Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possible source for many jokes?

I am pretty much convinced that the "Lancelot wedding assault" and "The Bridge" scenes were inspired by similar ones from a 1968 Italian movie, "L'Armata Brancaleone" by Mario Monicelli. The whole idea is also quite similar, for in this movie a poor knight is convinced by some peasants to claim a fief, whose grant documents were stolen (By them) from a noble. They then set in a "quest" to find this fief, suffering all the vicissitudes of medieval life - plague, religious fundamentalism, etc.

I disbelieve this. It's too far before their actin' time, and too close to their time to pass unnoticed...although rippin' is common among communi...eh, comic's, it's no new idea they're comin' up with. Satirization of religion and medieval times may be a usual subject among actors....and the movie would've been lashed if this was discovered. By the way, there's an difference; Here there's not just a poor knight, but a whole troupe of rich knights fighting the french and a bridge of Death. Definately more inspired by the actual tales of the knights of the round table rather than an obscure italian movie. Totally out of question, that's for sure! Stop these vile accusations, now!--217.199.54.130 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Harvest Moon reference

I haven't actually seen the scene in Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town that is supposedly a reference to the Holy Grail, but given the description of it, that Gary cuts his hand and says "it's only a scratch", I would doubt this is actually a reference to the film. If he cuts off his hand, maybe, but unless that happens, I am skeptical. Reveilled 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to back up the referencial nature of "it's only a scratch", I've removed this entry. Reveilled 02:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Italics?

Why is Monty Python, as in the name of the troupe, in italics throughout this article? The name of the film should be in italics, certainly, but not the group. --Charles 03:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think those italicized words are refering to the TV show, but I do agree that they should be refering to the group and should not be italicized. Salty!^Talk! 06:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

reference

reference to the movie from the legend of the green dragon on www.comfortabledumb.com server for the game

You grab your axe to attack a tree with all your strength.

As you approach a tree, you are suddenly surrounded!

You fall to the ground paralyzed as a group of towering knights start shouting at you in a menacing tone!

'NI! NI! NI!'

However, you recover soon enough to realize that in actuality, they are more annoying than dangerous.

For some odd reason, you pick up a herring and chop down one of the trees in the forest.

You harness the power of 'NI' to attack other creatures!

You've completed Phase 1 of work in the lumber yard. It only took you one turn.

it also gives you a 30 round buff in which before you attack you say Ni! Ni! Ni!

when it runs out its you now say Ecky, Ecky, Ecky, Ecky, P'tang, Zoo Boing! Goodem-zoo-owli-zhiv

--God þe mid sie, WhiteWolf 19:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Shooting question

Does anybody know what order the scenes were filmed? I do know: 1). The scenes weren't shot in chronological order; 2). On the DVD, Gilliam (part of the Gilliam/Jones DVD Commentary) states that the opening scene (the "Coconuts" scene) was shot at the end; and 3). The IMDb says that Chapman was very drunk during the beginning of the shoot, the "Bridge of Death" scene. Thank you. --69.253.15.246 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Classical and medieval literature references

Given the fact that the Python troupe are all Oxford and Cambridge educated (outside of Terry Gilliam), one of my old English profs drew a parallel to Edmund Spencer's The Faery Queen, which depicts a character getting his limbs hacked off one by one. Is this worthy of addition in this article? And, further more, are there any other links between this film and classical literature?--Toquinha 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are very many references to medieval literature. Terry Jones was a medievalist (and still is), and it's often been asserted that the references are largely his. One such reference is the 'built a castle. It sank. Built another one…' which is part of the Merlin cycle. I have added a rider where the film is described as a 'parody', and a linkt to Terry Jones. I'm not sure if it would be right to add references, for example to the Faery Queen and the Merlin parts. On the one hand, we're always being encouraged to reference. On the other hand, there are so many (and many are quite minor), that it would be illustrative rather than truly referential. Also, the article is already in danger of becoming trivia. Any thoughts? Martin Turner 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization

Shouldn't the plot be above production and re-release? That's the tried and true setup. FruitMart07 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the haphazard nature of the plot summary. (Episodic, strung together only by the quest for the grail? Isn't that how most movies work? They're called "scenes".) For such a landmark film in geek history, the recap is all over the place. I'll take a whack at cleaning it up, while I'm at it I'll move it above the other two. Delius1967 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references?

