Talk:List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters

Tony Harrison

Why on the Tony Harrison bit does it state "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!" so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.222.182 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So can we all agree this is our to-do list?

1.Reference both Howard's and Fossil's entries 2.Prune back some of the more in-universe jokes and scour every single interview, commentary and special feature to find some back-ground info (see The Hitcher about being based on people etc) This really shouldn't be difficult for Howard, Vince, Naboo, etc but we really could use some. Especially if we want to spilt them into separate articles... 3.Resize the images to fit better in each character's entry and get individual ones for characters with more than one person in the photo.

Anything else you other two can think of? (NOTE:Just saying this because it seems like Thom, Lemons and myself are the only ones working on it. Agent452 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Have we forgotten any characters? Will there just be a Template:Main in place of the five major character's entries to their respective articles, or will there be any information on them on this article? What can be done to improve the List of one-off characters from The Mighty Boosh article? Thom (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I really can't think of any we've missed but we'll have to spend some time going through the series to see if we have.

Think we should maybe have something like "Template:Main Howard Mood (Jullian Barratt) is one of the main characters of the Mighty Boosh having appeared in all incarnations of the show" then either add a small section mentioning how he's stared or traits and then just copy and edit them for the rest of the split articles.

Concerning the one-off characters article I'm not sure yet to be honest I've only had a brief scan through of it to add it to my watchlist. Think our main problem is most of them are going to be really difficult to expand past a few lines(baring those with entire episodes dedicated to them) and one of the ideas that came to me would be to remove the ones that are one-line entries and maybe rename this to include the likes of old Gregg etc.

But those are just my thoughts...what do you think? Agent452 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Gregg is a recurring character, but the main template idea is quite good. Also - Joey Moose (Dave Brown) appeared in two episodes of the first series, as well as (I'm not sure though) the pilot and the radio series. Thom (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd totally forgotten Old Gregg was on here. But those are two interesting examples of Characters who are technically recurring but their appearances in the second one is so insignificant that the main focus is on the first appearance. For example in Old Gregg there is one sentance mentioning that he was in the stage show and no mention of his activities (I'm just about to remedy that though)I've got the first series lying about somewhere so I'll see what I can dig up on Joey Moose tomorrow(well this afternoon but whats a half hour between editors?) But either way the article is definately taking shape. Agent452 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take some screen captures of the characters that don't have a picture already at some point, also the season 3 dvd comes out soon so i'd imagine there will be a bit more character insight and whatnot as bonus features, so that should help, the article is defiantly looking better than it was last month! nice work! (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh and i will have ago at sorting out Bob Fossil's bit as well this evening. (LemonLemonLemons (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC))

Hiya, thanks for all your work on this. One character that's missing is Leroy; he's mentioned several times but never actually seen - E.G. "I spoke to Leroy, he said he saw you dancing for Fossil..." I'd put him in myself but can't remeber exactly when the appearances where and won't have a lot of time to check them until next week sometime. JamieH (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be prudent to restrict the page to characters that have actually appeared rather than simply being referenced. There are plenty of characters, such as the other shamen besides Dennis, Saboo and Harrison and the various one-off characters portrayed by the Boosh members collectively, that are just as worthy of at the very least identification. Radical AdZ (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Time for separate pages?

I was curious about the reasoning behind this page so I decided to do wee look around:

Fawlty Towers has its characters listed with separate headings within the main page. Fair enough as there is unlikely to be much further material there.

Boston legal has completely separate pages for most of its characters.

Blackadder also has compleetely separate pages for its pagescharacters.

Man About the House (Six series/years running and two spin-offs each with multiple series) simply has a cast list and no separate listings for each character either within the page or stand-alone.

The Young Ones has its characters listed with separate headings within the main page. See Fawlty Towers above.

Are there any other comedy shows that have "List of recurring characters from.." pages that groups main characters with minor characters? Isn't a standard format desirable?

--Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.192.23 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we definitely should have separate pages for the main 4 (possibly also Bob Fossil). All the Mighty Boosh pages need to be made more consistent with each other and easier to navigate OrangeDog (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, We (Thom and myself, who were the only ones participating at the time) did have a brief discussion about this but I must have confined it to the archive. And the consensus at the time was to do just that move Howard, Vince, Naboo, Bollo and Fossil to their own articles. However my personal feeling is that we should get them all referenced, trimmed and beautified here before we make the move. Mainly what I hope the articles heading to is something like the Saw characters page (yeah I'm bumming that article a lot) but seeing it like it is now it's really come on leaps and bounds (it used to be a hell of a lot of pages with just names and a link to the series they were in. Agent452 (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologise. I think you guys have done a stellar job. The response to my comments about the Naboo entry the other day was nothing short of fantastic. --Josh

Did Old Gregg ever have his own page? And I believe he should because of the effect he's had in places other than just the Mighty Boosh. I seem to recall reading somewhere that he can be seen in a video for some band and also his name has been grafitti'd on some wall in Australia maybe. I think something mentioned that someone yelled it out at some big event deal too. I don't remember specifics obviously but I've got some recollection of these things and I can't imagine getting them anywhere other than wikipedia so that's why I think he must've had a previous article but I've got no clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.14.214 (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Standardising Entries

Does anyone object if I go through and standardise the first/second lines of each entry? As it stands there are still some entries that do not follow the: "X is a fictional character portrayed by Y" standard. i.e. The Hitcher, Bob Fossil & Howard Moon. I'm inclined towards the "X(Y(&Z))" as used for Moon & Fossil myself but I think the "as portrayed" standard is quite common in Wikipedia. Any ideas/preferences?

130.123.192.23 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Josh

Be bold and feel free. Personally I prefer the format used in Moon also but standardising is a good idea Agent452 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll fix them up so that they're the same as the former but if we get enough support here we can later change them all to the latter. -- Josh 1bj05hua (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC

It would also be nice to standardise some other things. The following is not an exhaustive list (feel free to add to it):

• References to series -- current examples include "Series 1" "Series One", "First Series" & "2004 television episode"
• Character's names -- Some are referred to by their given names, others are not. Using family names would be more consistent with encyclopaedic norms.
• Links -- There seems to be an inconsistent use of links for recurring elements. As examples only, links to series entries and episodes, links to (major & minor) characters and (here we're getting onto pretty thin ice as this is common across Wikipedia) links to Wikipdia definitions. Why, for example, in The Hitcher entry are there links to "evil", "protection racket" and "killing" but not for "henchmen" "polo mint" or "primary school". These appear to have been entirely arbitrary. From the Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Wikipedia_links) page:

The easiest way to learn when to link is to look at Wikipedia articles for examples. If you are trying to decide whether to make a link or not, ask yourself "If I were reading this article, would the link be useful to me?" Usually link the first, and only the first, occurrence of a word/term in the article, that does not have an implicitly understood definition.

I would suggest that for the above examples most people would feel that "killing" is an "implicitly understood definition" whereas "Polo mints" and "primary school" are regionally specific terms that many may not know. Polo mints are similar to Life Savers in North America, New Zealand and Australia and primary schools are usually called "elementary school" in North America and Japan.

Let me stress that I'm attempting to singe out these links, they are simply good illustrative examples of the type of linking that is obstructing clarity.

Josh 1bj05hua (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you've signed up for an account, I always feel a bit funny when I see an edit by an anon I.P. especially after editing that whisper number article. I agree that standardising the links is a good idea as well. The only one is feel a bit funny about is linking to sections of this article. Dunno it just seems funny to me.

Another thing I want to find out is how often do we link to Series X articles? In theory we should only have it in Bollo's and Bainbridge's article but (especially with an article like this) maybe it would be better to link for the first instance in every section. Just a though that ran through my head Agent452 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Gideon?

