Talk:List of programs broadcast by Fox

216.83.121.194

All edits by 216.83.121.194 in the past several days are suspect. This is a repeat vandal who likes to add bogus information around a variety of places. In this case, a lot of extra WWE shows. I have no idea which, if any, are valid, and several people have made other edits since, making it difficult to just revert his changes. TexasAndroid 8 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

I also noticed some odd data duplication going on. I deleted the duplicate data, and the links to WWE Experience. I also disambiguated some links, while I was at it. — EagleOne\^Talk July 9, 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Updating

Has this page been forgotten, the schedule really needs to be updated. -Supmypeeps -

anonymous comments

The links to The Visitor, Women In Prison and X-Men don't point to articles for Fox TV shows like they should.

Also, "The Wilton-North Report" is not listed under former shows.

Don't forget to list summer premieres!

Shouldn't Don't Forget the Lyrics be listed somewhere on this page? What about other shows premiering in the summer? Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Secret Millionaire?

Wasn't Secret Millionaire on Fox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to Secret Millionaire --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Animation Domination

Some year we need to give Animation Domination get its own pageTheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks

I know, right? Somebody needs to do something abou it. 74.88.97.42 (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus, not merged. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids with the List of programs broadcast by Fox. Fox Kids is a programming block, not a television network. The network is the Fox Broadcasting Company. All of the material here would be retained in the merger. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - While a renaming of the other article might be warranted, a merge is inappropriate. While Fox Kids did air on Fox network stations, it (a) also aired on non-Fox stations and (b) was treated as a separate entity (neither contained advertising for the other, except during the rarest occassion). JPG-GR (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source for Fox Kids airing on non-Fox stations? According to List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids, Taz-Mania aired on Fox Kids, as did Bobby's World, Peter Pan and the Pirates]], etc. However, according to Alex McNeil (1996), Total Television, pp 108, 655, 820, etc, these were Fox series. McNeil, who is one of the authorities on U.S. television programs, makes no distinction between Fox and Fox Kids. And indeed, there's already a section for Fox Kids in this article. Why is it "inappropriate" to merge two articles together when the content is already the same? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source? Not that comes to mind. But, as my local station, WKBD, airing Fox Kids from 1994 onward despite switching to UPN at that network's launch is enough evidence for me. As for why a merge is inappropriate, Fox Kids programming no more belongs in this article than syndicated shows that air on Fox network affiliates do. Fox Kids was a separate programming block available firstly to Fox stations and then offered to alternate local stations if the local Fox network wasn't interested (as was the case in Detroit). JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for a source. Reliable sources treat them as the same. "A handful of non-Fox stations aired Fox Kids, but I have no evidence to support the fact that they were separate" doesn't really work here, especially when the content at List of Fox Kids programs is already duplicated in this article. Give me a reliable source that treats them as completely separate; a book would be really good. BTW, there are all sorts of stations which air network programs that another station has refused or pre-empted. That doesn't mean that the program is a non-network series. Unless there is a source for the claim, it's speculation. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me this reliable source that treats them as the same. JPG-GR (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the list which is "duplicated" in this article is horrendously incomplete. An instance of {{main}} seems like the more appropriate solution here. JPG-GR (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already given you the source: McNeil, Alex (1996), Total Television, pp 108, 655, 820. New York: Penguin Books, 1996. ISBN 0-1402-4916-8 . Firsfron of Ronchester 19:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Link to a book I don't have access to aside, the use of {{main}} in this article seems like a more logical choice. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we base our edits on reliable sources, not unsourced speculation. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Watch the language there - unsourced, perhaps. Speculation, my left foot. JPG-GR (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears this list and all similar lists may shortly be listed for deletion. It'd be nice to have some actual sources to back up the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a merge, let alone the "merge" you are attempting to execute which does not include half of this list. JPG-GR (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. You blindly reverted my edits before I could move in any sourceable material from Fox Kids to Fox. Really poor form. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Blank first, fix later? Sounds a little backwards to me... JPG-GR (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was in the process of sourcing the article, merging in any usable content from Fox Kids. Your revert actually caused a number of syndicated non-Fox/Kids series to now be listed as "Fox Kids" series. So much for reliable sources! Firsfron of Ronchester 05:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The only edits I made were to revert your conversion of the article to a redirect, essentially blanking the content. Paint the situation however you like - the page history tells the true story. Again, I propose the use of a {{main}} template on this article to link to the Fox Kids list. JPG-GR (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in support of the direction this is currently heading (sourcing stuff on this article, adding stuff from FK article as it is sourced, leaving FK article intact until process is complete). And, for the record - I never said Fox Kids was a network. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't. As far as the process being complete, there will come a point when the Fox Kids article has no sourcable content to merge in here. I will leave a note here when that happens, but already several series listed there cannot reliably be moved here. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. JPG-GR (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support It makes sense to merge the two together so that they can be adequately sourced, along with the fact that Fox Kids is not a network anyways. Silverseren^C 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am working on sourcing this list; the post-2007 Fox series will be difficult to source because the most recent television book on my shelf was published in 2007. I have Brooks and Marsh's latest edition, McNeil's latest edition, and Erickson. Alternate sources are appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose--jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-organize

Right now, this article, in my opinion, seems cluttered (especially the 'formerly broadcast'. We should really try to find a way to put it in a more organized way, taking into consideration that Fox has a lot of shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagn96 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's end this thing.

Let's put this thing to bed once and for all...

Should all the added background info be included in this article, or not

I say No. This article is merley a list of programs, there's a whole other article detailing the history of the Fox Network (Fox Broadcasting Company). Any and all info can go there.

