Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usefulness of the subpages

Any chance we can promote all of those subpages to full-blown pages in their own right? Like, for example The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) or The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python's Flying Circus)? -- Zoe

Episode order

I'm a little confused on the ordering of the episodes... Referring to my trusty The First 20 Years of Monty Python by Kim "Howard" Johnson, the first episodes in season 1 should be:

1. Sex and Violence (Recorded as Series 1, Show 2)
2. Whither Canada (Recorded as Series 1, Show 1)
3. How to Recognize Different Types of Trees... (Recorded as Series 1, Show 3)
4. Owl-stretching Time (Recorded as Series 1, Show 4)
5. Man's Crisis of Identity... (Recorded as Series 1, Show 5)
6. The Ant - an Introduction (Recorded as Series 1, Show 7)
7. ...

In the article, Series 1 looks like it follows the "Recorded As" numbering, up until The Ant, where it begins to diverge. Ultimately I suppose it's not important, but I just wanted to see where the sequencing came from. There's also the possibility that Johnson's book has some typos. -- Wapcaplet 21:35 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I just checked Kim "Howard" Johnson's updated volume, The First 28 Years of Monty Python, and it listed the first six episodes as: Whither Canada, Sex and Violence, How to Recognize Different Types of Trees..., Man's Crisis of Identity..., and The BBC Entry... (It's the Arts). This fits with the order up on the page and the order in the DVD set.--216.150.115.3 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

MP vs. MPFC, Part the First

I am in the process of a complete overhaul of this page and the related Monty Python page. Amongst other things this will cut down on the duplication between these two pages. I hope to have it done before Christmas, maybe even in the next couple of days (if I have time). In the meantime feel free to continue editing. I will incorporate any changes that are still applicable into my version by checking the page history before uploading. Any questions feel free to contact me. HappyDog 17:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would be more in the spirit of Wiki to make these changes to the articles gradually and allow others to take part in the process. Please consider doing this instead. -- Tarquin 17:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I could post up what I've done so far, but there are a lot of empty headings (for which I'm working on the content). Would it be appropriate to have headings in the TOC, for which there is no content yet? If so, I will post what I have done so far. If not, then I'd rather finish the basic framework before posting it. Even if I wait, I am under no illusion that I will be posting a finished article :) HappyDog 17:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

MP vs. MPFC, Part the Second

OK - I've done a major rewrite of this page, consolidating the Monty Python article which is now very brief indeed. I have deliberately done it this way, as there was a fair bit of duplication between the pages, and no real sense as to what should be in what article. I think that ultimately we could have two articles, but only if we can make a clear distinction between Monty Python the group, and Monty Python's Flying Circus, the TV series. I am not convinced this distinction can be made in any meaningful sense, as they are inextricably linked. However, I propose that we discuss the matter on this page rather than keep rejigging the content. It may be that this new layout is the best, but that still leaves the question of whether the major article should be under MP or MPFC.

As ever, the article is not complete yet. The bibliography needs a lot of work, and there are a few empty sections. Other parts need tidying up too. I have removed the massive list of show titles, and instead provided an external link with more detailed information. HappyDog 14:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My thoughts - Currently we have MP and MPFC consolidated into one, but the MP film articles separate. I don't like this inconsistency. If we went down the "one article" route then we would merge in the film articles too. I don't like this - the article would be very long (some of the film articles have filled out quite nicely) and unnecessarily so - there is a natural separation to utilise. Thus the "separate articles" route should be the one to go down. We can do this without too much duplication that troubled you earlier, HappyDog. The MP article becomes a kind of parent article for their whole timeline and devolves all responsiblility to the MPFC and film articles for the details. Sorry for joining this discussion late - I was watching the MP but not the MPFC articles. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:35, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, not had many responses! I'm not sure I agree entirely with your suggestion though. First of all I don't think there's anything wrong with the film (and other) references being links to separate pages. This seems to be the standard Wikipedia way of doing things, for example the Alfred Hitchcock article gives biographical information only, with links to separate articles for each of his films.

Yep, we're agreed that this is the way to go.

The second point about dividing this page into two articles is possibly correct, but I'm not sure it's as simple as you think. When I originally rewrote the page I tried to keep it as two separate articles, to reflect MP the group and MPFC the series. However the real problem is that up until at least 1975 (if not later) the two were synonymous, and so to divide them is nearly impossible, unless you just split the page into two halves (which seems a little non-sensical). After I made the decision to remove the very long episode guide, and replace it with an external link to a much more detailed and complete source, MPFC would have had very little content that wasn't duplicated from MP. I also felt that MPFC (being the full and original name) should be the page under which to locate the article, although this perhaps needs further discussion. The MP article I think is valid as it stands, clarifying that is a common abbreviation, however it could be made into a redirect instead. HappyDog 15:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok, first point is that this set of pages is much more "your baby" now than mine so I am happy to go along with what you decide as long as others are. Having said that, I think I understand your points and still wonder if two pages might be the way to go. Although synonmous prior to 1975, they are not synonmous now - one is the tv show - one is the group - obviously a lot of overlap. There doesn't have to be a lot of overlap. The MP article would devolve responsibility for the specifics of the TV show to MPFC (e.g. man behind desk, famous sketches, titles...) etc and the MP article would be a timeline. with "see MPFC for further detail, see Life of Brian for further detail etc". The only problem I see is that with complete devolution to the MPFC article, the MP article would not mention really famous stuff like Dead Parrot. This layout would avoid the situation we currently have where MPFC discusses recent developments like re-unions which would be more at home at MP. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:43, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would have thought that the distinction between Monty Python, a group of actor/writers, and Monty Python's Flying Circus, a television programme, was rather elementary...