Mrs. Gideon has appeared in only a few episodes in the first episode. Can she be considered a recurring character? Was she even in the radio series? --86.12.232.113 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She appeared more than once. Ergo, she recurred. Thom (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg

Image:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.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 ensure 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) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate Pages

Can I make separate pages for Howard moon, Vince Noir, Naboo and bollo? Also wich user template would I use? JordanAshley (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be okay to create individual articles for Howard Moon, Vince Noir, Naboo, Bollo and Bob Fossil when this article itself comes to fruition, is detailed and is properly sourced. Thom (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have devided the aritcle for naboo up on my sandbox for the actuly article and I think I've got the sourcing right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanAshley (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kirk

There have been a number of contradictory claims made concerning the actor's relationship to other cast members. Any further edits on the matter need a proper citation. OrangeDog (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC the "Boosh Night" documentary on BBC3 mentioned Kirk and his relationship with Noel (or Dee as I seem to recall). So I'm currently struggling through it on youtube and will get back to you on it. Any scenes of the fans make me quite depressed so I'll have the answer in about an hour (Presuming it's right at the end) because I'm not 100% sure how to site yet. Hope that's OK Agent452 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: After sitting through nearly 1 hour of bum licking I can exclusively reveal that, according to the documentary, Kirk is...Noel's Nephew. If someone wants to cite it feel free. Agent452 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMltQ_eRje8&feature=related at 7:12 there is a shot of Kirk with the caption "Noel's nephew."Cbsite (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been removed from YouTube, but it was ripped from the Series Three "Making of" DVD, so the citation still stands. Radiopathy (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use

Please be specific. Which of the ten were violated? Which images were not given rationales? What changes need to be made to allow the images to stay?

Sorry, but we're all busy. Cbsite (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, please.Cbsite (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use β^_command 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is obviously a lot of controversy regarding this "policy" or lack thereof, I'm reverting on the assumption that the deletions constituted a disruptive edit. When the policy is clear and reached by consensus, I will go along. Cbsite (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits by HiDrNick (talk) for same reason as in previous paragraph.Cbsite (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. So consensus (all two of us) is on your side on this. I've also asked an admin who helped stop the image removals on several other list articles to protect this page so the edit warring can stop. Buspar (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• The use of per character images on lists such as this has long been deprecated. You're fighting an uphill battle. If you want to change this consensus, then please discuss it at WT:FUR. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better! Cbsite (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

On edit: there's really nowhere at that article to say what hasn't already been said a million times: there is no clear policy regarding images in lists and there is no blanket policy with regard to non-free images in general. The battle may be uphill, but the exercise will be very beneficial. Thank you, however, for actually showing some effort to support your position via the talk page rather than blindly reverting. Cbsite (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• You believe one position, and you're not alone in that position. Yet, the course of events for quite sometime has been reduction of such overuse. There's clearly a large number of people who disagree with you. The current consensus is to not have an image per character. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Parker people

They are characters and they recur therefore they should be on this list82.1.68.117 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Which episodes? OrangeDog (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tundra and Party, at least. Maybe this IP will check back and feel compelled to contribute. Radiopathy (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Zephiel

Not to cast aspersions on this person's contribution, but I'm not familiar with the character, Tony Halliwell is not listed in the credits at the end of the show - like Kirk - and searching the web brings up nothing about either the character or the actor. Radiopathy (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to earlier version since entry is highly dubious. Radiopathy (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved text here pending citation. Radiopathy (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC):

Zephiel is a fictional character portrayed by Tony Halliwell. Zephiel appears once in the Mighty Boosh Television Series episode Eels on a stag weekend with Naboo and Bollo. Zephiel is a cloaked shaman who is completely muted and immobile. Tony Halliwell is Noel Fielding's nephew, much like Kirk. He also wears a polo round his right eye (Reference to The Hitcher).

Images

Do we want to start putting images in again, or do you think there will be fair use issues? Radiopathy (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bingo Caller

Just watched Nanageddon. The bingo caller is not Bob Fossil - the voice is slightly different and he's not wearing the usual blue suit. It appears to just be another character played by Rich Fulcher. OrangeDog (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not talkin' 'bout me, are ye? LOL!

