It was way too long for episodes not to have guides to them yet, and with the second season there was absolutely no excuse. Sooo...here I am.

I do need help, though-I can make summaries and some quotes and trivia, the latter two I'm weak at without the DVD. So if I can get help on those, and maybe making an episode catagory/screenshots....I'd totally appreciate it. Umbric Man 2:13 28 June 2006

Great job so far on the episode pages. I'm helping out with clean-up and other things as the pages develop. -th1rt3en 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noted-thanks, dude, really! It's a boon and it's good to know people are taking an intrest in the wiki again for the show...uh, BTW, can I catch you on AIM? You likely know some stuff I don't, that I need help with adding in... UmbricMan 2:26 29, June 2006

Title Changes

I have changed the titles of some episodes to reflect those listed at the official adult swim site (http://www.adultswim.com/shows/venturebros/index.html) and the creator's livejournal (http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com). IMDb lists minor differences in the titles but the creator should be the definitive source.

Time frame of "A Very Venture Christmas"

A Very Venture Christmas obviously takes place before Trial of the Monarch due to the presence of the Monarch and Dr. Girlfriend, but how do we know for sure that it takes place after Past Tense? Jeff Silvers 15:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of the original Team Venture, maybe? In any event, I doubt that it matters, since it was all just a dream. We're probably not supposed to consider the episode a part of the show's continuity, anyway. 69.169.74.209 06:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Adult Swim confirmed it, but otherwise it's because of the presence of the characters: Steve Summers, Prof. Impossible and a pregnant Sally, Kano from the original Team Venture, the Monarch and Dr. Girlfriend still together, as well as several other characters would place the episode in the time frame between eps. 11 and 12. -th1rt3en 04:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well Adult Swim confirming it is enough for me. Jeff Silvers 20:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might be silly and way too late to mention, but the only characters actually present in the episode are Doc, Brock, the boys, and H.E.L.P.eR. Everyone else was only seen in Doc's dream. So, while we could conclude that it takes place during the first season and before "Return to Spider Skull Island," there's no reason it can't be after "Trial of the Monarch." Anything seen in the dream, such as Pete White hitting on Triana, Sally Impossible's pregnancy, the presence of Steve Summers and Sasquatch, and of course the very existence of the Krampus, should be discounted until confirmed in the real Venture universe. Although I hope the Krampus is "real." --Boradis 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity numbers and production codes.

All right, as far as I know Adult Swim doesn't include the "season-hyphen" in their current format for VB production codes. [1] So I figure, it's not really necessary, so maybe we should take that off for the purpose of accuracy.

On the other hand, to help differentiate them, maybe we should use that format for the continuity numbers. That way, it will better correspond with the individual episode pages. For example, if you go to "Hate Floats"'s page, it says "Season 2, Episode 2". So on the chart here, it'll say "2-2" to stand for that. What does everyone think? Is that a better way to handle it? 68.234.189.189 07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production code is the order in which the episodes were produced while airing number is the order in which the episodes air. See VB at TV.com. -th1rt3en 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Nav-bar

I went ahead and made Template:VentureBrosEps to cut down on the size of the normal nav-bar. -th1rt3en 19:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! - DynSkeet * Talk 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escape to the House of Mummies

The adult swim bump calls this episode "Escape to the House of Mummies Part II. Does anyone have an explanation for this? -th1rt3en 22:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see the episode. There is no part I, they give a brief synopsis of it, and also promise a part III at the end. whole episode is a takeoff of serial adventure stories. --Emb021 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i had asked this before the episode premiered :P, thanks though. -th1rt3en 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline sections

I've been reading plot summaries of various other works I'm a fan of, and it seems to me we might be going overboard with the level of detail in our storylines. I myself am guilty of this, as the storyline summary for "Escape to the House of Mummies Part II" in place as I write this is largely mine. I've been looking for a guideline page in the Wikipedia help and style guides section, but haven't found anything concrete yet. Thoughts? Pointers? --Boradis 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's largely a matter of taste, although some people fiercely believe in one approach or the other. You're right, some of the episode articles have gotten really long... they probably could stand a little trimming here and there. Not sure that there's any official Wikipedia guidance. - DynSkeet * Talk 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In that case, my preference would be for more succinct summaries that highlight major plot points, without giving away all the jokes. If we continue to go the other way, we might as well be posting an episode transcript, which I don't think is the purpose of Wikipedia. Anyway, when I write a summary I'll do it the way I prefer (more of an outline) and let the chips fall as they may. With of course the understanding that it could get overwritten shortly thereafter. --Boradis 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I recently realized exactly how long many of the articles were getting (a problem I've contributed to extensively). I trimmed "Careers in Science" back a bit and may do the same to others. - DynSkeet * Talk 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Holiday Tunes - are they notable?