James F. (talk) 00:48, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On the surface, yes. But if you write about the TV series without giving any history or context (because this is included in the group's article) and without detailing the influence it has had (which is the influence of the group) and without giving a breakdown of the episodes (which is better addressed by the external link) then there is not much else to write about! HappyDog 03:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A brief synopsis of the history of MP should be on MP'sFC to illustrate it's history; articles don't need to be wholly isolated from each other in terms of overlap. External sites and their content are irrelevent - if the information is worthwhile having on the Wikipedia, we'll put it on; if not, we won't, but might link to it if it's interesting.

James F. (talk) 03:59, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you want to have a go at re-ordering then please feel free to do so. I tried, and found it difficult to separate in a useful manner. Regardless, if you do split them apart, make sure it is clear in the first paragraph of each article that more information is held in the other. This was (I believe) the main cause for the massive duplication we previously experienced, as newcomers edited one of the articles not realising there was a second article that already held the information. HappyDog 01:51, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Still not dead"

The reason I took out the phrase "still not dead" is simple. I assume it's an inside Monty Python joke, but this is an encyclopedia and, if you don't provide some context, it just ends up sounding confusing and strange to the person unfamiliar with the topic. There are easier ways of saying that one member of the troupe is now not living, or dead, than the way you've phrased it, so I can only assume that it's an in Python joke. And in jokes have no place in an encyclopedia unless they're given some context or explanation. Moncrief 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I think it is unreasonable that you were reverted using the revert button - which should be used for vandalism only because it doesn't allow the reverter to explain why he is doing the reversion and so ends up looking a bit rude when the original edit was at minimum worthy of debate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry that I reverted you using the revert button, but then, I disagree that it's rude to use it; it's provided on diff pages precisely for the purpose of rolling back an article.

Have now editted it to 'explain' the obvious nature of the comment.

James F. (talk) 13:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I originally wrote the sentence, and it was edited by someone (can't remember who) who added the quotes, which I think makes it acceptable, and obvious that it is a reference. The current version is pointless and unreadable. Either stick with "most of whom are 'still not dead'" or lose the sentence altogether. A wishy-washy middle ground is pointless. For the time being I have removed it entirely, but if it came to a vote I would definitely be in favour of reinstating it. --HappyDog 12:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed; I've now changed it slightly so as to convey the same information, but I prefer your way...

James F. (talk) 17:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Putting 'the late Graham Chapman, John Cleese etc.' sort-of implies that they're all dead. Moncrief edited it to put Chapman at the end, which reads better, but which puts them out of the order in which they were always listed in the credits. I have removed the info from the opening paragraph, as it is not really relavant, and have added a paragraph about his death into the 'Life After Python' section. --HappyDog 11:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since my edit-changes-comment does not appear in the Revision History (for some reason; maybe my browser is flakey, but everybody else can see it?), let me just add to what HappyDog mentioned. The order of listing of the Pythons should be in alphabetical order of the last names to avoid the suggestion that one Python contributed more than another. They always viewed themselves as an ensemble cast, and more or less as equals, thereby avoiding ego clashes. Contrast this to most television shows, movies, and plays, where the top star or main featured character gets first billing, and the "least significant" person gets listed last. -- Anonymous

Well, we could do "[...] performed by Graham Chapman (dead), John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin", but it seems rather heartless...

James F. (talk) 12:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about "[...] performed by Graham Chapman (who died in 1989), John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin"? Ausir 20:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow, so much discussion regarding so little information. Chapman's death is already mentioned on the Wiki page (under the section heading "The End?") and, through the wonderful technology of hyperlinks, anybody clicking on the name Graham Chapman will magically be transported to a Wiki page that lists his birthdate and the day of his demise. THIS PARROT IS DEAD! Go find some other interesting information about the Pythons and add it to this article, or de-stubbify other Wikipedia articles. Sheesh! (Anonymous)

Corrie Parody

My friend said that they parodied Ena and Minnie from Corrie on this show. I wouldn't know as I didn't watch it, but did they? Was it a one-time thing or recurring or what? Mike H 01:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Praline

I recently re-watched the Crunchy Frog and Parrot Shop sketches...to my unlearned Yankee ears, Praline's accent sounds Northern (Manchester?), not Cockney. Can we get a ruling? Ellsworth 22:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry dude, his accent is about as Northern as Chas and Dave. I'm changing it so it says an "odd" accent as I can't place it either, and I'm British. --El Pollo Diablo | Talk 08:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Man, Crunch Frog was halarious! --Wack'd About Wiki 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nowt wrong with your ears Ellsworth. I'd say that Eric (For that's his name) IS from Manchester. I should know, I live near Manchester-User:GeorgeFormby1

Unless anyone object's I'm changing the article so that it says Praline has a Manchester accent-GeorgeFormby1

This article is silly

And I don't mean Python silly, I mean Wikipedia silly. From a very brief intro on the show it jumps right into "Recurring Characters". What in the name of George P. Landow is that all about? How about how the show was conceived? Why it was named the way it was named? How it was received by the public, the network, the critics? Ratings? Availability on tapes/DVD? All-time popularity as a sketch show? At the end we get a blurb about how the show closed. What? How about how it started, then?

I know what you're going to say: that's all in the main Monty Python article. Well, most of it shouldn't be. If it is, it should be put here and linked to from the main page. This is just a trivia bowl for the show, and you need to be a fan to appreciate the lot of it. How is a general reader going to care about more than a dozen recurring characters, let alone as the first section? Readers should not be required to delve into Monty Python to manually extract the relevant information. This article must be able to stand on its own, just like any other.

We should port the information relevant to the show over from Monty Python, replace the details in Monty Python with summaries and a link, and there will be much rejoicing. Yaaaaay.