You are correct: I was thinking Fulcher but overlooking the fact that the edit was for Bob Fossil's entry. Radiopathy (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stick him on List of minor characters from The Mighty Boosh. OrangeDog (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sir" Dixon Bainbridge

Should he be referred to here as "Sir," since he wasn't apparently knighted during his time on the TV show? His knighthood was only just revealed in The Mighty Book of Boosh. Radiopathy (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would generally say that we include character information from all media, but in this case I'd lead towards omitting the sir from the title. OrangeDog (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to other characters

Should we link directly to other sections on this page [[#Naboo the Enigma]], or go via the current redirects [[Naboo (character)]]? The latter makes more semantic sense and would help if separate articles were ever made, the former avoids possible link cycles and dab problems. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Asthma

I removed

It is also revealed in the episode Journey to the Centre of the Punk that Bollo suffers from asthma.

because a) I don't know if it's true and b) the person who put it in also used the wrong citation and damaged The Call of the Yeti citation. Radiopathy (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He certainly claims to suffer from asthma in that episode. I don't think it's worth including though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Fictional Character"

Is it absolutely necessary to have "So-and-so is a fictional character" for every single entry? Seems quite pointless for a fictional TV show. PacificBoy 05:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Images 2

All of the non-free images in this article have been tagged for speedy deletion. If anyone objects, please weigh in on each file's talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 04:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone point out which criteria of WP:NFCC#Policy are not being met by these images? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My re-introduction of the images was to prevent them all being speedied before discussion had even occurred (as was about to happen). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that our policy and practise regarding fair use images in lists like this (see this helpful essay, alongside our non-free content criteria and more general non-free content guidelines) are incorrect, I advise you raise the matter on this talk page. If not, why do you feel that these images should be treated differently? Why is it so urgent that this list is illustrated so heavily? J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and don't worry about the images being deleted, they can easily be restored if the consensus is to include them. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then how are non-admins supposed to see the images and discuss whether they are appropriate? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the policy is incorrect, I fail to see how these images violate it. Again, please point out which criteria are not being met. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But once again, J Milburn, you're being asked a direct question, and you're dancing around the answer. What is it about the images specifically that violates NFCC 3 and 8? Please either give a straight answer or else delete the CSD tags. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They add nothing to the article. The appearance of these characters is not significant. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material to demonstrate why it is needed. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Each image has a rationale, and the proper copyright credits. And from the history it looks like your argument has been tried unsuccessful in the past. Radiopathy •talk• 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what? I advise you reread our non-free content guidelines; this essay may also be useful. If you believe that this article should be treated differently to the many others, you're welcome to offer your explanation. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how policy demonstrates your point of view in this situation, rather than just linking to essays (which I have read). If each character had a separate article, then a single image would be useful and appropriate. Clearly in a compilation of characters, multiple images are useful and appropriate. The image-to-prose ratio still leans largely towards the prose. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Argeed - one character, one image. No "over use" here. Radiopathy •talk• 20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I will ignore the "overuse" issue for now, then. Why do you feel it is so important to see what the characters look like? J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"One character, one image" is not acceptable fair use. Find a cast picture. Read Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. We've debated this for a LONG time across a lot of articles. Result; images get removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no possible image featuring all characters as they are played by the same people. Not every character had an image, just the more significant (number of recurrences or cultural impact) ones. One picture was already used to illustrate two separate characters. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How did you determine that they were more significant? How are you judging which characters warrant an image, and which do not? J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of recurrences, cultural impact, quality of available images... OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And why do those things suddenly mean that we need to see what a character looks like? Why do they suddenly mean that the use of an image meets non-free content criterion 8? J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a named criterion! Because one of the features of The Mighty Boosh is a distinctive and unusual visual style. Being able to see the characters conveys both this overall character design style, as well as showing the appearance of the characters being discussed. Their appearance is unusual, particular to each character, and difficult to convey using prose alone (e.g. "pink clefty octopus thing" or "green polo-based cockney"). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel that the arguments offered, and the policy itself, are too weak and vague to justify deleting the images. The nominator used the loophole of "orphaning" the images first before tagging them for deletion - I think that's a rather questionable tactic. Radiopathy •talk• 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. However, it is incorrect. The issue of per character images has long been decided, and the wording at WP:NFC hammered out over quite a long debate. It simply isn't supported anymore. I'm sorry you disagree. You're welcome to include a cast image, but per character images as was done in this article is no longer permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence (policy, content guideline) of this lack of permission? Why are you enforcing the removal of all NFC from this article? There never was one image per character. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the inclusion of each image was indiscriminate, with no eye towards which characters are more significant. Get a cast photo showing some or all of these characters. Alternatively, use free alternatives where the real life actors look very similar to their in character appearance (two images doing that now). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really answering the question. As explained before, they were not indiscriminate selections. Would you find the inclusion of a single Saboo & Tony image plus a Hitcher and Old Gregg acceptable? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of what's acceptable, it's a matter of what's needed, and, as far as I can see, none of them are. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid certain users, including some admins, simply don't (or won't) see significance in images that many others can plainly see the relevance of. If you guys sincerely believe you have followed the guidance at WP:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles and selected only the most important/representative/meaningful images, dotted every i and crossed every t, and that these images genuinely do "significantly add to the understanding a reader gets from the article"; if you are absolutely confident that all those conditions are met, then probably your best bet is to demand the images be taken to WP:FFD, and have their significance put before the community to decide. Because otherwise you're just beating your heads against a stone wall with some of these users.

