Talk:Monty Python sketches

Merge

The following discussion 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.

---

Most of these sketches shouldn't require full articles. This list should be able to cover the topic from a broader perspective, and those that later prove to be notable can always be split out again. I've started with five for now, and we'll see about others depending on how this proceeds. TTN (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) is notable enough for its own article. The information in those articles makes them long enough to stand on their own, no way to merge all that over here, they'd just be deleted entirely or left as pointless stubs with virtually no information in them. Dream Focus 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP asserts that "these sketches shouldn't require full articles". No evidence is provided nor is it explained what a "full article" is. How would merger be anything other than busy work just shuffling our content around to no purpose and inviting improper synthesis? As there are many notable Python sketches (such as The Fish-Slapping Dance which inspires our very own WP:TROUT), merger would create a bloated page greater than advised by WP:SIZE. Warden (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not like this wouldn't have potential, especially with some general information on the production of the sketches and the like. For the individual sketches, some of these do have some sources, but really not enough to get more than a few sentences a piece. One paragraph describing the sketch (there is no need for a four paragraph long plot summary for two to ten minute sketches, and there is also the episode list that needs to be fleshed out), one paragraph for production information, and one for reception/cultural impact would be ideal. Removing some of the really silly stuff like the cheese list in one of the articles and other stuff would get most of these down to a reasonable size. It's not like it would be all of them, nor would all of them be permanently stuck here. If they actually do show potential, splitting them out without all of the unsourced information and giant plot summaries would produce better articles should they get to that point. TTN (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have some experience editing these articles and so am quite sure that items like the list of cheeses are exactly what our readership wants and creates. If they wanted material along the lines you suggest then that's what we'd have. But I'm not here for the full 30 minutes. Suffice it to say that your arguments are unconvincing and my !vote stands. Warden (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a very good argument. The general readership has always wanted giant plot summaries, unsourced trivia, original research, and all sorts of stuff in fiction related articles. If they cared otherwise, it would not take dedicated individuals to build good, sourced articles. The majority of these skit articles have barely been truly worked on in the sense of improving them to GA status and beyond. Something like the cheese list would be good for Wikia where anything can be explored, but an entire transcript of a conversation without any real purpose does not fit well with anything here. Even if that article turned out to be GA material, I can say for sure that section would have to be removed for it to be promoted. TTN (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Warden. The cheese list is something you can easily skip, but if you want to read it you can. The main reason WP:SIZE guidelines are set is to improve readability. Dcarroll9999 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• "What our readership wants" is not what we're developing this work - we're trying to build a free content academic encyclopedia. The Reader Feedback tool shows that many expect us to be better than google and document everything to the smallest detail despite being a tertiary source and really have no clue what our mission actually is. As TTN points out, we can point to external resources that are much better suited for providing the full list in the sketch (which here, may border on copyvio given how much of that sketch is listing out the cheeses), but we just need to summarize the popular sketch and provide links where one can learn more, as such a tertiary source should be doing. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia not an academic work and it is explicit policy that "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics." Our readers and editors determine our content, not self-appointed arbiters. The current pages represent years of work by numerous editors. If the readership is not content with this then please provide evidence of this. A couple of nay-sayers are insignificant in the context of the readership for a page like the Spanish Inquisition which gets about 100,000 hits in a year. Warden (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• You act like there aren't general guidelines and ways to detail fictional topics, all of which have been discussed by users. Look at any good or featured article related to fiction, and you'll see what people want articles to become at their full potential. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that do not meet that standard, but that does not mean it should be ignored because of the "work" that has gone into them. These pages are bad, and even if some do have the potential to be kept, the end result will be something completely different. It will be a concise summary instead of unruly paragraphs, general cultural impact instead of a trivial list of every minor reference ever uttered, and pertinent information instead of a cheese list. Wikia is home to those kinds of details where fans may do as they please and be as detailed as the like. This is, while informal, still an encyclopedia focused on detailing actual information rather than fancruft. TTN (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• There's a different between text and content. We write text for general audience, but our content is limited as defined by WP:NOT. How long the information has been around has no bearing. How many hits the page receives has no bearing. (Granted, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is one that likely would be retained as a standalone article. Further we are talking merges, not deletion, meaning the contribution history remains intact). We are an academic work, an encyclopedia, and thus we are tasked to write better than just what the layreaders would expect to see, to serve that purpose better. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Query - can anyone explain what the purpose of this list is? What I mean is, it would seem to replicate Category:Monty Python sketches and duplicate the navigational work of {{Monty Python}}. But it only includes 4 entries as "notable and recurring sketches" though dozens of notable (enough to have their own articles) sketches are listed in the template and there are 43 in the category. Is it the "recurring" bit? And why merge those four in particular and not any of the other 39? Stalwart111 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I created it as a basic merge target rather than clog up the main page, and I started with four because I didn't feel like taking the time to tag all of them in the case that this would fail miserably from a bunch of people voting with nostalgia glasses instead of editorial standards. I'll probably have it speedy deleted if nothing comes of this. TTN (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I understand. Must have missed that explanation somewhere, but it makes sense to me. I'm not sure that merging would be a great idea, simply from the perspective that it might create a massive and unwieldy article, even with only short summaries of 43 sketches (many of which would need at least a couple of paragraphs, even when summarised). But I get where you're coming from and good on you for doing it this way rather than just unilaterally merging/redirecting. And thanks for the very quick reply! Stalwart111 06:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think all of them will actually need to be placed into a list. Some of them "establish" notability with a few basic sources, while a number of others simply exist for the sake of existing. Summarizing the basics of the sketch rather than summarizing the exact "plot" of the sketch, and then focusing on their real world influence would likely save some space as well. TTN (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, yeah, some. But even if we're (very) generous and assume that half would go in that scenario, summarising 22 articles to create a massive article with 22 level-2 sub-headings would still be a huge undertaking. That's probably still too big an article for me. I'd say the best bet would be to nominate those that might not be notable for deletion and see what you're left with. Stalwart111 08:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was thinking about it, but then I looked at some of the past AfDs. There are a few that would probably be deleted without much trouble, but the majority are likely to be more affected by personal feelings than anything else. It would just be a bunch of no consensus closings with advice to start a merge discussion, so I've just decided to skip to that step. I'd hope that doing a few at a time would allow for more focused discussion and keep the article from instantly bloating up. I'll probably have to ask on a few project pages to actually get any opinions at this point. TTN (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that a merge discussion then becomes a giant AFD for all of the articles in question, or at least the 4 you've listed. At least one of those would likely never be merged (let alone deleted) based on sources. It certainly wouldn't need to rely on ILIKEIT votes. Stalwart111 09:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merges are not deletions (otherwise TTN would have just gone to AFD in the first place). The sketch names are all searchable terms so their current page contents would be replaced with redirects to here, so all past contributions are still there, hence why its not deletion. And should a sketch gain sufficient notability in the future for a standalone article, the redirect can be undone without loss of the previous information. Also, articles with 22 subheadings happens often, but there's other ways to organize the information to avoid heading overload (such as by having the h2 headings be by season, h3 the sketch names) --MASEM (t) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, yeah. I just mean their future is being discussed as it would at an AFD but without the benefit of individual discussions. It's only going to take one that shouldn't be merged (like Spanish Inquisition, which has been included) for the discussion to be derailed. But obviously the outcomes are different and TTN hasn't proposed deletion. Stalwart111 13:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Many of these sketch pages are just summarizing the sketch and noting the pop culture referencing back to them, and give no other details that would meet the GNG, but they are things that we should document. Strip away unsourced pop culture references back to the sketch and the other parts related to having a full page, and one can easily have two-three paragraphs on most of these skits to be listed out here. The few that are notable on their own (Spanish Inquisition, Dead Parrot) can be listed but with see-also/main links to these specific articles. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I don't mind evaluating each sketch on a case by case basis, but there's quite a few such as Spam Sketch (responsible for the generic internet term), Dead Parrot (used by Margaret Thatcher in political debate) and Argument Sketch (cited as an example of English language or debating style in a surprising number of academic texts) that have transcended their initial use in Python, that I'd be hesitant about assuming they were all trivial matters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this move with fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency. Its gave a significant contribution to British culture that we didn't expect. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:45, 4 September 2014 (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.