Some of the cultural references listed here seem to merely be coincidences, such as the Banjo-Tooie, Dynasty Warriors 4, and Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon references. For example, shouting "Run away!" when being attacked is a bit too general to be a reference, as is an elderly man shouting "I'm not dead yet!" when close to death. Ralff 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I removed the james bond one as WP::OR, and the fact that mentioning a "flesh wound" does not mean that it is quoted from python. It was added back in with no comment. Will remove again and direct here. Angelstorm 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "flesh wound" comment could well be connected with Python, if Cleese is in fact in the same scene, which some sources say is not the case. If not, then it would be very hard to argue for it. The actual expression "flesh wound", long predates Python, and even its ironic use predates Python. For example, the Li'l Abner character called "Fearless Fosdick" (a Dick Tracy parody), would always downplay any gunshot wound as "merely a flesh wound", even if he took it in the heart (non-fatally, of course). Wahkeenah 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it *could* be connected with python, certainly with the Q being played by Cleese. I can't remember the precise scene off the top of my head so can't comment further .... will re-watch the DVD :) My main issue with this addition is the WP::OR part of it. Without a citation from Cleese or Lee Tamahori ( Director ) it's merely supposition, and too weak to have in an encylopedic article. Angelstorm 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Character articles

The articles which appear in the "Characters" and "Miscellaneous" sections of the {{Monty Python and the Holy Grail}} template seem to be prime candidates for a merge - I propose List of Monty Python and the Holy Grail characters - and that the minor misc. items be merged to this article. In fact, there's no real need for a template for this film at all, since each article on it links to each other through this one. QmunkE 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The cultural references

My GOD! That list is larger than the article. I have moved it over to Talk:Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail/reference_list so users can go in, trim it down and take what is most important. Wikipedia isn't a list of trivia. But it is not paper. So try working out what really needs to belong at the reference list and add them to the article. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why? It speaks to the influence of this looney film. You'd be hard pressed to find similar influence from the Police Academy series, at least not in a good way. Wahkeenah 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Special Edition DVD

On the file sharing networks, a copy of what has to be the Special Edition DVD of the film is circulating. However, it does not, as the wikipedia page state, miss "the "Swedish" subtitle "Mønti Pythøn ik den Hølie Gräilen" in the film's opening title screen", neither does the opening credits of Dentist on the Job appear "before the voice of the projectionist (presumably that of Terry Jones)".

It was copied (not made / re released) 2004.09.15 according to its information, meaning it can't be the "Extraordinary Deluxe" version. It does contain the two audio commentary tracks, the "get on with it"-cut out scene etc, and a separate DVD with all extra stuff (Japaneese dub, LEGO animation, The Quest for the Holy Grail Locations etc). In order words, it seems to me it has to be the Special Edition DVD, but if that is so, then there are either more than one version of the Special Edition DVD, or the wikipedia page is simply incorrect. Someone with a bit more insight could perhaps look at it? :) -- Ojan 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Title appears in credits

"The title of the film, which would normally come at the start, appears after 25 minutes."

I am removing this, as it is false. The second credit at the very beginning is the title of the film (with its infamous fake subtitle that is allegedly missing from certain editions), and the animated sequence that appears 25 minutes (24 minutes, to be more precise) into the film features a slightly different title: The Quest for the Holy Grail.Funkeboy 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What?

wat happened to my add on at the end of the trivia? about the R2R credits thing? its legit, im one of those weird people who still have a dreamcast, and i just beat the game(not the first time) and there it was. i swear. The juggreserection 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC) never mind its there now. The juggreserection 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Chevy Chase Connection

Saturday Night Live producer Lorne Michaels first met Chevy Chase while they were both waiting in line to see Monty Python and the Holy Grail. That meeting led to Chevy being hired on to SNL, and the start of his carrer. Not sure if this bit of trivia is relevant enought to the subject though, but I thought I'd mention it here in case some more experienced Wiki editor wants to reasearch it and add it to the article.

