Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus

An event mentioned in this article is an October 5 selected anniversary.

---

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)

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)

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 noncontroversial 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)