Talk:The Venture Bros.

I Have To Ask

While I love the Venture Brothers show, I am somewhat horrifed at how many articles relating to it can be found on Wikipedia. Every now and then, I wonder if someone should mark 80% of the little sub-sub character entries with "NOT NOTABLE". Does The Monarch really deserve his own article? Does every single episode deserve an article? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?

I know this sounds sarcastic, but I am genuinely curious why this sort of thing happens. Is it deliberate? Are their guidelines that justify this state of affairs? --Nik (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To ask another question... Why not? I'm not particularly for or against either side, but I was just wondering... Why not?? It's not like it affects any other part of Wikipedia, or removes pages from other subjects. What difference does it make if there's a whole page for every chapter of every episode?? I bet there's a page for every Beatles song, for example. When there is no harm done by creating these pages (like giving the Monarch his own page) then the only harm comes from trying to impose your own opinion. I personally do not think minor characters should get their own page, but that's just my opinion. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is simply that no one bothers to clean it up. I agree with you, I simply don't want to be the one to start all that hassle. You want to do it, I'll help, I just don't want to start it. Rau's Speak Page 22:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The recently created Dermott Fictel page is for an even more minor character. apparently some folks think wikipedia needs to be a complete resource for every fictional universe everywhere. -Nais (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: you mean the redirect that was recently created. I wasn't even aware that character was named... Rau's Speak Page 02:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

DId you seriously ask if The Monarch deserved his own article?! Dermott Fictel sure as hell didn't. Triana Orpheus and Helper don't. Nor Molotov Cocktease and Myra Brandish. But the Monarch deserves one if anyone does. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point. None of them do deserve their own article. Rau's Speak Page 06:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is entirely theoretical, to me anyway, because it's probably the biggest Wiki can of worms there is. I haven't the time or the patience to open it. Tons of pages exist for insignificant characters from insignificant TV shows. Character names should ALL just redirect to the main TV show where they came from, in my opinion.

I was just wondering if there's some wiki policy that covers this. Because it feels like one single TV show can generate potentially hundreds of pages. One page for every character, one page for every person involved in creating the show, one page for the listings of all the episodes, one page for listing all the characters, etc, etc.

It's particularly frustrating to see this when pages I do care about get deleted because they're deemed non-notable. It seems laughable to deem ANY topic non notable when there's a page devoted to Dr Venture's midget parasitic twin brother, Jonas Venture Jr. --Nik (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to me, notability is based on the amount of real world content. If there are reviews for something fictional, or it is brought up extensively in an interview(s), it's notable. This kid is not. Dr. Venture, maybe. Jonas Venture, unlikely. But one pages inclusion is not bases for the inclusion of another. If someone wants to make a character list and redirect, I won't object. Or even if you want to redirect them all here with a "Characters" section. Rau's Speak Page 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Articles

I would like to inform the main talk page for all things Venture Bros that episode articles are being alter to the point where there is only a plot summary by the user A Man In Black. Such articles include The Doctor Is Sin. So far, I have seen damage to a lot of Season 3 episode articles, I have no idea if he's gone on to other seasons.