I'm not going to just go ahead and do it. Amongst my lame excuses are such diverse elements as "it's quite a bit of nonnoncontroversial work", "it's late over here", "friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles" and "I don't even know who Reginald Maudling is". Now, get to work or I'll fetch me comfy chair! 82.92.119.11 23:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The content in this article has been batted about between MP and MPFC several times (check the edit history for details). I did a major rewrite last December that tidied it up a lot, but left MP as a short article directing here. Then AaronSW did another refactoring in March giving the basic division of content as it is. I think this division is generally sensible, and we don't want to duplicate information. I might see if I can make the intro clearer so it is obvious where to look for the history. --HappyDog 16:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is it possible that Julia Stiles has a featured article but the Flying Circus is still being stitched-up and argued over? I think it's time to get it in shape and have it featured. Stan weller 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Pointless SNL reference

"In contrast to many other sketch comedy shows (such as Saturday Night Live)"... SNL didn't start until well after Python began, and its impact on British comedy until fairly recently has been nil. Is there any point in having the bracketed comment at all, apart from being a patronising way of helping our American cousins understand what a sketch comedy show is? :/ --Taras 15:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, the two are usualy compared as each country's flagship comedy forces.--Crestville 15:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Referencing SNL like this assumes the reader is familiar with it. Which the majority of Brits and people other people outside of the US are not. Get rid of it. Jooler 15:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OOOH! See you! Better do what that one sez lads.--Crestville 15:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps there should be something saying "Saturday Night Live is its American counterpart" late in the article. You wouldn't see something like "The eucalyptus tree, in contrast to many other trees (such as a conifer)..." --Taras 17:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Number one. The larch. The larch." Hig Hertenfleurst 20:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a counterpart. It's probably best to just leave it out. And now some trees of interest.....--Crestville 23:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jooler, applying your logic to the rest of Wikipedia, we'd be deleting half of it. That said, might as well delete it. --B. Phillips 13:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Most famous sketches"

I got rid of most of the "famous" sketches, simply because they aren't. For example, I've seen "And Now For Something Completely Different", all three volumes of the "Best of Python", and "Monty Python: Parrot Sketch Not Included" (i.e. all the available Best of Monty Python compilations) and I've never seen the Army Protection Racket sketch.

I've retained what are arguably five the most popular sketches from Monty Python's Flying Circus, plus a handful of other famous ones, such as Cheese Shop, Spam, the Argument Clinic and the Fish-Slapping Dance.

Well, the Army Protection Racket is one of my favourites, so, using your logic, I'm going to put it back in. Believe me, it is a classic. "It'd be a terrible shame if anyone was to set fire to them..."

Where have I displayed the logic that I only kept the sketches that I liked? I don't like the Dead Parrot Sketch, but I kept it. I like Lemmings of the BDA and Scott of the Sahara, but I didn't put them in. Classic or not, the Army Protection Racket sketch is not famous at all and doesn't really merit inclusion.

wha?

Perhaps this is just my American showing, but is a tight-Scotsman a real thing, or a typographical error? Grammar nazi 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some might say it is a redundancy.

Heh heh heh. Tight means cheap, as it "tight-arse". It might mean something else too, but I couldn't possibly comment.--Crestville 14:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The PBS Syndication

If memory serves, the matierial presented in the late 1970s and beyond on PBS stations was Bowdlerized and no where near comprehensive. In fact, what was shown was a very limited selection of shows in the series. It may be of interest to document what was socially acceptable to American television viewers at that time in contrast to what British viewers thought was not morally reprehensible.

Animation on Set 1, Disc 2

There is this Gilliamation on Set 1, Disc 2 that involves people eating smaller cut-outs of people and using heads without cranium-lids for bowls and cups. Then, a voice yells, "Stop it! Stop it!" Could this animation be related to the Undertaker sketch mentioned on IMDb's alternate versions? And what is the Undertaker sketch about anyway? 68.37.116.234 20:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism just seems to have held endless fascination for MP. I'm not sure whether the animation is related to the Undertaker sketch, but it's possible. Why do you ask what the sketch is about? You seem to know it's related to cannibalism, isn't that... all there is to it? Apart from the commentary on the social mores of our times, the constraints that living in modern civilisation places on us, blah blah, blah. :p riana 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just before the undertaker sketch. It's followed by Terry Jones saying "Stop it, stop it! Stop this cannibalism! Let's have a sketch about clean, decent human beings!" and then the undertaker sketch starts. BillyH 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

merge from Monty Python's Flying Circus (stage version)

That article can't really stand on its own and would probably be better suited to be merged here. Amalas =^_^= 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Music from The Cycling Tour

Hi, does anyone know the name (and composer) of the orchestral waltz used as the underscore music in The Cycling Tour (episode 34 of the TV series). Cheers, Musicmaker 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Theme song

Isn't the theme song the The Washington Post? – Zntrip 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the liberty bell.--Crestville 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, full title is The Liberty Bell March, by John Philip Sousa. - Musicmaker 07:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean the general theme song (The Liberty Bell March) - I just meant the theme for that specific episode (The Cycling Tour) and now I have finally found it: The Waltz from Gounod's Faust! Mystery solved. Musicmaker (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SERIOUS REDIRECTION PROBLEM!

For some reason Wikipaedia doesn't recognise MPFC as Monty Python's Flying Circus bu it DOES recognise MPFS as Monty Python's Flying Circus as if "Circus" starts wit an "S". Could somebody please change this; I dont know how.