Excellent article - but then, I like the show. I was wondering if the two holiday tunes from IGN articles on December 16, 2004 (just before the airing of Very Venture Xmas) IGNFF Holiday Havoc Day 12: The Venture Bros. and one a year later on December 19, 2005 IGNFF Holiday Havoc Day 13: Venture Bros. are notable for inclusion in this article? I don't know if they are considered canon or not. But they are rather funny.--EarthPerson 18:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Can anyone who has the episodes TiVo'd (or however) get new images for Love-Bheits and Hate Floats? These two are really stretched. And possibly non-stretched images for House of Mummies and Victor. Echo. November.? -th1rt3en 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text of Short Summaries

Are these directly from Adult Swim? Are they akin to Press Releases? If so, I'd think that was fair use. I only ask because many of them have had recent edits. --EarthPerson 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Episode

At some point, I think early spring 2006, Adult Swim announced that new episodes of Venture Brothers were coming. A couple of weeks later, they showed what I can only describe as a preview for season two. It was a full episode with different animation and an overall different feel that either disregarded the entire first season or was supposed to be a recap of it. Anyone else remember this happening? I haven't seen it since and seem to remember that I was worried that they had destroyed the series.Djibouti 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

april 1st "rough episode"

i watched it the first time through planned on recording second time around but didnt rerun. anyone think this should be put into the episode list for season 3? it wasnt technically the start of the third season. just bringing it to everyones attention in case they didnt see it. it said in a bump prior to the start what ep # it was cant remember. it was a suprise to be sure (tv guide schedule didnt even have it listed) but that is adult swims genius on april fools day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.195.157 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Music

Anyone know the title of the song that plays during the adverts on Adult Swim, they sound Latin

Cultural References

excuse my french, but WTF! happened to the Cultural reference area of each episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.68.58 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user "A Man in Black" has been vandalizing all of the articles. S/he consistently undoes or deletes every edit/addition to every Cultural References section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.102.45 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until this get resolved, I have started a subpage where we can store all "Cultural References" and "Connections To Other Episodes". Please go to all the episode articles and go through the histories to make sure they are saved. I've started as much as I can, but now I have to go to work. Add what you like, but do not subtract or alter unless you discuss it in the talk page first, or that would be consider vandalism. -BigGator5 23:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Episode Articles

I am beginning to think we should just delete all the episode articles. No one seems to want to fight for anything more than just the plot summary and we can have that here. -BigGator5 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 36 Article

Why is it gone?4.239.105.217 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to ask about this. What's the deal with this? I would recreate it, but since it redirects here, I don't really know how.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone redirected to here, possibly vandalism. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong with my original statement, it was actually deleted, you can see the reasoning here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lepidopterists. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopses

A number of the episode descriptions read like teasers rather than synopses, with teasing language that doesn't seem appropriate to the tone of an encyclopedia. Also (and I could be wrong), a lot of them seem suspiciously close to the teasers written in the sleeves of the DVD sets (possible plagiarism?). I'm not at home with my DVDs to make a comparison, but I'm definitely recognizing some specific sentences & phrases that I recall verbatim from the DVD sleeves. These need to be addressed. The descriptions should be a brief synopsis of the major events of the episode, avoiding "teaser"-style language. For example, the description of episode 101 currently reads:

When the Venture Family visits Tijuana for a lecture Dr. Venture is giving at the (community) University of Mexico, the dastardly Monarch weaves a cocoon of villainy that leaves the Venture Brothers trapped in his clutches, Dr. Venture kidney-less and Brock...dead? If only Dr. Venture would return his calls...

A more encylopedic synopsis might read:

On a visit to Tijuana, the Venture family find themselves in peril: Hank and Dean are kidnapped by The Monarch, who attempts to deal with his own abandonment issues by bonding with them. Dr. Venture's one remaining kidney is stolen, and he and Brock mount a rescue to save the boys, whose kidneys the Doctor requires to replace his own.

