Monty Python has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 30, 2004 Peer review Reviewed November 7, 2005 Good article nominee Listed April 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:WP Monty Python

BBC GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Comedy GA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk:Monty Python/archive1 — All discussion predating 1 Jan 2006. Includes miscellaneous questions and discussion on cleanup since resolved.

One in opening, a few in the middle and a different one from the rest in the triva section.

And why does everything sound all "Britishy"?

At the risk of stating the obvious - They're a British group, centered in Britain, comprised mostly of Brits, working for a terriably British institution and the story of the group takes place largely in Britain. Couple with this the fact that a lot of the people contributing are British, and I think you have yer answer. We could americanise it by throwing in a few cowboys and a car chase. And they can all keep calling each other "Assholes". We'd have to remove any aspect of comedy from the article but I think we could swing it. What do you think?--Crestville 14:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it!

I suggest you have a look at Talk:The Beatles where you will note that there is a template for a notice including commenting that the article is being written in "British English", since the subject matter is British. Whilst there are a few, usually well meaning, queries most contributors respect it. (It should be noted that Wiki policy allows articles with a particular cultural origin to be written in the grammer of that culture.)Please feel free to adapt it if you think it helps.LessHeard vanU 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "Monty" mean "nude" in British slang? -as in going "the full monty", just like the movie of the same name? And "Python", isn't that slang for a penis? So doesn't that mean they were called the Naked Penis Circus? This fits in with their pushing of boundaries for the era that they produced the show in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.8.197 01:09 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No it does not mean that. "The full monty" means "the whole way", i.e. with nothing missing (e.g. pure unadulterated alcohol). The usage in the movie, "The Full Monty", is in line with this definition as an indication of how far the stripping went.

If the word has come to mean "nude", it is as a direct result of what happened in the movie. "Monty" had no such meaning at the time of "Monty Python's Flying Circus". As for your suggested alternative meaning of "Python", that's just your imagination at work, and it has no basis in fact. Figaro 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Monty" was chosen in honour of Field Marshall Montgomery? Are you sure? Whenever I have heard any of the Python team being interviewed they have always said that the name was just chosen from a long list of random surreal ones that they just thought up, I've never heard any of them suggest that the name had anything to do with Montgomery, and it seems fairly unlikely to me because it's too literal and obvious. Montgomery was well known as "Monty" , and the Pythons would have been far more likely to choose something surreal and weird. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.94.247 12:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you addressing with your remarks linking "Monty Python" with Montgomery? Obviously your comments were not directed at me, because I never made any such suggestion — and, as far as I can see, neither did anybody else. So it must be your own idea — and, therefore, yourself, who you are arguing with. Figaro 09:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone did because it's in paragraph 4 of the main article. But in any case, Michael Palin confirmed when interviewed by Michael Parkinson on BBC that the name was simply a random one. They wanted to call the show "someone's" Flying Circus. "Python" as a surname sounded suitably silly, and the first name "Monty", according to Palin, made them fall about laughing so they went with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.21.215 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that this is an urban legend. Does anyone have a reliable reference?

No such event is alluded to The Pythons' Autobiography. The relevant line in John Cleese's section simply states, "After I'd gone to Clifton for five years, I came back to Weston[-super-Mare] and taught at the same prep school I'd attended as a boy." He later says that he finished at Clifton at the the age of eighteen. He also describes the plays in which he took part, in which "there was never any sense of doing it for anything other than fun" and that he "liked the experience of being part of a team". I think it's fairly safe to consign this to the drawer marked 'Urban Legends'. Chris 42 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the article. Chris 42 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page says that his name was changed from Cheese when his father joined the army in WWII ("Born on October 27, 1939 in Weston-Super-Mare, England, Cleese’s surname had originally been Cheese. His father, however, had the name changed to Cleese when he joined the army during WWII.") However, the John Cleese entry says that his father changed the name upon entering the army in 1915, which would be WWI ("His family's surname was previously "Cheese", but his father, an insurance salesman, changed his surname to "Cleese" upon joining the army in 1915.") This also implies he was born as Cleese, and that the change was made before he was born. I don't know which is accurate, but I think one of the statements is wrong.

