Jump to content

Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
The Late Graham Chapman
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(204 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
== Usefulness of the subpages ==
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Notice|{{Find sources}}}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Comedy| importance =High}}
{{WikiProject Television|importance=Top|british-television=yes|british-television-importance=top|monty-python=yes|monty-python-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject BBC|importance=High}}
}}
<!-- please do not remove this tag -->
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-10-05|oldid1=6373692|date2=2005-10-05|oldid2=24761917|date3=2006-10-05|oldid3=79543315}}


{{Former TAFI|date=22 July 2013}}
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)]]? -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus/Archive %(counter)d
}}
== The "It's" Man-hermit or castaway? ==


Unless the Pythons themselves have described this character as a hermit, I think it's more accurate that he is a castaway, from a shipwreck or some other disaster. His tattered clothes tend to indicate that he has survived some disaster and a long period of isolation and a long trek back to civilization. Consider the show openings in which he came up out of the surf onto a shore. It's a minor detail, to be sure, but I recommend reviewing and updating this.---theBaron0530 5. October 2010 12:30 ET
== Episode order ==


== Transnational themes (again) ==
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:


I know this has been discussed before, but I don't think the "transnational themes" section is particularly relevant or that this is a notable aspect of Monty Python. Given that the section is only based on two sources, both of which are by the same author, it seems that one person's hobby horse has been given more prominence than it merits. Should we delete it? [[User:MFlet1|MFlet1]] ([[User talk:MFlet1|talk]]) 06:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
# Sex and Violence (Recorded as Series 1, Show 2)
# Whither Canada (Recorded as Series 1, Show 1)
# How to Recognize Different Types of Trees... (Recorded as Series 1, Show 3)
# Owl-stretching Time (Recorded as Series 1, Show 4)
# Man's Crisis of Identity... (Recorded as Series 1, Show 5)
# The Ant - an Introduction (Recorded as Series 1, Show 7)
# ...


I agree. There have been thousands of articles written about the show, I'm not sure why these two are of particular importance to the general public. The show was internationally popular, I think that's covered elsewhere in the article. [[User:Jbmcb|Jbmcb]] ([[User talk:Jbmcb|talk]]) 03:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
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. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 21:35 27 May 2003 (UTC)


== MP vs. MPFC, Part the First ==
== Merge this with the "Monty Python" article. ==


There's another article named "Monty Python", with mostly the same content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python
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. [[User:HappyDog|HappyDog]] 17:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I suggest that article be amalgamated with this and the result published here. [[User talk: Therealzwaa | zwaa]] 11:46, 14 September 2020 (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. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 17:20, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


== Flying Circus ==
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 :) [[User:HappyDog|HappyDog]] 17:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I can't speak for what the group actually intended at the time, but Richthofen's squadron was named after an already extant term used to describe a traveling circus, in the sense of moving often and quickly. The aviators adopted the term because the word 'flying' took on a new meaning when applied to an aviation uni, but mostly because the unit was housed in tents and frequently moved around to different sectors of the front on little notice, so it essentially meant 'traveling circus'. The flying circus aspect came from the way they lived and traveled on the ground, and was not meant to imply anything circus-like or humorous about their actual flying, which was dead serious and professional. In any case, unless the group themselves stated that they were thinking of WW1 aviators, there is no particular reason to think they weren't simply adopting the same term as Richthofen did, rather than copying him specifically. A Flying Circus is a thing even without WW1 aviation.
== MP vs. MPFC, Part the Second ==
[[Special:Contributions/64.222.88.237|64.222.88.237]] ([[User talk:64.222.88.237|talk]]) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

== "[[:And now for something completely different (quote)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
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.
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]

The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=And_now_for_something_completely_different_(quote)&redirect=no And now for something completely different (quote)]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2#And now for something completely different (quote)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
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. [[User:HappyDog|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. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:HappyDog|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. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk: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...
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(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! [[User:HappyDog|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.
::: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(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. [[User:HappyDog|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. [[User:Moncrief|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. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk: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.
: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(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. --[[User:HappyDog|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...
::: [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(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. --[[User:HappyDog|HappyDog]] 11:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:06, 15 July 2024

The "It's" Man-hermit or castaway?

[edit]

Unless the Pythons themselves have described this character as a hermit, I think it's more accurate that he is a castaway, from a shipwreck or some other disaster. His tattered clothes tend to indicate that he has survived some disaster and a long period of isolation and a long trek back to civilization. Consider the show openings in which he came up out of the surf onto a shore. It's a minor detail, to be sure, but I recommend reviewing and updating this.---theBaron0530 5. October 2010 12:30 ET

Transnational themes (again)

[edit]

I know this has been discussed before, but I don't think the "transnational themes" section is particularly relevant or that this is a notable aspect of Monty Python. Given that the section is only based on two sources, both of which are by the same author, it seems that one person's hobby horse has been given more prominence than it merits. Should we delete it? MFlet1 (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There have been thousands of articles written about the show, I'm not sure why these two are of particular importance to the general public. The show was internationally popular, I think that's covered elsewhere in the article. Jbmcb (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with the "Monty Python" article.

[edit]

There's another article named "Monty Python", with mostly the same content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python

I suggest that article be amalgamated with this and the result published here. zwaa 11:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Circus

[edit]

I can't speak for what the group actually intended at the time, but Richthofen's squadron was named after an already extant term used to describe a traveling circus, in the sense of moving often and quickly. The aviators adopted the term because the word 'flying' took on a new meaning when applied to an aviation uni, but mostly because the unit was housed in tents and frequently moved around to different sectors of the front on little notice, so it essentially meant 'traveling circus'. The flying circus aspect came from the way they lived and traveled on the ground, and was not meant to imply anything circus-like or humorous about their actual flying, which was dead serious and professional. In any case, unless the group themselves stated that they were thinking of WW1 aviators, there is no particular reason to think they weren't simply adopting the same term as Richthofen did, rather than copying him specifically. A Flying Circus is a thing even without WW1 aviation. 64.222.88.237 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And now for something completely different (quote)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect And now for something completely different (quote) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2 § And now for something completely different (quote) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Python%27s_Flying_Circus&oldid=1234719736"