When I get home I'll compare the descriptions here with those from the DVD boxes. If there's any blatant plagiarism I'll deal with it ASAP, but regardless of that a number of these descriptions need rewriting for encyclopedic tone. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, a lot of the language in the Seasons 1 & 2 descriptions is taken straight from the DVD boxes (the season 3 & 4.1 sets don't have descriptions). This is most blatant in season 1, but there's some obvious verbatim stuff in season 2 as well. When I have time I'll take a pass at cleaning this stuff up. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with individual episode articles

Neither of the individual episodes of this television series are sufficiently independently notable to justify having their own articles; a search for sources reveals an insufficient amount of reliable secondary sources. As such, the following titles should be redirected here: A Very Venture Christmas, Operation: P.R.O.M., The Silent Partners, Assisted Suicide (Venture Bros. episode), Bright Lights, Dean City, Everybody Comes to Hank's, Every Which Way But Zeus, Pomp & Circuitry, The Diving Bell Vs. The Butter-Glider, Pinstripes & Poltergeists, The Better Man, Self-Medication (Venture Bros. episode), The Revenge Society, Return to Malice, Perchance to Dean, Handsome Ransom, Blood of the Father, Heart of Steel, The Family That Slays Together, Stays Together (Part II), The Family That Slays Together, Stays Together (Part I), Now Museum-Now You Don't, Dr. Quymn, Medicine Woman, Home Is Where the Hate Is (The Venture Bros.), The Invisible Hand of Fate, The Doctor Is Sin, Shadowman 9: In the Cradle of Destiny, Showdown at Cremation Creek (Part II), Showdown at Cremation Creek (Part I), ¡Viva los Muertos!, I Know Why the Caged Bird Kills, Guess Who's Coming to State Dinner?, Fallen Arches, Love-Bheits, Victor. Echo. November., Twenty Years to Midnight, Escape to the House of Mummies Part II, Assassinanny 911, Hate Floats, Powerless in the Face of Death, Return to Spider-Skull Island, The Trial of the Monarch, Past Tense (Venture Bros. episode), Tag Sale – You're It!, Are You There, God? It's Me, Dean, Mid-Life Chrysalis, Ice Station – Impossible!, Ghosts of the Sargasso, Eeney, Meeney, Miney... Magic!, The Incredible Mr. Brisby, Home Insecurity, Careers in Science, Dia de Los Dangerous!, and The Terrible Secret of Turtle Bay. Neelix (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was using the plot summaries from the stand-alone articles to rewrite the synopses here (as explained above), after which I intended to redirect the episode titles here. But I stalled out somewhere in season 3. I'll see if I can get back to it. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Strongly disagree - Some of these (The Diving Bell Vs. The Butter-Glider‎ and I Know Why the Caged Bird Kills‎) are extensively researched and should not be merged. Lumping all articles together as if they were all plot-and-stub, unreferences articles does not make sense. - Tim1965 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. More information is available if each episode has its own article. Ratemonth (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples Tim1965 provides, "The Diving Bell Vs. The Butter-Glider‎" and "I Know Why the Caged Bird Kills‎", have not been extensively researched, nor could extensive research be done on them because these episodes have barely been covered at all in reliable secondary sources. The long lists of "references" on those articles do not source the claims they make at all; instead, they point to the primary source to which the episodes themselves purportedly make reference. These articles fail the general notability guideline and should not be covered apart from entries on the episode list. Neelix (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Extensively researched" my foot. These articles are almost entirely plot summary and trivia lists. Neelix is absolutely right: try looking through the references in those articles: most of them don't support the claims they're referencing, and are merely thrown in there to support the trivia lists. In "Butter Glider", for example, you have a trivia tidbit mentioning that a couple of the characters make reference to the board game Operation, and the sources are TV commercials for the board game. The sources don't mention The Venture Bros. in any way, shape, or form; they're merely thrown in there to make tangential connections between bits of pointless trivia. Some of them predate the episode by years. Honestly, it's like a Family Guy "pop culture references" list. Don't believe everything followed by little blue numbers in brackets. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you already went ahead and erased those pages that some other users worked to post, but I must say even if you two think that some of individual episode sites were poorly referenced, that is a ridiculous reason to merge them all. It is entirely a matter of your opinion whether "the individual episodes of this television series are sufficiently independently notable to justify having their own articles". The general list of episodes hardly provides the same type of information or trivia on each episode as the individual pages did. --Gizmo8204 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "information" was just unnecessarily long plot summaries, and trivia is unencyclopedic. The articles did not pass the general notability guideline as these individual episodes have