You're absolutely right, it is. According to the Python biography and the interview with John Cleese on the Fawlty Towers DVD, it's WWI. Cleese's father was relatively advanced in age by the time Cleese was born - too old to have been in the Army. Also, the claim that Cleese made a cameo in Series Four is absolutely incorrect. I've watched Series Four (indeed, all 45 episodes) many times and have never seen Cleese make a cameo in that fourth season - although his wife, Connie Booth, whom Cleese claims to have been a reason he left the series (he supposedly wanted to work more with her, and did on Fawlty Towers four years later), does appear in the episode "Hamlet." I can also find no support for the claim that the series title was changed to "Monty Python." If nobody can present any, I'll be happy to fix the page.JCaesar 06:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book Monty Python Speaks by David Morgan refers to Cleese leaving the show and taking the circus with him as the new title became simply Monty Python. I believe it was mentioned in Kim "Howard" Johnson's book as well. IrishGuy 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me (silly American that I am) that each one of the Python troupe had a characteristic speaking accent. Was Eric Idle supposed to be Cockney and John Cleese supposed to be upper class or something? Did each Python speak with his usual voice or did some/all put on stage accents? I'm pretty completely in the dark about all this, so if it's just rubbish feel free to ignore it. 64.48.193.107 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They would usually put on a differant voice (be it through accent, pitch, etc.) Idle occasionally played cockney characters, but then so did they all. Likewise, Cleese would often play upperclass charcters, but not always. They all had a wide variety of characters and therefore voices.--Crestville 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would deem most Python voices as caricatures (Cleese would portray the "thicko" just as much as the "upper class twit of the year" type) depending on the type of sketch. They would sometimes use their "real" voices for comic effect in scenes of otherwise nonsensical unreality. Palin and Idle were perhaps least likely to affect a speaking style, unless they were in drag (which is confusingly reasonable, I suppose!)LessHeard vanU 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's what I was trying to say, but I don't speak good England.--Crestville 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 11:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is a regular inconsistency regarding quotes. Punctuation such as the period and comma, and Question Mark, have appeared either inside or outside quotes. Is it typical for these types of punctuation to be outside of quotes in the Queen's English? This is the only conclusion I have, and I believe if it is true, then the article needs to be edited in 'U.K.' style. Anybody concur?--Jimcripps 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very knowledgable on what went behind Monty Python's appearance at the Concert for George tribute. Perhaps if any of you chaps feel you know enough about the subject, you could add something about that. Among the things I am not certain of is if any Python has gone into why Cleese did not take part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilikeburritos (talk • contribs) .

The above image is about to be deleted, as it fails the criteria for fair use. If anyone can find something more suitable, that would be lovely. The BBC website, where this image was originally sourced from, statesthe following:

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

Great. We need something better. Unless we can gain "prior written permission"... riana but of course i'm listening 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has him listed as a devoted fan and an occasional stand in... would mentioning his surrealism in comparison to the Pythons be worth mentioning?--Artega 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid fact - though he is obviously not alone in having been influenced. I think that reference belongs in either of two places. The article about izzard himself. And - in relation to the Pythons - perhaps in a list of comedic performers who have acknoweldged them as an influence - eg the South Park creators. Davidpatrick 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good and valid to add Douglas Adams. Disagree about listing "Associate Pythons" in alphabetical order. If there were a lot of names - it might make sense. But with very few - it is much more appropriate to list them in some sort of sequence of import and significance to the Python canon.

If listed alphabetically Adams (who co-wrote just 2 skits) and Connie Booth (who appeared in a few) are listed above Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland who both became integral to the Pythons. Innes in their stage shows, films and records (plus the last TV series). Cleveland on the TV shows, stage shows and films. Both of them have multiple credits and appearances - and logically they should be listed before Adams and Booth. Davidpatrick 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let's keep the current (non alphabetical) order. CWL 18:51, 16 September 2006 (CET)