Done -- Arwel (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilliam animation

I read in this article that one of Gilliam's most offensive animations was a silhouette of a cross with Holy chanting in the background. We later focus to reveal that the "cross" is actually a telegram pole. What episode did this appear on? Was it wiped from future BBC airings (as well as the A&E DVD)? --69.253.15.246 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was cut. You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igU7unT9ESM

No, that was deleted. Now it's here: [1]

The Bavarian Episodes

I think it is worth making a chapter on the special Bavarian episodes, where all the Pythons talked in German. At the time, the German audience, especially the Bavarian, reacted in a very frozen way. Nowadays however, these episodes are most valued collectors items, especially among Bavarian Python fans. Apart from having seen them once, at a friend's house in Munich, I don't have the material and can't contribute very much for such an entry. Is anybody more versed in them and willing to contribute? There are some unique sketches, not to be found in any subsequent works, like the story of the king who is looking for a prince to marry his daughter, taking place in the famous Neuschwanstein Castle (Disneyland's original).Hoverfish 08:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my hasty comment, found the link to a whole article about them and added it in See Also.Hoverfish 08:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

COOL

In April 2006, MPFC returned to non-cable American television on PBS.

Cool! Can anybody tell me when it's on? --Wack'd About Wiki 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To move (relative) trivia to List of Episodes or not to move?

Many trivia entries really belong to the list of episodes and not here. Yet such a move might overload the list. Any opinions and suggestions are welcome. Hoverfish 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe

Should this article really have a curved, non-standard apostrophe in its title? --McGeddon 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Blancmange (Monty Python TV) - do problems reflect end of an era?

I originally created the Blancmange (Monty Python TV) article 28 December 2006, because food editors seemed to find carnivorous food disturbing as a section at Blancmange (food). :) It was the appropriate thing to do, because all cultural references have since been deleted at Blancmange (food), including one to Little Women.

Recently, a new editor has made edits at Blancmange (Monty Python TV), some of which I interpret as showing a lack of interest in consensus, as well as being Pythonesque unfriendly and unknowledgeable. When I introduced some compromises, he reverted everything so hastily that he accidentally reverted some of his own edits and had to backtrack.

Compare Revision 19:55, 27 May 2007 to 19:50, 31 May 2007. The most shocking edit was the enforced removal of one of the critical reasons for having a separate Blancmange sketches article:

"These are a rare occurrence of Monty Python sketches that are thematically linked. "

Removed as "off-topic discussion" was the ironic disproval of the fictional Pythonesque contention that Scots can't play tennis, by the rise of Scottish tennis superstar Andy Murray. Also compare Revision 16:54, 3 April 2007 to 19:51 31 May 2007. Note that the external link to Monty Python was removed. I had then linked it in text the way Monty Python's Flying Circus was text-linked, but it too was mass reverted. In my opinion, this conveys a careless indifference to the distinction between the showmen and their show, which is why there are two main articles.

Sorry, I can't do anything else about this situation.

I see a talk page report there that Monty Python is falling into disrepair, and that the Monty Python Wikiproject is inactive. Could be that the great Monty Python entertainment era is over for now, while awaiting a series of classic revivals. Milo 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CompleteFlyingCircusDVD.jpg

Image:CompleteFlyingCircusDVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Humour categories?

The following sentence from the opening is very problematic: "Their humour could be categorised as absurdist, surrealist, situationist, or dadaist." While I can see calling their humour "absurd" and perhaps even "dadaist" (though I am unaware of any of the Pythons ever explicitly saying they were influenced by Dada), calling their humour "situationist" is patently ridiculous. In any case, the whole sentence looks like POV and OR to me, and is little more than someone's opinion. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

One week having passed without response, either in agreement or disagreement with my comments, I am removing that sentence. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 16:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleese in Fourth Season

After reading that John Cleese had only a "walk-on role" as someone had termed it in episode 41 during the final season, I set about trying to spot him in the episode but to no avail. The only thing I think he could have done in that episode is the voice of the crazed scientist who talks about ants, so I've edited the article to say, "...he did not appear in the final six episodes that made up series four (other than a brief voice-over for one of Gilliam's animations in episode 41 "Michael Ellis")". Someone say if they have any objection to this. I think it's more accurate than to say he only had a walk-on role however because as far as I can tell we don't actually see him in the episode. Robski 21:12, 12 July 2007 (GMT)

Articles proposed for deletion

There are currently five articles about or related to Monty Python sketches being considered for deletion:

• Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election (deletion discussion)
• Medical Love Song (deletion discussion)
• Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism (deletion discussion)
• Silly Job Interview (deletion discussion)
• Sit on My Face (deletion discussion)

__meco 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion seems to be all the rage at Wikipedia recently. Maikel 16:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Really bad theatrical agent

“Monty Python” was added because they claimed it sounded like a really bad theatrical agent ... what, "the idea of" or "the name of" one? Maikel 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monty Python's Satan animation.png

Image:Monty Python's Satan animation.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from article

Trivia

• The BBC itself was usually spoofed during the series. Spoofs included an apology for repetitions of segments and use of bad language such as "botty", "wee-wee", "knickers" and "Semprini" in one of the programs; offensive material at the end of another, where a man was gunned down and huge amounts of blood squirted from his body (spoof of The Wild Bunch) while the end credits rolled, then followed by a statement saying the BBC was having problems paying the mortgage, a father who has recently died (a reference to the then-recent death of Baron Reith), and BBC2 going out with men; the company going into liquidation and doing budget cuts in their departments, including a news broadcast done from a bathroom. And more iconically, spoofs featuring the BBC1 Mirror Globe from 1969, including a sketch where an announcer off camera could not go through his broadcast due to lack of self-esteem, and joke. The logo was on during the entire sketch with none of the characters ever coming on screen.

• Another possible source of the word “circus” was the title of the 1963 stage show Cambridge Circus, which featured Cleese and Chapman.

• According to the script, in the second episode ("Sex and Violence") of the first season - during the sketch where a monsignor and a professor debate the existence of God via wrestling - real professional wrestlers were used.

• All of the Beatles were fans of Monty Python. Ringo Starr made a cameo appearance after the credits of the Flying Circus episode 'Mr. & Mrs. Brian Norris' Ford Popular', playing himself. Besides George Harrison’s work mentioned above, he also appeared as a mountie during the Lumberjack Song at the Python’s City Center venue. The last song on the warm-up tape before Harrison’s concerts was the Lumberjack Song.