not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. That they were interesting for their level of trivial detail is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it shameful that the extensive effort which went into writing detailed plot summaries have been removed and merged into this one-off page. Same logic as above can be used to merge the plot summaries for South Park and The Simpsons. If you're worried about trivia sections being encyclopedic, spend the time editing those instead of simply (and IMO, lazily) obliterating the entire article. I'm saddened that you've decided to point your "deletionist" gun at the fine collection of The Venture Bros articles. After reading your profile, past discussion topics, and examining the mostly admirable amount of trimming you've done to many other Wikipedia articles, I can't see myself having the time or energy to fight you on this. Hopefully sometime soon, you'll move onto other projects and another user can restore the episode guide back to what it was. --Decker12 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read WP:NOT#PLOT: Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be plot-only descriptions of fictional works. These articles were about 90% plot summary, 10% lists of unsourced trivia that mostly just regurgitated bit pieces of the plot, pointing out the pop culture references. This is exactly the kind of thing we don't want on Wikipedia. Again, the most basic threshold of notability for stand-alone articles is that the episodes themselves have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is a pretty low bar, but even with that most basic criteria I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe that most of these episodes have received significant coverage in secondary sources, particularly not enough to justify whole articles of just plot summary and trivia. And for the record, I'm saying this as a huge fan of the show. If I felt the articles could've been improved in a way that would've passed the general notability criteria, I'd have done so. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to jump into this and throw fuel onto an unnecessary fire, but individual episode articles of the Venture Bros. are necessary (arguably moreso than for other cartoons), if for no other reason than the esoteric nature and machine-gun delivery of its pop culture references. When I first watched the series, I found the wikipedia article summaries to be not just helpful but necessary as companion pieces to each article. I realize that most contributors spend WAY too much time on a synopsis that has no place in an encyclopedia article, but the references, pastiches, trivia, quotations and various other information are what's important. That's what is supposed to be provided by an episode summary, and that is what we are currently be deprived of / depriving users of. At this point it's a huge task to replace them, but well-worth the effort, and I'd be willing to contribute. If the problem is unsourced trivia, then again, I am MORE than happy to provide the necessary citation and information. I find it very difficult to believe that these articles were deleted when ninety percent of the South Park episode articles that are all plot summary are still stinking up this site. --Eduardohutch (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:TRIV, and WP:OTHERCRAP, which pretty much address all the points in your above statement. I'd also like to address some specifics:
  • "the references, pastiches, trivia, quotations and various other information are what's important"
Actually, that's exactly what's not important. What's important is background information on the writing and production of the episode: for example, not just that the creators threw in a pop culture reference, but why did they make that particular reference? What inspired it? And also information on the impact/reception of the episode: were the pop culture references commented on by critics? Did they make the episode more effective comedically? Are some of them part of a pattern between episodes (ie. multiple references to the same thing repeated throughout a season)? And of course this would all have to be reliably sourcecd.
  • "If the problem is unsourced trivia, then again, I am MORE than happy to provide the necessary citation and information."
I am wary that by this statement you intend to simply source the trivia to the episodes themselves. That is woefully insufficient. You'd need to find secondary sources that not only mention the trivia in question, but comment on its background and/or significance (relative to my previous statement). It is because this kind of coverage does not seem to exist that these articles were redirected.
  • "individual episode articles of the Venture Bros. are necessary (arguably moreso than for other cartoons), if for no other reason than the esoteric nature and machine-gun delivery of its pop culture references."
  • "I find it very difficult to believe that these articles were deleted when ninety percent of the South Park episode articles that are all plot summary are still stinking up this site."
These arguments simply don't hold water. The comparison to South Park falls under WP:OTHERCRAP, but I could also mention that there are few shows whose pop culture references are more fast & furious than, say, Robot Chicken or Family Guy, and yet there are no individual episode articles for Robot Chicken, and if one scans through List of Family Guy episodes you'll find that the ones that the ones that are good or featured articles all provide reliably-sourced information on the background and impact of the pop culture references, rather than simply mentioning the references. As I mentioned earlier, these kinds of sources don't seem to exist for most (if not all) of the VB episodes. It's not enough to simply state what the references were: This is an encyclopedia, not a game of pop culture connect-the-dots.