I have added "Other Contributors" to the "Associate Pythons" caption as the latter expression in principle only refers to Cleveland and Innes. C-w-l 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above discussion regarding the order of Associate Pythons - in what order are the actual Pythons currently listed and what is the reason? CWL 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. I don't see any particular logic governing the current sequence. Since the Pythons didn't grow out of a single member's vision - eg as the Beatles evolved from Lennon's first band - there is no "first member" per se. In this particular section - ie the 6 Pythons - i think they should be in alphabetical. Unless someone has a better idea. Davidpatrick 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with alphabetical. C-w-l 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Figaro 11:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone seems to agree, I just changed it. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two souls, one thought. :-) C-w-l 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed it too. I guess this time you were in the edit conflict. Usually that's me :) Garion96 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Pythons saw themselves as being equal to each other Python; thus, they were always listed alphabetically in the credits. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"That left Idle in his own corner, considered to be a sensible position in view of the arcane nature of his work, and Idle." One of the two has to go and maybe Gilliam take his place. Hoverfish 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a pun, you know, Idle wasn't working hard on his own -- he was idle. ;) Anyway, Irishguy took care of it. Banaticus 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crestville, I experimented a bit with padding and tested for Firefox, IE and Opera compatibility. Wiki seems to have a disproportionate default left and bottom padding for framed images in boxed content, which is hard to diminish. Even the way it is now, the box frame is a bit too large. Hoverfish 08:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon?--Crestville 11:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just used some detailed styling to center the image in the infobox and since it was your work I thought I'd let you know I messed with it (compare the versions to see what I mean). Hoverfish 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ta very much.--Crestville 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, Chapman was the first to say "shit" on British television, but according to the eulogy that Cleese delivered, *Cleese* was "very proud to be the first person to say 'shit' on British television." --Whit 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Link doesn't work-video's been deleted. (Curvebill 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Trivia entries to their related articles (to Monty Python's Flying Circus and to Always Look on the Bright Side of Life in their Trivia sections), without evaluating as for their inclusion or not in Wikipedia (as unencyclopedic, etc). If anyone wants to revert, please read the above entry first and also "Avoid trivia sections in articles". Also I created a section named "Things named after Monty Python" and moved there some related items from Trivia. If the title is not appropriate, please change it to a better one. As for the trivia entries left, I simply don't know where it is best to move them, so if anyone does, please help clean up the article. --Hoverfish 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the retained trivia should be there in such case. The items which were deleted seemed just as relevant to me. I say either retain all or delete all. Consistency, please!

I agree with you. As I write above, the rest of the trivia should also go to a more relevant page, but I haven't found the proper place yet. I am reluctant to simply delete them (moving is not the same as deleting), but consistency will come soon. Hoverfish 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) --There goes, moved to Flying Circus trivia, no more trivia section here. Please, remember to sign. Hoverfish 14:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a general rewrite on a lot of sections, tightening up the style and adding some new information. I didn't finish the whole article - if everyone thinks what I've done is too bold, feel free to revert, but a lot of it is unchanged (and I didn't touch the formatting).

There's still a lot wrong with this article, though. It still creaks a bit in terms of style, and a lot of the problems listed above still need to be corrected. The biography section just doesn't work: there's very little information on the lives of the members, and a lot of repetition of stuff that's already been covered. Also, because the entries are mostly about that member's writing style, there's a lot of overlap between the Palin one and the Jones one, and the same with Cleese and Chapman. Strikes me that this is a pretty good article that could be very good indeed if someone does a bit of spade-work on it. I didn't want to change too much myself, as I've already rewritten large chunks of it MrBronson 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"When Jesus does appear in the film (as he does on two occasions, first in the stable, and then later speaking the Beatitudes (Matt 5:1-48)), he is played straight (by British actor Kenneth Colley) - the comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statement “Blessed are the Peacemakers” (“I think he said, 'blessed are the cheesemakers'”)." Jesus also appears a third time as Brian is carrying the cross with the other people to be executed. Jesus is selling crosses on a stall, when he offers to lighten a condemned man’s burden, who then runs off leaving Jesus to carry the cross and be executed. – if no one objects I will edit this sometime next week. --Radioactive turnip 12:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the character played by Terry Jones, that's not Jesus, it's Simon of Cyrenia. Check your bible (or like me, cast your mind back to tedious sunday school classes). Simon was the guy who offered to help Jesus carry his cross... some early Christian sects actually believed that Simon was mistakenly crucified in Jesus' place - which is probably where the Pythons got the idea for this gag (they'd been doing loads of research into Biblical times and this story could have appealed to their sense of humour). Then again, it's been a while since I saw the film, so I might be wrong. MrBronson 21:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reckon you're right, MrBronson (may I call you Chuck?). Pretty certain the 'real' JC is only on screen twice... Cheers, Ian Rose 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a claim of anything besides commonly held beliefs and scientific facts be supported by some sort of references?

This is a question about the Monty Python wiki as much as it is about wikipedia itself.

I'm noticing a trend where obvious fans of a person/product/service make universal claims about the subject with no citations to back up their position.

It's one thing to state the known and irrefutable facts about a subject like Monty Python. It's an entirely other thing to say that the subject is highly regarded as blah blah blah. Who regards the subject as that? I don't. So, how many people did it take for the author to determine it's a "highly" regarded belief?

Sorry... I'll give you an example. In this article, there were several such instances, but the last one I noticed before writing this was the statment that South Park was inspired by Gilliam's work on Monty Python.

This may or may not be fact, and until you can cite an interview where the South Park creators made this statement, then you can't post it as truth. It's only an opinion. And quite possibly, only the opinion of one person - the author of the wiki. The mere fact that the two productions have cut-out animation in common does NOT mean that the South Park animators have ever even SEEN Monty Python.