Vjmlhds 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per all background information, as per all of my edit summaries at the page. Let's all try to stay calm. This article is at FLC, and it is there per the FL criteria and WP:LEDE. Further information is again, in the edit summaries, and at my talk page. Thank you. TBrandley 16:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: This is honestly ridiculous. The idea that a user can't develop an article to featured quality, without being spitefully reverted is ridiculous. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: An article with no prose or no lead section is really boring, in my opinion. A little background information and some images to highlight some people associated to some of Fox's well-known series won't be detrimental to the quality of the article, as long as the images are in moderation. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I kinda know how User:Farine is gonna vote, so at that it's 3-2 keep.

I'll put the pictures and info back, but let me explain why I'm gonna put the pictures up I am, so there's no arguement.

Heading 1. Rupert Murdoch -- he owns the place

Current shows

2. Seth McFarlane -- has 3 shows during Animation Domination

3. Jane Lynch -- star of most popular scripted show

4. Gordon Ramsey -- numerous shows

5. Simon Cowell -- X Factor/Idol

6. Joe Buck -- lead announcer for MLB and NFL coverage

Former shows

7. Hank Hill -- long running show in primetime

8. Power Rangers -- decade long staple during the Fox Kids era

9. Joan Rivers -- "Late Show" was Fox's 1st foray into late night, and 1st daily program

10. John Walsh -- AMW lasted 20 years

11. Married...with Children -- the Fox Network's flagship show for many years

12. Tracy Ullman -- one of Fox's 1st sucessful shows, and was the spring board for The Simpsons, so there's some historical signifigance there.

Since this article pretains to both current and former shows, more pics can be included and not crowd it.

Vjmlhds 16:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is called "List of programs by Fox", not "History of Fox". The article can certainly use a lead-in or a prose, as long as it's a concise one that deals with the current programming, not the history of the network. The current lead is way too long for such article.

As for the images, I ideally think they shouldn't be any because they distract from the purpose of the article which is the list. But if there must absolutely be some images, I think it should be limited to one and it should be about an actual show of the network, not some founder or executive.

Also remember, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not a question of which "side" wins the most votes. It's a question of finding a middle agreement that satisfy all editors. Farine (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a valid principal. List of Grey's Anatomy episodes is titled List of; does that mean there should be no introduction? I don't know if you've ever written a featured list, but a three-paragraph introduction and a line of images is the normality for them. While majority does not automatically grant consensus, four users (+Grapple X) who have all written featured lists agreeing on TBrandley's format should tell you something. You and Vjmlhds are the only dissenting voices. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Read again what I've said. I've never said that there shouldn't be any introduction. I said that the current one is too long and also that the intro should deal with the current list of programs, not the history of the network. Farine (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, three paragraphs is the normality for potential featured lists. While the lead is discussing the history, it is discussing the broadcast history, which is the point of the list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of number pf paragraphs, can't we just eliminate the history and stick purely to the programs. And what about the images? Would it hurt if there was one only on the article ? Farine (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Providing context of the history of the network is not problematic. Readers should not be forced to navigate to a different article to learn brief historical information. As I said, a line of images is normal for FLs, because attractiveness is a goal. As an example, see Grammy Award for Best R&B Album. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to think that one image is not enough for the article, is there a maximum number of images you would suggest to prevent the articles from being bombarded with images? Farine (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

When reviewing at FAC or FLC, I usually leave that option up to the nominator/developer as a courtesy. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To propose that this list shouldn't be given a thorough and proper amount of content by editors who want to put the work in is bordering on spiteful. At no point is a solid lead going to detract from the actual list's function and navigability. The same goes for the images; their presence adds something but their removal does not, why not keep them? This is not a question of "finding a middle ground"; there is a right way to go about things (improving articles and fostering content creation and refinement) and a wrong way to go about it (to stifle growth for what can only be seen by this external watcher as selfish reasoning). The version that has been expanded is easily preferable. GRAPPLE X 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with you. But you have brought some good arguments so I'll go with the consensus as long as the images remain in moderation as Davejohnsan said above. Farine (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the lede, images can be negotiated. Readers need context to properly understand an article; if you were to read Ruma Maida with no context or links to articles with context (i.e. all black text) would you understand it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

Please remove Almost Human (TV series) because it was cancelled. Pa3k (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I haven't totally removed it - just moved it from Currently broadcast to Formerly broadcast. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.133.18 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Son of Zorn genre

Wouldn't Son of Zorn be part of live-action sitcoms, because it's more live-action than animation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Weber02 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Charts

Could you make charts for Fox shows, including the current season column for current programming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.245.106 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This was done recently but has since been removed... I feel like all current broadcast and cable networks began producing original programming before Netflix, and due to different editors editing different pages a table format was made for the Netflix page, with all other articles for new networks following suit (all new networks since have been streamers given the changing television landscape). I am in strong support of the table format, as it is far more informative and useful to readers. These articles haven't been changed to table format purely because editors just don't have the time. Someone put in a lot of time and effort to get this article to table format, and their work has since been reverted. Personally consistency isn't an issue, as I'm starting to see more and more articles of a similar nature being converted to a table format. Could we possibly come to a consensus on this? I feel like a discussion on whether these lists should be in a table format is long overdue. Apd9696 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The FIVE

I can't stand Jessica she is obnoxious I have to fast forward!if you look at comments there are many who don't like her!Get her off! 2603:6010:440F:FF00:E300:92EE:5B5:86DC (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)