As set out quite well by Wikipedia Signpost, WP:NFC represents a balance getting as much as possible of the "sum of all knowledge" into Wikipedia, and still making sure that knowledge can be disseminated as widely as possible. The balancing line WP:NFC was constructed on was to ask: what could a verbatim U.S. commercial republisher of Wikipedia be sure would still be accepted as fair use by a U.S. court, if they could not rely on WP's status as an educational non-profit-making charity, but had to make their case as a commercial concern. That line was felt to maximise the "sum of all knowledge" and yet preserve the maximum degree of easy automated reusability.

Unfortunately, there is an ideological faction that does not accept that compromise, but sees all fair-use content on Wikipedia as their enemy, to be battered, bullied or otherwise suppressed to as little as they can possible manage -- regardless of the collateral damage. (And to be fair, there are others who simply don't see how knowing or being reminded what a character looks like adds understanding). Unfortunately also, the people for whom deletion is their mission tend to congregate around the project's deletion processes. (Why rob banks? Because that's where the money is.) So if you do go to FFD, be sure to let relevant Wikiprojects know (because they tend to have more of a sense of what is and is not significant, and to be more reflective of the community as a whole), because there are people out there who will say "Fails NFCC#8" to any image used simply to identify a character, whatever the "Use in Lists" guideline says. You will need to be establish that the images shown really are the most important/representative/meaningful. And even then you may well need to push it through DRV as well, because there are some admins who will reject even an ovewhelming community view that particular images are significant.

But otherwise the intransigence you've been seeing on this page will just go on indefinitely until the page gets locked down and the images get speedied for not being in use. The people who want to delete these images simply don't care about readers' understanding of the Mighty Boosh. It doesn't even make it on to their agenda. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Looks like I'm behind the times Jheald (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jheald, not only is that bullshit, it's downright deceptive, bordering on offensive. I'm not against non-free content at all. Many articles I've written contain non-free content, and I've certainly defended the use of specific instances of non-free content many, many times. I know the same is true of admins you'd probably categorise in the same way- Stifle, Maxim, Perpetus, Black Kite, PhilKnight and others. All I can assume is that you aim to turn this into some kind of ridiculous "us and them" situation- the valiant encyclopedists versus the evil anti-NFCers. Well, you know what? Grow up. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we're not going to fight with you. If you're looking for someone with which to fight, I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty raring for a go at your local school... J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Jheald sees it in the way he expresses above. I doubt he's being deceptive really. It's just his apparent impression. It's wrong, but it's the impression he has. I too have recommended the use of fair use images at a number of junctures. I'm not out to get every image, so I'm certainly not part of that windmill. Maybe he's describing other users in the windmill though. *shrug* --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we try not to stray off topic with accusations of bad faith please. Direct answers to the direct questions that have been asked would be more constructive. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It would perhaps be better to discuss the images at the IfD debates now. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Board

Is it "Board of Shamen" or "Board of Shaman"? Both are here. PurpleChez (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)