Sorry for the rant. But the more and more wikipedia poses articles that are filled with gushy unsupported claims, the more it will turn into a discarded fan site run by some 15 yr old.

I know I have seen a interwiev with the makers of south park saying this.Can anyone find a link?

BTW since this is about Monty Python, earbuckels and snowhead, thats right, fistcleaning and morebread. Thank you everyone, thank :you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.19.122 (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The South Park guys contributed an interview and a South Park-does-Python skit to the BBC's 30th anniversary TV special in 1999. In the interview they spoke about how much they have been influenced by Python. The skit was a spoof on the Dead Parrot skit - featuring the South Park characters. Looking for a link. But it's not in doubt. It's also on the DVD of the TV special. Davidpatrick 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly another useful reference: Monty Python : a chronological listing of the troupe’s creative output, and articles and reviews about them, 1969-1989 / by Douglas L. McCall. (1991) phoebe 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Martin hosted 20 Years of Python: Parrot Sketch Not Included. He was also a Python fan. Even though he said in the show that he said that it was was crazy and stupid to say that he loved them. Fact or fiction? Maybe somebody knows.

I have just created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_referred_to_in_the_works_of_Monty_Python and would like to add a box or category to every article that is referenced in it. I was thinking of a small box that says "The subject of this article is mentioned in the works of Monty Python". Can you please tell me how to create such a box and whether I should just make it a category. If so, then how do I make a new category? Johnalexwood 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a full reunion per se as that term is commonly used in the entertainment world. The 5 surviving members gathered on stage for a tribute evening in Aspen at the HBO comedy festval in 1998. But it was primarily a salute - not a performance. In 1999 4 of the 5 did a couple of skits together as linking material for the BBC 30th anniversary TV special. In 2003 the survivng members were in the same theater for the premiere of Eric Idle's Spamalot. None of those gatherings constitute a reunion. Certainly not suffice to be listed in the info box. Should be referenced in the article itself. Perhaps in a self-contained section. Davidpatrick 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2002 they performed at the Concert for George (Harrison). I think it should be in there. Call it Partial reunions then. Yannick Ouwehand 15:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree these occasional one-off get-togethers should be noted. But in the article itself. Perhaps a separate little section listing all such occasions. But these ad-hoc appearances are not "reunions" or even "partial reunions" such as that is understood. If they had done a tour or series of events or a film - that would be a "reunion" that would warrant being in the info box. But occasional one-off appearances are not real reunions. Davidpatrick 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, does anyone else think we have too much detail on Life of Brian here, considering it has its own article? Three paragraphs should be more than enough to summarise things here, as it is with Holy Grail and Meaning of Life. Anyone have serious objections to culling some of it here, merging anything unique (very little I'd say) with the main Brian article? Speak now... Cheers, Ian Rose 06:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty good article at one point, but recently someone seems to have been through it and rewritten large chunks without adding any new information. Furthermore, the rewriting has destroyed the flow, introducing spelling errors and poor syntax. I did a massive cleanup on this article a few months ago - does anyone have the energy to do another one? MrBronson 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've described a related problem at Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus#Blancmange (Monty Python TV) - do problems reflect end of an era?.

If so, what a great show run, eh? :) Milo 22:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prospectively way way too many to be shown in an infobox - and far far too subjective an issue anyway. Showing a list of people who influenced THEM is easy and can be backed up. Putting a list inside an infobox (which is intended to be for verifiable facts) of those that they influenced is asking for trouble. You could have dozens of names. What qualifies as "influenced"? The entertainer's opinion that he/she was influenced? The opinion of a critic? A wikipedia editor? All too sketchy for an infobox. By all means create a section in the article of people/groups who MAY have been influenced by Python.

Here are a few to consider: Not the Nine O'Clock News, Rowan Atkinson, Douglas Adams, South Park, Eddie Izzard, Fry and Laurie Davidpatrick 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here be a User block for Python fans!

This user is a fan of Monty Python, and has faced the Killer Rabbit!

I have proposed a Monty Python Wikiproject at the Wikiproject proposal page and add your name to interested users. I look forward to starting the project asap. Ganfon 02:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there already is a WikiProject...but it is currently inactive, and poorly constructed.