I have currently vowed to make sure ORB is kept safe. If a single user takes up arms in an episode article to restore and/or protect, then we can ensure that these articles are kept intact. -BigGator5 08:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. There's an explanation of why this content has been removed on several of the article talk pages; would you care to join that conversation? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you even care? Leave the articles alone. These are mainly for fans written by fans. -BigGator5 07:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the fan encyclopedia written by fans for fans. It has certain core principles, including verifiability and no original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask why you care so much. Are you a fan of the show?? -BigGator5 07:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter? Where are your sources for these sections? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a source for the plot summaries? Maybe we need to delete every article. -BigGator5 07:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The plot summaries are not evaluative, are (ideally) concise, and reflect the form of the work, and thus need no further sources. "Cultural references" are evaluative ("X is a reference to Y" is an evaluation), are generally indiscriminate in that every single joke is explained, and do not reflect the form of the work insofar as they are separate and indiscriminately cherry-picked. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer my bloody question! WHY DO YOU CARE??! -BigGator5 07:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you care? Why does it matter? WP:V and WP:NOR remain, in any event. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I will answer the questions refused to answer. I am fan of the show and think the infomation provided adds depth to the episodes. I come here because half the time I don't get the cultural references and these articles help clear-up any confusion I sometimes have. Sure they are unsource, but they matter in the context of the episode and gives purpose to these articles. I mean, what's the point in having these articles without this important infomation? Why don't we just mark them all for deletion while we are at it? -BigGator5 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I come to Wikipedia often to see the references that I missed, however I also acknowledge that this is a bad habit. There are likely innumerable fan sites dedicated to rooting out these references, and have policies that encourage the cataloging of all that seem "reasonable" by some arbitrary designation of what makes sense to the fans. Wikipedia strives to be verifiable in its assertions, if an editor on Wikipedia points out a reference there is no way to verify such a claim as being accurate. There only exists speculation that it is likely true having had watched the episode. The only way that these claims become verifiable is if a third party source, likely from the director's commentary or other commentators, states that that was their goal. It may seem limiting, but the point is not to fill a page with interesting facts that might be true if interpreted a certain way, but with interesting and reliably sourced information on the episode's production and reception, alongside a concise plot summary. I do enjoy the show very much, and agree that it is better served by trying to follow the policies of Wikipedia like the excellent example of The Simpsons episode pages. Ccs4ever (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest we delete the articles altogether. There is nothing left in them but plot summaries and we can have that in the episode list. -BigGator5 23:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(Indent Reset)Ah the age old battle. Is it notable enough? Honestly I think removing any valid information in an encyclopedia of everything is preposterous unless that information is not accurate. A_Man_In_Black is of the mind that if he hasn't heard of it it's not notable. He's not alone. There are countless article deleters out there who hide behind "notability." They are slowly destroying Wikipedia. Perhaps if they stopped trolling and started creating new pages instead of deleting the works of other they could move past their bitterness and become contributing members of society. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• "an encyclopedia about everything"? Might be worth reviewing: WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIR. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Dp76764 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah 198.6.46.11 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I find a lot of the information being deleted interesting. Why not wikify it instead of deleting all of it. It seems strange to me that someone "working" on this article is focused on taking a lot out, and it seems to be the actions of one editor. This is a popular show with a lot of fans and interesting complicated story lines full of references and allusions. So it makes sense that the Wikipedia entry would be somewhat complex. Why undo so much of the good faith edits of others?(Wallamoose (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

If anyone wants to help start moving this information to the Venture Bros. Wiki (linked above), let me know. I always thought that Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for such specific articles on fictional universes, hence the VB wiki's existence. - 72.88.203.55 (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Multi-generational story line

I didn't see anything about the fact that the main characters are part of a family in at least its third generation of superhero. It seems to have declined over time and become corrupted and lazy... Comments? (Wallamoose (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Mediation Cabal Request

Howdy. I'm responding to a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal case page. Generally, before I tag a case as "open" and start butting in on a conversation, I like to make sure everybody involved is comfortable with having me here as a mediator. Please remember that MedCab members are only informal facilitators, and cannot make binding decisions; while this means that I present little risk, it is also important that everyone have a mind toward cooperation before I can really be of any service.

At any rate, having a neutral opinion trying to help lead these discussions toward a compromise is usually quite helpful in the preservation of everybody's sanity, so I hope you're interested. If you will consent to participate in this process, please indicate as much below this post. --Moralis (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Censorship"

Season 1 (at least) was NOT "censored". Listening to the commentary reveals that there is "nothing beneath the black bars". Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Homage?