That is the first I have heard of that story. I thought that Michaels met Chase through various National Lampoon sources like Michael O'Donoghue. IrishGuy 09:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be more relevant if it were put in the Chevy Chase article, as he and SNL have very little to do with Monty Python.Mbatman72 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I think that the plot section needs to be expanded and refined a bit. I know that the movie really has very little actual plot, so that may be a problem, but we have to much information outside of the plot section anyway.Mbatman72 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Subtitles For People Who Don't Like the Film

Question on authenticity of the source for these subtitles; compare here and the lines below towards the beginning of the movie (at the first castle):

GUARD: A five-ounce bird cannot carry a one-pound coconut.

SUBTITLE: Can a weak empty vessel bear such a huge full hogshead?

KING ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter! Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?

SUBTITLE: 'Tis no matter. Tell thou the earl that the Lord Bardolph doth attend him here.

These two lines, among others (check your DVDs) suggest that Henry IV: Part 2 was adapted into what can basically be called a Shakespeare-esque version of Holy Grail. Anyone? -- M (^speak/_spoken) 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Smacks of original research to me. Interesting, though! Can you find a source? (other than the play) =David^(talk)_(contribs) 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

French taunter

Shouldn't we have a page about the French taunter? He is a pretty popular character, and leads one of the most humorous scenes in the film.

See the Userbox. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

An entire page about a character that has about 10 lines? Non. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

References

"In the SRPG Disgaea 2: Cursed Memories, there is an item called Charred Newt. The description says "It didn't get better.", referring to Sir Lancelot."

This isn't referring to Sir Lancelot, but a villager John Cleese was playing at the time. To reference Shakespeare, "One man in his time can play many parts..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.53.33 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

//pink floyd-Monty Python\\

Is the pink floyd song chapter 24, any relation to scene 24 in the film? pink floyd gave a lot of funds to the making of holy grail. MrOrange91 12:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Budget

In the DVD commentary track Gilliam says the budget was 230 thousand, so I believe the 150 thousand that's currently in the article is incorrect and will be changing that. Ponijs <fatalis> it also says 230 in this FAQ: http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sources/monty.python.faq.html

That's what he said in the IRC. Note that the user is indefinitely blocked. --Rory096 04:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Book)" 1977 Eyre Meuthen includes a "Cost of Production Statement". The bottom line is Pounds229,575.00 209.197.157.149 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How much has the movie made?

I wonder how much money the movie has made? Samulili (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Three merges

I believe that Sir Robin, Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh and Gorge of Eternal Peril should be merged here because none of them appear to meet the WP:FICT guidelines. There is some real world info for Gorge of Eternal Peril, but no references, and even if some are found, that info could easily be merged into a production section here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Minigame Title Dispute Needs Confirmation

I loved the game 7th level put out back in the day, and if I remember correctly, the tetris clone was called "Drop Dead", not "Bring out your dead", though that is the title of the scene it spoofs. If i also remember correctly, there were seperate executable files on the cd-rom that played the seperate minigames... perhaps I'll try to find that old game...I always found it hilarious when the "not dead" piece would fall & twich around on the way down, trying to mess you up. -- Bubacxo 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Production

The reference to the Seventh Seal would be more complete if it also mentioned the fact that the Original UK Trailer to Holy Grail sends up the beach scene at the beginning of Seventh Seal. In it, Death is seen giving the Antonius Block character a face full of cream pie (or maybe just shaving cream? - whatever). — Preceding unsigned comment added by an IP editor on 13:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

There are various redirects to this page, many of them topics covered in the film. For example, African Swallow redirects here. However, there is no mention at all of African swallows. If someone has time to work on this article, the redirect topics need to be covered within this article, or at least mentioned. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Writing credit

Is there any reason to have E. B. White listed in the writing credits in the infobox? Did they actually use his book as the basis for the film? It seems that the source material is well-known enough for them to have written the script without recourse to any specific text. In the absence of a reference which says they used White, it should be removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, wouldn't that have been T. H. White anyway? ---User:66.171.231.226

False memory or just fantasy?

Got a question. The question is this:

When I first saw Holy Grail it was on home-video VHS. I distinctly remember the opening scene being narrated. The opening scene shows a knight kneeling before King Arthur in front of the cardboard cutout of Camelot. The narration turns out to be a voice-casting call. Several voices are tried, one being a "slow" reader, another being a shouting lunatic who is told to "go away" and walks off mumbling "what's wrong with my voice? There's nothing wrong with my voice, only my mind" until eventually a Japanese voice begins narrating in Japanese (with English sub-titles so we can follow). The voice-director announces that this is very good and tells the Japanese narrator to "carry on". The narrator then begins to talk up the Japanese restaurant over the road from the cinema (which we see film of).