• A number of sketches for Monty Python’s Flying Circus were filmed on location in and around the English coastal towns of Paignton and neighbouring Torquay, where they stayed in the hotel whose manager inspired John Cleese to write Fawlty Towers.

• The theme song, John Philip Sousa’s Liberty Bell March, was chosen by the troupe because it could not be associated with the programme’s contents, and that the first bell strike followed by the melody gave the impression of getting “straight down to business” (down is a keyword here, because Gilliam’s animation sequence ends with Cupid’s foot stomping down accompanied by the sound of flatulence). It was also chosen because this song (along with most of Sousa’s other works) was in the public domain, so the troupe didn't need to pay royalties, as there was no more money in the budget for theme music. There has been little agreement on who chose the music for the show’s theme, with almost all of the Pythons claiming responsibility at various points. The song has now become inextricably linked with the show, to the point that when orchestras play the song today, it is not unusual for some in the audience to laugh.

• The Python episode “Michael Ellis” was largely developed from the original script for Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The troupe initially intended much of Holy Grail to be set in the modern day, with the search for the Grail leading the knights to Harrods. When the decision was made to set Holy Grail entirely in medieval times, the segments taking place in modern times were cut and largely reworked into this episode. Sketches from this episode that were originally envisioned for the film include the “Rag Week” sketch, the ant-buying sketch and the toupee hall sketch. Other discarded Holy Grail sketches would appear in the episode “Hamlet”, most notably the bogus psychiatrists sketch and the headless boxer sketch.

• “The Cycling Tour” episode is the only one to tell one story from beginning to end, although other episodes, including “Michael Ellis” and “Mr. Neutron”, are almost as linear. Another linear episode was “You're No Fun Anymore,” which had one-third as the usual form of an episode, while the rest was a series of four sketches that told one whole story about human-eating alien blancmanges turning the population of England into Scotsmen so as to win the Wimbledon tennis tournament. The four sketches included “Science Fiction Sketch,” “Man Turns into Scotsman,” “Police Station,” and “Blancmanges Playing Tennis.” (See Blancmange (Monty Python TV).) In fact, this is also true with the “Pirahna Brothers” sketch in episode 14.

• As a kind of coda to the group’s career, at the very end of their last film, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, the opening titles for this series are briefly seen.

• The 1 May 2004 release of OpenBSD 3.5 featured a pair of audio tracks, “CARP License” and “Redundancy must be free”, which parodied the “Fish licence” sketch by Monty Python along with the red-tape associated with the IETF.

• Cupid’s giant foot makes an appearance in the opening sequence of The Simpsons, squashing the family once they reach the sofa.

• The Monty Python foot icon is used to represent the slashdot.org post category “It’s funny. Laugh.”

• The 17 September 2004 episode of Jeopardy! featured Python-related category titles in the Double Jeopardy round: ‘Monty Python’, ‘Spam’, ‘Summarising Proust’, ‘I’m a Lumberjack’, ‘Bring Out Your Dead’ and ‘Knights Who Say “Ni”!’

• In 2006, Ben & Jerry’s introduced a new flavour: “Vermonty Python”, a coffee liqueur ice cream with a chocolate cookie crumb swirl & fudge cows. Their own description being “We interrupt ourselves with much hooting through tin horns to bring you this brilliant new ice cream, made from dried shrubbery and old cereal packets. This is a ripping good flavour, really, so buy it quickly and run away, silly person, or we shall taunt you a second time.” The carton is illustrated with imagery from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

• The Christian animated series “VeggieTales” nods to Monty Python with the French Peas regularly taunting people with strange insults, and “The Colonel”, Archibald Asparagus, who interrupts several Silly Songs with Larry segments for being “too silly.”

• In 1994, the Hormel Company, which has produced Spam since 1937, provided Spam merchandise and materials to be used during the official celebrations of Monty Python’s 25th anniversary held in Los Angeles.

• There are many references to "Monty Python's Flying Circus" in a large number of The Goodies episodes. Also, John Cleese appeared (in the guise of a Genie) in the episode "The Goodies and the Beanstalk", with John Cleese saying "And now .....". All three Goodies were members of the Cambridge Footlights with John Cleese and Graham Chapman (with Tim Brooke-Taylor and Bill Oddie being cast members of the "Cambridge Circus" revue). Tim, Bill and Graeme Garden were also cast members of the radio series "I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again" (with John Cleese). On television, Tim Brooke-Taylor was also a cast member of "At Last the 1948 Show" (with John Cleese and Graham Chapman), while Bill Oddie and Graeme Garden were cast members of "Twice a Fortnight" (with Terry Jones and Michael Palin).

• A poll carried out on UKTV Gold to find the most influential comedy of all time Monty Python's Flying Circus came 1st beating the likes of The Office, Blackadder and Only Fools & Horses.

Could do with some improvement

The article as it stands is a bit pants, as is the Monty Python article. There's a lot of duplicated information between the two, and info in the latter that should be in the former with a specific link (e.g. Main Article: Monty Python's Flying Circus). The book "The Pythons by the Pythons" has only been referenced in a few places, while it has the potential to be used so much more. This article is a little bit trivial at the moment I think. I'm happy to have a go at making things a bit more tidied up if/when I get time, and may come up with a to-do list if it's ok. Any thoughts? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

MCC reference?