I see in the introductory text above the table of contents that there have been 5 Monty Python films, but the films section only names 4. Is there a mistake in the introductory text, or has a movie been left out from the films section? --Steve Kroon 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. The intro says 5 and the infobox names them. The one missing from the Films section is Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl. Don't see why it shouldn't get a subsection of its own under Films. Not offering to do it myself, mind... Cheers, Ian Rose 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the world of Monty Python is big enough to warrant having its own portal, however, I don’t know how to go about creating a portal or what the criteria are for doing so.

The separate article on the has been proposed for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Architects_Sketch There are other articles on individual sketches. If this one is to be retained it will probably need to be cleaned up. Kablammo 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was this a monty python film or just from one of the residents? Jabberwocky (1977)

A movie about a poor farmer named Dennis who ends up invulountery slaying the Jabberwocky and marrying the princess.

Jabberwocky (film) was not a Monty Python film. Although some Python members worked on it, Palin, Jones and of course Terry Gilliam the director. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information about the series of Monty Python books. Does anyone have any information? Julian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juliankaufman (talk • contribs) 07:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

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 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrianCohen.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 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 04:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of this is the "It's" man: Palin in Robinson Crusoe garb, making a tortuous journey across various terrains, before finally approaching the camera to state, "It's...", only to be then cut off by the title sequence and the theme song.

Is there some reference that the "It's" character is actually being cut off, i.e. that he wanted to say more? Else I'd call that theory finding and will delete it. I've never had the impression that the "It's" character had any other purpose than saying "It's", so unless someone has a reference to the contrary, Wikipedia shouldn't spin any yarn. Or am I just misunderstanding that sentence? --Ibn Battuta 02:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ConcertGeorgePython.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 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 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chicken carried by the Knight is most definitely not rubber, but a real, plucked, dead one. If it wasn't being used to move silly sketches on it would be pushing up the daisies. I've amended this page, and the subsequently-affected Rubber Chicken page. From Monty Python's Flying Circus – Just The Words, vol 1, p33; Methuen, 1990 (How To Recognise Different Types of Trees From Quite A Long Way Away):

After a few seconds he sees that the rest of the court are staring at him in amazement and he loses momentum rapidly, almost as rapidly as he loses confidence and dignity. At last he subsides. Our knight in armour walks up to the counsel and hits him with the traditional raw chicken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.169.3 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Douglas Adams and Eddie Izzard are widely seen as their most direct heirs" - is there a source for this? Sounds like someone's personal opinion HairyDan (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JonesPalinIdle.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) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reunion.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) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bits in "Post Python Reunions" about Eric Idle vs John Cleese do not track. Which reunion feature Eddie Izzard standing in for Eric Idle? Eddie Izzard appeared at the Aspen reunion instead of Ghraham Chapman. Also, if they were so angry with each other after 1990, why is John Cleese in Eric Idle's film Splitting Heirs in 1993? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.149.63.203 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the Python industrial films fit in? The Birds Eye Pea Company or the Harmony hairspray ones? -Wikianon (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Lyn Ashley's name with the other contributors in the box on the bottom of the page. I mean no disrespect to Ms. Ashley, but does she really need to be there? According to her imdb profile, she only appeared in 5 episodes, and they were all very small roles. It seems to me that she shouldn't be included with the likes of Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland, unless she contributed in some way that I am not aware of. I think it is sufficient to simply mention, on her own page, that she has had roles on Monty Python. Does anyone else think her name should be taken off the other contributors list? Yarrachel (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In many episodes of Flying Circus, a "Mrs. Idle" is credited as a 7th Python, along with Carol Cleveland, Connie Booth, etc. Is this Eric Idle's wife, or mother - or himself? Anyone knows? --Midasminus (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed this from the list of notable sketches in the section about the TV series. It's a common misconception, but this sketch, while undoubtably a classic, is not from any episode of Flying Circus, but actually had its birth in The 1948 Show (which, of course, did feature Cleese and Chapman, hence the understandable confusion.)

Elsewhere, I have gone through the article, mostly performing a structural cleaning up (either just the structure of individual sentences, or of particular paragraphs). About three or four pieces of information have been added, mostly to the sections on the films and the individual members - but they're not Earth-shattering. Most don't need any outside verification. Slightly more oblique references have been taken care of with footnote links. (Some of these are really just slight - but sometimes necessary - expansions on what was already here e.g. mentioning that Terry Jones' cancer scare did not last long. The article previously gave the impression that it still afflicted him.) Also felt that it was more appropriate to mention South Park instead of a Franz Ferdinand video in the 'Pythonesque' section.

Also, with regards, Palin's 'retirement' from comedy. I am sure he has declared something along those lines (after all he hasn't done anything on this front since Fierce Creatures in 1997), but I cannot find a written source just yet. I'll keep looking.

Kisbie (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)