I like to think I was a pretty sophisticated kid. I hated virtually everything Hannah-Barbera did for TV. No, make that just plain everything. They didn't have an original idea in their heads. (See my Amazon review of The Flinstones.) To call The Venture Bros. an "homage" to Jonny Quest is a perverse use of the word, as it's more like a thorough, unapologetic trashing.

One episode has a reference to Tom of Finland. Perhaps this should be inserted in the article with an x-ref. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline?

In season one, the age seems to be in 1980s, approximately 1988, as pointed out that the rocket crash in Ghosts of the Sargasso happened in 1960, and it's been almost 30 years since then, Rusty is 43 years old, as in Powerless in the face of death, it's revealed that he didn't lose his virginity until he was 24, which presumably, was when he slept with Myra Brandish in the backseat of his car, and his sons were born 19 years ago, despite being 16, which is caused by the lag time in the process of their multiple reanimations. The Invisible hand of fate, takes place approximately in 1971, based on the fact that the boys are still babies. The cultural references made by the characters in season one supports the idea that it is the 1980s, such as in Tag Sale – You're IT!, when the monarch and Dr. Girlfriend point out one of the members from depeche mode, who happens to be straight (same with the other members of depeche mode). But other references in the show point towards the show taking place in the modern day. Such as in "The Buddy System" when the Sea Captain mentions that he looks like johnny depp, referencing pirates of the caribbean. Also in early episodes does it point towards the fact that the show takes place in the modern day, such as in Tag Sale – You're IT!, Henchmen 21 buys a lightsaber saying that it's been his dream since he was 4, Henchman 21 is approximately in his mid-20s, having served the monarch for at least 5 years since he was kidnapped when he was 15, and if it was 1988, Star Wars would have been released 11 years ago, in 1977. So, I was just pointing out that there's a, probably deliberate, mushing of a timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.11.74 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One might as well criticize the Sherlock Holmes stories for their incoherent timeline. Conan-Doyle had no intention of writing dozens of stories, and paid little attention to sequencing. Creators of TV series (especially of this sort) rarely have any idea of where the long-term story arc will go, so they have little reason to keep track of chronology. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the season one finale was written with an out in case it wasn't picked up for another season its a pretty safe bet to say that they weren't to concerned with making possible errors in the timeline. Lando242 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

it clearly doesn't take place in our universe anyways, some fiction is reality, some fiction is fiction. technology is obviously superior in their world so who knows what would have came out when, for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.20.93 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Where's Doc Hammer?

The show's origins makes no mention of how Doc Hammer got involved, and doesn't cite him as co-creator. He may not, technically, have been there from the beginning, but he certainly has a place in any telling of the show's history. It's weird to me that Jackson Publick is hanging on to the "creator" credit when 50% of the show's lore and (probably) characters come from Doc Hammer. Of course I have no facts to back this up, but I do think Doc Hammer deserves to be mentioned for his work, however much/little that is. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he did some work on the pilot but he wasn't involved in the show's actual creation. However, you can argue that the amount of creative work he does for the show deserves an Executive Producer credit. But that's between Hammer and Lazzo & Crofford. 76.167.48.70 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Developer" perhaps? Template:Infobox_television - Immigrant laborer (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Brock is modeled on Race Bannon"

In Section 4.1, this article claims that "Brock is modeled on Race Bannon". I have to take issue with this claim: the show features a recurring character who is direct homage to Race Bannon: named, explicitly, Race Bannon (http://teamventure.org/vbwiki/Race_Bannon) (a few other Johnny Quest characters make cameos, including the titular Johnny, renamed to 'Action Johnny). Brock is more accurately considered as a pastiche of 80's action movie heroes and James Bond. While Johnny Quest is definitely a large part of the inspiration for the show, its misleading to say that the main characters are directly representational; they are not. Jwieder (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Venture Bros.. 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/20060715123718/http://www.quickstopentertainment.com:80/?p=281 to http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/?p=281
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705070909/http://www.williamsstreet.com:80/cat/The-Venture-Bros-Album-on-CD.html? to http://www.williamsstreet.com/cat/The-Venture-Bros-Album-on-CD.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on The Venture Bros.. 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/20060718015654/http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/11320.html to http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/11320.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718182517/http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/27886.html to http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/27886.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/?p=281
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718182255/http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/13805.html to http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/13805.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718182517/http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/27886.html to http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/27886.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.williamsstreet.com/cat/The-Venture-Bros-Album-on-CD.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701115229/http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/ to http://jacksonpublick.livejournal.com/