When the Pythons refer to the MCC, are they referring to the Marylebone Cricket Club, or what? I don't get the reference. There have been many references to the MCC in the series. I wonder which MCC they are talking about. 68.0.137.95 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gumbies1999.PNG

Image:Gumbies1999.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CompleteFlyingCircusDVD.jpg

Image:CompleteFlyingCircusDVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Informal GA review

This was nominated for WP:GA [2] and removed. The page has a lot of content, but almost no references. The last section combines inline links, visible urls and cite.php refs. A good article on this topic would need additional references in a consistent style, and a copy edit. Gimmetrow 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruces sketch / Bruces' Philosophers Song

We seem to have two separate articles with the above titles. I find the sketch funny myself but two articles is IMO overkill (nothing to do with Men At Work). Merge? Britmax (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In a sense aren't the song and sketch two separate entities? Either way will get the job done, but there were more than one Bruce sketch, wasn't there? Conversely, the Bruce Song is a single item. Just an observation.... Themoodyblue (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Bell

I notice that both this article and the one for Liberty Bell (march) claim that the Pythons used Liberty Bell because it was in the public domain. This doesn't seem right, as Sousa died in 1932, only 37 years before MPFC began. Is the "public domain" explanation a myth? --88.109.139.102 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The time a composition or a recording can be protected has been extended over time. Today sound recordings are copyrighted for fifty years I think after the death of the composer or the main participants (the companies are presing on to have it extended to 90 years) but in 1969 it was probably less than that. /83.254.157.223 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Noël Coward - Inspiration for Monty Python's Flying Circus?

Today I found this article with the letter of Monty Python's Terry Jones. This letter was, as the author of the article says, sent to the organizers of the event created to celebrate 40 years of the first Monty Python's episode. Celebration took place in Pancevo, Serbia.

In the letter, Terry Jones says that Monty Python's Flying Circus was created in Serbia "when six Oxford and Cambridge students gathered to raise a monument to Noël Coward. Endless debate on how should the sculpture look like and should it be raised in Vojvodina lasted until the morning, when the agreement was finally made to transform the debate into a TV sketch, but without mentioning writer's name..."

Magazine in which this article appeared is pretty serious one, but I couldn't find any other documents about this letter or the mention of roots of Monty Python. I should also note that in the letter, Terry says that students gathered "on a beautiful April day in the middle of June", which makes me wonder if this letter is joke or not. Zorglub76 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't understand Serbo-Croat and so can't read the whole thing, but I think we can safely assume it's a joke. MFlet1 (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that Coward reference, but I keep wondering to myself lately how much of an influence Luis Buñuel mighta been upon the Pythons. His The Phantom of Liberty (1974) seems so much exactly like just about any episode of Flying Circus, minus Gilliam's animations, the breaking of the fourth wall, and a different, more French auteur-style cinematography. --79.193.62.181 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting tag expressing concern about tone and style of article not being appropriate for Wikipedia

I am removing the tag expressing concern about the style and tone of this article not being appropriate for Wikipedia as there are no specific concerns listed detailing why the tone or style is questionable. Also, Monty Python's Flying Circus is, almost by definition, going to be somewhat controversial. There is no reason given for the article being flagged for its tone or style and no discussion defending the reason or rationale for inserting the tag. If the article's tone or style is reflagged for not being appropriate for Wikipedia, the individual posting the tag needs to state why they feel that tag is appropriate and how the article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Simply placing a tag on it without any explanation or reasoning is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing. I understand that there may be concerns about the tone or style being inappropriate - if so what are the specific concerns of the individual? Nothing is mentioned at all. If the tag is reinserted, please give concrete and specific reasons, examples and rationale for doing so. Themoodyblue (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pow! Perfectly praiseworthy persistent Pythonesque pedantry! -- Bricaniwi (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Monty Python itself is ridiculous anyways, and how serious can you make ridiculous? Cais1 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reception at time of broadcast

There is no mention of the reception the MPFC gathered when first broadcast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.180.27 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

The article is written in the jocular and informal style of a personal appreciation or reminiscence, and consists largely of awkwardly written passages. Much of it is not properly supported by citation, and reads like personal opinion and original research. I'm sure that whomever originally posted the tag felt the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. The article must be rewritten to comply with the objective tone of an encyclopedia, and all statements must be supported by reliable (and properly formatted) third-party citations. If you are trying to create a fan site or shrine, please go elsewhere; this is not the appropriate venue. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr Nudge

He's described here as a "well-dressed moustachioed man." Actually, he wears a blazer with a public-school emblem or the like, doesn't he? This might be an important detail in terms of what social "type" he's meant to satirize. Sillypillows (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Pewtey etc.

This section is inaccurate. The generic Palin character of the dull, wimpy, chartered accountant is, I think, only called Pewtey in a couple of sketches: the Marriage Counselor sketch and the Ministry of Silly Walks (spelled Putey in the script there). In the Vocational Guidance Counselor sketch, he's Herbert Anchovy. The character in the Argument Clinic is a completely different character; Pewtey/Putey/Anchovy would never be so argumentative. The same generic character also appears in The Cycling Tour (Mr. Pither), Wrong-Way Norris (Brian Norris) and probably others I can't think of. In none of these is he primarily playing against Chapman. 69.250.65.228 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See also

I'm not sure a local election where someone changed their name to a character belongs in the see also section. Any one else have any thought? KatCheez 15:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed these. * Crosby by-election, 1981 (Candidate Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel)

• Big Train KatCheez 14:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Definition?