In summary, as I've said before, the most basic threshold for inclusion is that the topic have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. The VB episodes don't seem to meet this criteria. If you can provide some reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage to individual VB episodes, then we can discuss the possibility of stand-alone articles for the episodes those sources cover. So far not a single person who wants to reinstate the articles has provided a single secondary source to justify such. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you're obviously tired of this issue, as it has apparently seen some discussion. Regardless, here goes:
  • "the references, pastiches, trivia, quotations and various other information are what's important"
You say they aren't important, but then you list several points on why these things are important in context (Venture Bros. for example have countless jokes enhanced by the references). Pastiches are something that the series has actually perfected to the point that it's almost a trademark. In regard to reception and criticism ...are you saying they DO belong in the criticism section? Because it seems that this is something that shouldn't be mentioned in a reception section.
  • "individual episode articles of the Venture Bros. are necessary (arguably moreso than for other cartoons), if for no other reason than the esoteric nature and machine-gun delivery of its pop culture references."
  • "I find it very difficult to believe that these articles were deleted when ninety percent of the South Park episode articles that are all plot summary are still stinking up this site."
I fail to see how the South Park argument doesn't hold water in spite of WP:OTHERCRAP. While there are sufficient episode articles for South Park (Cartman Gets An Anal Probe) I've run into numerous ones, particularly in mid-to-late seasons, that were little more than simple episode summaries that even had a tag at the beginning of the article labeling it as needing clean-up. (Jared Has Aides suffered profusely until recently when I took it upon myself to fix it.) Comparing Robot Chicken to Venture Bros. is also a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Venture Bros. subscribes to satire, pastiche, and allusion: Robot Chicken uses simple references. The key difference between an allusion and a simple reference is that understanding the joke requires some previous knowledge of the source, whereas a reference is typically explained in the context of the actual joke, thus requiring no previous pop culture knowledge. (Family Guy cut jokes are an excellent example.) In regard to providing source information and citation: I'm well aware of the difference between citing an actual outside source and simply linking a youtube to a commercial for the Operation board game (Or for that matter, simply linking a separate wikipedia article as a source). I had no intention of simply citing the show. I take it you've had people try to pull that before.
Regardless of how much coverage this issue has received in the past, all I know is this: This site was a wealth of knowledge (Nobody's playing pop culture "connect the dots," I'm simply interested in learning more about things. Not to sound snippy, and pardon me if I do, but I was of the impression that was the point of an encyclopedia: To make knowledge available to the masses.) Going to the trouble of deleting an entire series of articles after someone had already worked (and worked very hard) on them is opening the door to a path I'd hate to see wikipedia follow, and that is further blurring the lines between what constitutes an acceptable article (an episode of a complex series that takes potential hours of research to fully understand and whose fingers are dipped into all facets of popular culture from new wave music to Japanese cartoons, or say, an episode of "Lost," which is only significant within the very small confines of the universe in which the series exists.). By the way, excuse me if I didn't time stamp this properly. --Eduardohutch (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the pop culture trivia/references are not important in and of themselves. From an encyclopedia standpoint, they are important only insomuch as they they add to a discussion of the series' nature and the writing, development, and impact of each episode. In other words, if all it's going to result in is a trivia list of "this references this, that references that" then it's not contributing anything of substance to discussing the development or impact of the show. I'm a huge fan of VB (even got to meet Jackson, Doc, & James Urbaniak a couple times at Comic-Con this past week), but cultural pastiches are hardly unique to the show, and certainly not to the point of being "almost a trademark". As previously mentioned, the basic threshold for inclusion as a stand-alone article is that the episode have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (see Wikipedia:Notability). If you are willing to invest the time and effort in tracking down sources that discuss the development, reception, and impact of individual episodes, and feel you can write more fleshed-out articles than what existed previously (which were all over detailed plot summaries and trivia lists), then by all means go ahead. I note that, despite your work on Jared Has Aides, the article still lacks even a single citation to a reliable source of any kind. Wikipedia:Television episodes also seems pertinent here. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pertinent observation that the recognition of a pop culture reference in and of itself is superfluous. ("Hank and Dean play 'Operation' in scene X of episode Y," which is sort of a pointless "no sh*t, Sherlock" observation.) Much of what was deleted relates specifically to the "series' nature and the writing, development, and (or) impact." A specific example comes from the episode "Viva Los Muertos" in which the Scooby Doo gang is juxtaposed with the identity of serial killers and other controversial real-life figures. As such, cartoon sound-effects are incorporated to make light of serious moments involving drug addiction and sexual abuse in moments of black comedy that are rarely found on television. I use the term trademark loosely: while VB is not the only show to carry out such pastiches, it is a rare example of a show that uses them so much, so fluidly, and in such a clever fashion. (I reiterate the above episode as a perfect example, and add the use of a Hardy Boys/Menendez Brothers pastiche from the episode "Self Medication.") I am willing to invest the time and the effort, but I need a week or two to get my ducks in a row ...because this is obviously going to be a labor of love, and I imagine several drafts of an article will be shot down before I can find a model for what is acceptable. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do to fix my South Park contribution on "Jared Has Aides." (I take it my "Imaginationland" contribution was adequate, though I admit I had to fight a small war for that one.) I must also ask the question as to what other series has incorporated pastiches as effectively and regularly as VB, because I'm at sort of a loss, though my brain may be stuck in cartoon-mode and as such temporarily limiting my knowledge base.
Sorry, one more thing: I'm obviously new to this, so I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd direct me to where in wikipedia it states that trivia is "unencyclopediac." Many thanks in advance. --96.225.153.143 (talk) (Eduardohutch) 02:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant policy relating to these articles is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which says in part that Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that "Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only description of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." The guideline WP:TRIV gives advice on how to handle trivia-style information, saying "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information", and instead to add relevant (sourced) facts and analysis into prose sections "to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions". If all readers/editors are interested in is plot summary and trivia, there is a Venture Bros. wiki for that kind of thing. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, has in recent years shown a trend of avoiding lists of trivia (often otherwise phrased as "in popular culture", "cultural references", or the like) in favor of well-written prose that discusses the inspiration and significance of the cultural references/pastiches, rather than simply listing what was referenced.
As for other series that effectively incorporate pastiches, South Park and The Simpsons are the first to jump to my mind (South Park even had a Scooby Doo episode), though there are certainly others (the short-lived Clerks cartoon comes to mind). I admit that I hold The Venture Bros. in high esteem in this regard, as it is my favorite show on television in recent years and its pastiches dovetail nicely with my age range and interests, and I do find it very clever.
Your comments about "Viva los Muertos" are a good example of original research: In order to add observations like these to a Wikipedia article, you need to back them up with reliable secondary sources that directly support the claims. That's exactly the kind of content that these articles were missing.
I really do wish you success with your labor of love, and please know that I truly love the show as well but as an experienced Wikipedian I consider what is best from Wikipedia's standpoint before I consider what's best from a VB fan's standpoint. I would be happy to take a look at any drafts you come up with and offer my input: I suggest creating drafts in your userspace so that you may work on them at your leisure and develop them fully before putting them in the mainspace. You can do this by creating a page at the title User:Eduardohutch/name of episode.
P.S. To sign your posts you can either type four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or click on the signature button located above the edit window. You don't have to do it manually. One advantage of this is that the correct date/time in UTC will be appended to your comment, helping to preserve the chronological flow of discussion (your previously manually-signed comments were 4 hours off from UTC, which I assume reflects your local time—which appears to be US Eastern Standard Time—but did not accurately reflect when the comment was made in Coordinated Universal Time, which is the time standard that Wikipedia uses). --IllaZilla (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode order appears to be wrong