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) 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Williams Street

The company began to be involved in its production from the 2011 Special and from Season 5. For the confirm, visit these web links for the "closing credits" of Pilot and the previous four seasons:

• Pilot[1];
• Season 1[2];
• Season 2[3];
• Season 3[4];
• Season 4[5];
• 2004 Special[6].

Luigi1090 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

needs "timely" cleanup

Summary and overview comments seem to be years out of date, like 4-5 years. I've watched every episode over the years, for me it's entertainment rather than some research mission, so I'm not in a position to pick nits… but something feels amiss.

As well, there's a chunk of comment from ~2013 that seems to be present-tense oriented, like "announced they had begun writing" or "signed a new contract." Then I scan around this, and note that there's a bunch of timeline trivia. I may remove everything but data about the current/next season and the broadcast premiere, and even that ought to be minimized. Anyone is welcome to have a whack at this.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Tone and Balance evaluation

Overall it would appear the a majority of the article maintains a perfectly informative and balanced tone. That being said I did notice that the "characters" section goes a little further than simply listing factual information. Instead going as far as label interpretive aspects/events as facets of character. As someone who is new to the platform I'm not sure if this analysis is correct but I thought it was worth a comment. Npb5183 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we need the gay characters section?

I don't think gay characters is an important part of the show, especially if there are, what, four gay characters in the entire cast? Seems unnecessary. Plus, it talks too long about Colonel Gentleman, who barely makes a dent in the shows story, and is mainly played off for laughs. As a gay man, I say we remove this section. FunnySilly (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I eagerly await the response from the "As a pedophiliac" person who decries the several characters and MANY times pedophilia was used as a subplot in the show. Sorry, but it is PART OF THE SHOW, regardless if it offends. It needs to stay. In fact, the article has been SO gutted of content, nobody reading it would really have a clue what the themes of the show even are any more.121.98.228.243 (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It should stay, but with a new title, like "LGBTQ representation". Perhaps the representation is bad (I don't know, I haven't watched the show), but it should still be mentioned. Historyday01 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yah let's have a section on cis-gendered, indigenous, Asian, Caucasian, African, or are those sections too 'normal'? It's absurd someone is even trying to make this argument when you don't have a leg to stand on. 2601:644:4780:8240:519A:51C0:D212:A69B (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The section should be expanded, not removed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not an argument, LGBTQ representation does not represent a theme or of any canonical important to The Venture Bros, there is no message by the show creator on how this represents any importance or value to the show, you are creating relevance to fit a narrative when there is none. 2601:644:4780:8240:519A:51C0:D212:A69B (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to "fit a narrative", I just think that such representation is important enough it should have its own section, as simple as that. @User:Dylanvt, thought this discussion might be of interest considering your recent edit. The section should be improved, surely, but I don't believe it should be removed. Historyday01 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Gay characters are important to the themes of the show is besides the point. I am slightly confused by an approach that separates out queer characters for discussion as a structure. Whether or not the characters are part of the show is not in dispute, whether or not they should be put into their own differentiating section should be decided by whether or not the media itself, or sources relevant to the media, makes that distinction. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Self replying, as it stands the LGBTQ+ characters are fit under a perfectly reasonable section heading with sourced content. Thematic distinction and analysis by themes is a suitable framework for explicit discussion in the article. It is also one of a number of similarly framed thematic sub heading article segments. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I only put them separately because I was unsure where else to incorporate them... but I'm fine with them being incorporated in another section. Historyday01 (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)