It is possible to doubt 'the adjective "Pythonesque" was invented to define it'. Surely, the definition of "Pythonesque" is "like Monty Python"? Rather: the adjective "Pythonesque" was invented to name its style. 86.185.216.190 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DVD releases

Please add a table of DVD releases in various regions. -71.174.180.113 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Transnational themes" section

This section seems rather contentious and is largely based on the work of one author. I think it should be removed. MFlet1 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are ten different sources? Which "one author" is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 10 citations but they all point to one of the following two:

• Dobrogoszcz, Tomasz (2014). Dobrogoszcz, Tomasz, ed. The British Look Abroad: Monty Python and the Foreign. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Kern, Kevin F. (2014). Dobrogoszcz, Tomasz, ed. Twentieth-Century Vole, Mr. Neutron, and Spam: Portrayals of American Culture in the Work of Monty Python. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

MFlet1 (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm not sure why they are all separate, as they do not specify page numbers. If the Dobrogoszcz (ed.) book is regaded as a WP:RS here, however, then I don't see a problem. Maybe the section needs to be trimmed for WP:WEIGHT? But I'm not sure which bit(s) should be trimmed. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there are lots of works analyzing the contents of Monty Python. Perhaps there should be a section noting this fact rather than going into the detailed thoughts of one particular person. If everyone with pet theories about the meaning of Python starts adding these to the article then it's all going to get far too silly. MFlet1 (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of "pet theories". It's a question of whether or not the book is a reliable source. Its title is in fact Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition: Cultural Contexts in Monty Python and it's available on Google Books if you want to browse it. It has 11 essays by 11 different authors, and a foreword by Terry Jones. So it looks wholly "legit" to me. Dobrogoszcz is assistant professor in the department of British literature and culture at the University of Lodz in Poland: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Mr Neutron is a comic masterpiece in my opinion!

Lost Sketches re. Statue with long nose

This article makes reference to a sketch never aired about Chapman trying to make a statue of Cleese but not getting the nose right. It says this sketch was pulled "for reasons unknown." I've recently read that Chapman was too drunk to say his lines right when filming this. If anyone can find the citation for this, we should update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKPhilosophy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries - Main page

Hi, just highlighting that if the many tags can be resolved, this article would be eligible for the selected anniversaries, which features on the main page, on Octber 5 for the first broadcast. Whizz40 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monty Python's Flying Circus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090627084038/http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/comedy_sketches/results.html to http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/comedy_sketches/results.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Music clarification please

Hello. The last paragraph of the lead has this:

The series' theme tune is the first segment of John Philip Sousa's "The Liberty Bell", as played by the Band of the Grenadier Guards, and chosen because it was in the public domain and thus could be used without charge.

- which is interesting, but makes me go "yeah but no but" a bit, and seek clarification on the following two grounds:

1. What do we mean "as played by"? What does that "as" do? It either was played by them, or it was not. So "played by" would be fine, if true, but "as played by" is weirdly ambiguous for no good reason.
2. When we say it could be used without charge we are probably referring to the tune but not the recording. It's very unlikely that no-one was paid for that; either Python paid recording session fees (rubs hands together greedily) or, if they used an existing recording, say one by the Grenadier Guards (see what I did there?) then they would have had to pay for that. I can't see how the Guards band would have made a charitable donation of the tune to the Beeb and if they did then I am sure it can be referenced here. Otherwise, what I suspect we mean is that they did not have to pay composer royalties ... which is nice, but not a total freebie unless the Pythons played it themselves.

It would be great if someone with the knowledge/sources could please sort this out a bit.

Thanks and best wishes to all, 82.34.71.202 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Title - not from Goldfinger?

The text implies that in 1966, a group of Briton's reached back 50 years for an obscure WWI reference to create their name. Is there any confirmation that the title wasn't inspired by 'Pussy Galore's Flying Circus' from the popular 1964 British film Goldfinger. Seems like less of a stretch. PLawrence99cx (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well:

1. Britons looks a lot better without the apostrophe.
2. It's not that obscure. A lot of people will have read WWI stories, seen films etc etc. There is no surprising usage here.
3. Probably not, but then confirmation of a negative is often a wee bit difficult to find. As far as I know there is also no confirmation that it wasn't telephoned to them by the Pope or discovered inside a fortune cookie.
4. No, it seems like much, much more of a stretch. When the programme title came out I was wholly unsurprised by it, assumed it was a WWI reference, and didn't try to connect it with James Bond. But that's all WP:OR so, y'know ... nah.

Best wishes, and sorry for the slow reply, 82.34.71.202 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Pope?? Surely you mean The Bishop!!? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Transnational themes or actually American egocentrism

I fail to see trasnational themes there as section solely focuses on the US; either change it or analyze whole83.27.149.179 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Python's creations more closely to really talk about transnational themes. 83.27.149.179 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that US topics in the Monty Python oeuvre don't qualify as "transnational"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

On lead. (minor suggestion)

I was thinking of this quote:
"Their comedy is often pointedly intellectual, with..."
I absolutely agree, but perhaps the word "silly" could be included too. In a good way, naturally. What about something in line with:
"Their comedy is often consciously silly but simultaneously highly intelligent and pointedly intellectual, with..."
To be intelligent and intellectual isn't the same, but I would like to say MP indeed is both. "Intelligence" and "silly" can well be regarded as opposites I suppose, but I think MP has proven that humor can be both.
What's meant by "innuendo-laden", just by the way ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC) (a silly alias, by the way...)

Spot the braincell

The section on the quiz show (blow on the head) in episode 20 (The Atilla the Hun Show) seems to suggest that the entire sketch was removed for one repeat airing but is generally available otherwise (including home video). If that is true, can it be clarified? If not, was some part (for instance, the name of the show, which is never identified as Spot the Braincell in the versions of the episode I have seen) edited out permanently and considered lost? And if the name Spot the Braincell is only used outside of MPFC itself, can the section on it be renamed to avoid confusion?

On a broader note, I am trying to collect a comprehensive view of what is missing from the A&E DVDs and other widely available versions of the show, and would be happy to include my findings here (including other alterations and alternates not listed here yet), but would it would be worth it, or would it constitute sufficient "original research" that it would be taken down? 174.100.165.147 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. The sketch "The All-England Summarize Proust Competition" contains a bit where they interview a contestant, who reveals that his hobbies include "strangling animals, golf and masturbating". One of the books I've read on the TV program mentioned that this was censored in its initial airing. Until downsizing in recent years, I owned a copy of the 16-disc DVD box set and this joke was included there intact. So it sounds to me like this is pertinent information, but a number of folks on Wikipedia as of late really have a hard-on about properly cited statements. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The It's Man and the Continuity Announcer

I don't want to add this more specific content to the "recurring characters" section without being sure; but am I right in thinking that these two characters are deployed as follows?