Comparing the order on my Season 1 DVD, it seems the order listed here is incorrect. Are we to presume that the order on the DVDs is actually the "correct" order as chosen by the creators? If so, this is the order they should be listed in:

  • Dia Die Los Dangerous!
  • Careers in Science
  • Mid-Life Chrysalis
  • Eeney, Meeney, Miney... Magic!
  • The Incredible Mr Brisby
  • Tag Sale - You're It!
  • Home Insecurity
  • Ghosts of the Sargasso
  • Ice Station - Impossible!
  • Are you there, God? It's me, Dean
  • Past Tense
  • The Trial of the Monarch
  • Return to Spider-Skill Island

I feel the show is better introduced in this order, I think, so I can see why it might have been changed. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-ordered Seasons 1 and 2 based on the DVD releases. This appears to be the "correct" ordering chosen by Publick and Hammer for the DVDs. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episode lists on Wikipedia are based on the original air date, not on the order in which they appear on DVD releases. This is the case for nearly every episode list I've encountered. The production numbers are given in the list so readers can see the "intended" order. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but WP generally reflects the creator's intentions, which mostly tallies with broadcast order, but sometimes it doesn't, as with this show. For example, Firefly has episodes listed in the "correct" order, not the broadcast order. This is especially true in cases where the order has been changed for the DVD releases. Finally, production orders have absolutely ZERO to do with intended viewing order with any TV show. They're completely independent. The fact that you're unaware of this makes me think you're not in a position to make this call by yourself. Can you provide any WP documentation that states broadcast order should take precedence over creator intended orders? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the guidelines and can find nothing that supports your POV. Given how WP generally takes the creator's intentions over network changes, especially in cases where these changes can be verified by DVD releases, I'm reverting your undo. If you still think that this is incorrect, please find me an example on WP where broadcast order has taken precedence over a creator intended order (that's reflected on a DVD release to boot). The only examples I can find contradict that stance. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for more input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#DVD order or broadcast order? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over a week since anyone commented at the WP:TV thread linked in my previous post. Based on the feedback there, I'm restoring the list to broadcast order. I don't see any strong arguments to the contrary, and no sources backing up the claims of "creator intent". Feel free to continue discussing in that thread, but unless a consensus forms to the contrary I believe this list should remain in broadcast order as it has been for years. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to strongly agree with ThunderPeel2001, it's actually not just that it's the order on the DVDs, in the commentary the creators of the show themselves explicitly refer to the episode order, and specific episodes as 'this is episode six' and so on. The original airdates seems like a fairly minor point of trivia, and the counter point about Firefly above is pretty airtight in that regard. Also seems a bit WP:SYNTH to extrapolate it as the correct episode order compared with an actual reference.121.73.221.187 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it seems to be back to airing order. Maybe there should be a separate DVD order column? Seems like a more important piece of information to most people at this point than production order (not that those shouldn't be included too). There should at least be an acknowledgement in the introduction that the DVDs use a different order, just to avoid confusion. Jlynne1219 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4, Ep. 16 - Prostitutes vs. Assassins

I just modified the synopsis for this episode after rewatching it. The first time I watched the episode (when it first aired) I thought that the prostitutes that Rusty hired were really assassins working for Molotov Cocktease, since Molotov says they are, and we see a brief "flash-forward" fantasy sequence of them attacking the prom. The original writer of this episode's synopsis thought so too.

However, on second viewing, it's clear that Molotov was lying about them being her assassins, and that they really are just prostitutes. For one, they don't turn on the prom at midnight like Molotov said they would, and Brock breathes a sigh of relief at that. For another thing, when Molotov first appears in the episode after tranquilizing Brock, she threatens one of the prostitutes, who reacts as if she has never seen Molotov - which would be unnecessary with nobody else in the room.

I've updated the synopsis to reflect this, and corrected the inaccurate info. Just thought I should mention why.

BevansDesign (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - the assassins are genuine - compare their character models to those at the end of Season 3, Episode 13. The reason they didn't attack the Ventures is presumably because of Rusty's Spanish Fly. Jackson Publick has also stated in the comments on his blog that they were actual assassins. I have amended the text accordingly.86.0.93.199 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6

I've been away from Wikipedia for a long time, and I don't feel like looking up how to site sources and all that again. Plus, one of you can reword this to make it sound better anyway. So, here's what I would like someone to add to the page. Thank you.

"On August 1, 2014, Adult Swim posted the official Season 6 trailer onto YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WL4XfBTCe0

On December 12, 2014, the Venture Bros. blog gave a release date of January 19th. http://www.venturebrosblog.com/2014/12/the-venture-bros-space-special-to-premiere/ "

Isaac thegamer (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for changes: (Season 4 Vol. 1 and Season 4 Vol. 2, and more)

I recently moved all the specials into their respective places in the series chronology, but when I tried to continue to work to improve the page I found my lack of knowledge limiting what I could do.

Could somebody please separate season four into two parts ("Season 4 Vol. 1" and "Season 4 Vol. 2") as these are completely distinct seasons with regard to production, air dates, home media and, ultimately, according to Adult Swim and Astrobase Go. The changes would need to be made in the series overview box as well as the main article itself.

In addition, it now seems weird to me that the specials aren't accounted for in the "No. Overall" boxes, but I didn't know how to add them.

Could somebody add those things to the page? Thanks. 122.111.9.112 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? 122.111.9.112 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of The Venture Bros. episodes. 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:

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) 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of The Venture Bros. episodes. 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:

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) 06:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Venture_Bros._episodes&oldid=1210848976"