Series 1: Titles introduced by extended It's Man business (i.e., he slowly makes his way to the camera and then says "It's").

Series 2: Continuity Announcer says "And now for something completely different," then It's Man appears just long enough to say "It's," then titles roll.

Series 3: Same as series 2, except that Continuity Announcer abbreviates his bit to "And now."

Jcejhay (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Where are the episodes?

ITs a sketch series group, so where are the sketches? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed table

I've undone an edit that apparently reintroduced a table to the article from a few months back. The edit, re-added by User: 129.22.115.74 utilized the following edit summary:

"As discussed on the talk page a few months ago I'm adding detail on what version has what, arranging what I can in a tabular form. Please adjust if needed and allow for other columns for other sources! (I might add a column myself on mentions in the "complete" book of scripts. Whoever added the region 2 DVD note at the very bottom might add a column too, but for now I'm leaving the note alone".

The table contains a lot of uncited information and those particular red flags like "should", "must have", "will be", "likely", "presumably", etc. It seems like a lot of OR on the face of it. I think it should be discussed more here before re-adding any of it to the article. After all, it was removed once before, so substantial discussion should take place before any further addition of the table takes place. As per WP:BRD, the bold edit was reverted; its time to discuss it now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, no. The table is NEW (it was not a reintroduction of anything removed before), and the talk a few months back was a question as to whether people would LIKE such a section. It sounded like a good enough idea. So I did it, and it only took twenty minutes for it to come down. The biggest question is, how do you cite a particular recording (DVD, laserdisc, Netflix stream) AS a source? Can we take the table as written and massage it to cite those things and use "proper" language where needed? It's a HELL OF A LOT BETTER in this tabular form, broken down by specific releases, than the existing vague (and also largely uncited) paragraphs saying that SOME source has it but others may not, etc. And you'll note that I did cite specific exact sources when I could. Since youtube is also a citable source, when I get back from being out of town, I will make available a compilation video I've made of some of the differences, so they're cited properly and whatnot. As for the DREADED O.R. QUESTION, all I can say is I would HAVE LOVED to get this sort of information in a simple and clear form when I was trying to learn about what the changes were. If I've gotta go post it on Tumblr or Wordpress or something and then quote it here, fine. But people want to know this stuff. So, O guardians of the MPFC Wikipedia page, have your discussion. I'll check back to see what you say. -174.100.165.147 (talk) 23:47, 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Much of that information is unsourced, so by default it should not be on WP. I have tried to establish that there may be sketches lost to BBC censoring post-release need to be sourced. The only clear ones that can be sourced are the sketched that used David Frost's personal phone/address. So before this can even be made into a table, find sources to support them. Otherwise, this should be drastically trimmed. (There's more that also needs to be severly trimmed, as well as moving things from Monty Python to here that are about the show specifically. --Masem (t) 23:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, so that returns to my question: HOW do you source a DVD, laserdisc, or other recording (or stream)? Even if you can't be certain in general which version was originally aired you can clearly establish with the different releases that there are different versions. I remember all these guides in high school about how to cite a commercial videorecording for a term paper; is there something similar on WP? May I cite LDDB.com pages that contain laserdisc details? Those are sources. I'm pretty sure I can cite the annotated book of episode scripts, too. Easy peasy. Also, I don't know why you're mentioning the David Frost example, because that HAS no citation at all! It's just like all the other thousands of random sentences added with no support.

If this is too much for a subsection, then can we make it its own page? Again, I'm sure people would clamor for a compendium of minor differences that goes into such detail. Everywhere else you look on the web, there is someone's single small subset of the three or four things THAT person noticed, on that person's one copy and a hazy memory of a PBS broadcast that's been lost to time. Nowhere do you ever get a feeling of a comprehensive list, let alone one you can check your own version against or determine where you might find a better version. (At one point I assumed the A&E copies were all that was left, forever! Obviously that's not so.)174.100.165.147 (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It is technically original research to say "I remember it aired this way, but on the home media release it went this way instead." We need sources. If there was a compilation of lost material as a DVD feature (so we aren't guessing what was removed) then we can use a AV media citation template for that.

That said, it looks like some of this can be sourced based on papers obtained from Palin's archives last year. I have not looked into that in any depth to know what we can use, but this is definitely a start. --Masem (t) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Well OK. I think we can make this work. Unfortunately, I'm leaving tonight for two weeks, so I'll check back in then, and see what I can do. Note please that I am NOT saying "I remember this but this home video is this". I am trying to pin down the home video versions as explicitly as possible. This is one youtube video that documents the laserdisc versions (at least the parts the content matches don't block): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wYeTQWZEZI - will that be a useful source to cite? Is the citation for the "party political choreography" in episode 38 (an existing citation I pulled into the table) acceptable as one of these DVD features on lost material? Would I have to make a video compilation of the A&E DVD versions of each clip, or (people seem to keep avoiding this topic) MAY I CITE THE DVD ITSELF? What's the "AV media citation template"? 174.100.165.147 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as the DVD itself says, to some degree "This was a lost/deleted scene" then you can cite the DVD directly, no need to make a video, etc. --Masem (t) 00:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we also need to consider that if no reliable references exist for a particular bit of information, it might not be notable enough for inclusion. It is great to have commentary bits from disc commentaries, but it often feels trivial. I do hope that the Palin archives provide some better insight (I personally like the fact that it can be sourced to a publication, even though its behind a paywall). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)