During this whole sequence several pieces of the film are seen, particularly the dancing chorus from "Camelot". Eventually the whole scene comes to an end back with the kneeling knight and Arthur. The cardboard cut-out of Camelot falls over, Arthur looks at it, stabs the kneeling knight to death, sheaths his sword and walks out of frame.

Okay, now for the question: Is any of this real? Or have I completely imagined the whole thing?

The narration begins: "Once in a lifetime comes a motion picture to end all motion pictures..." (well, maybe "end all" is not quite correct). 203.144.65.109 (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of the extras on (one of) the DVDs, but I'll have to get it out to watch again... -- Arwel (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the cinematic trailer rather than the actual opening scene. Some videos had trailers put on at the start as the earliest of extras. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My question is: what does this have to do with improving this article? Nothing, as far as I can tell. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gee, I don't know, Jimmy's Boy, maybe as it has been shown not to be a false memory but an actual, as in real, piece of Pythonism and is connected directly to, if not an actual part of, the film, then perhaps it deserves a mention in the article. Possibly...203.144.65.109 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Update on sources

I'm sorry to say that I've come up empty handed so far in my search for the books I listed before. I'll keep looking, but it looks like the only practical way of getting to the books would be to order them. I'm reluctant to do that without being able to actually see them first. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

CED source

Sorry, but I haven't worked out how to cite my sources, but I'll look into it soon. For the record, a complete explanation that backs up my edit of the article to reflect the 1983 RCA CED as the first widescreen/extended release rather than it being the Criterion Laserdisc (as was claimed in the article prior to my edit) can be found here: http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/monty-python-grail.html MaxVolume (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No information on film's reception in the 1970s

I came to this article to find out how the film fared when it opened, how widespread the release was, and what the general impression was. Was it perceived to have lost money early on? None of these questions are answered... in fact the article is heavily post-2000 centric and focuses on the re-release. -Rolypolyman (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There is no need for anything to be split from this article. These are all elements of the film (or the DVD) that do not extend far from it. The plot points belong in the plot section and anything related to the real world should be split between the character section, development section, and some sort of popular culture section. TTN (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article is not that long, and the child articles in question are not either. After merging, a single spinout article on the characters as a whole may be appropriate, that's only dependent on the resultant WP:SIZE. -Verdatum (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• No thank you. The general consensus on topics such as Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch may be seen at the recent AFD which was buried in snow. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with CW. The AfD was pretty plain, and in any case this -is- a major picture. Not quite star wars but significantly more than Rocky Horror Picture Show. I've not looked at all the topics here, but at least some of them (including the one mentioned above) are clearly notable. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was based upon sources mentioning the topic from the perspective of the plot. The majority of sources talking about any other subtopic will likely be the same. The sources that do talk about them from a real world perspective will help strengthen this article. There are relevant sections to include all of the important information without even coming close to bloating the article. Such topics should not even be split in the first place unless they have too much relevant weight dedicated to them. TTN (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008

It does not mater from what perspective the item was discussed. Many subjects in literature are discussed by academic and other authors in terms of the plot and the plot development--using an obvious example, the role of Hamlet in the play, or , for closer analogy, the role of daggers and poison in the plot., or the way the Castel of Elsinore is used as a setting. Such secondary treatment of a subject is enough to make it notable, even if it discusses the object in the context of the plot. This is a new objection never heard before today, and with zero basis in policy. The scholarly study of literature and film discusses them from many perspectives, including the internal relationships within a work and between works. Many other things can make fictional elements notable, but this is one. That a reference must focus on the subject to show notability, is a very major guideline change that has been proposed an number of times for various subjects, and always been rejected. DGG (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The source does not need to focus on the item, but it does need to provide a direct and detailed examination of the topic. I don't see anyone using the word focus in this discussion.Kww (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that discussing the topics from the perspective of the plot in a real world context is bad. That kind of information can be very helpful. In the case of the grenade, the majority of the "sources" themselves are just spewing the plot without actually discussing anything relevant to it. There are a couple that actually provide information, but as I have said, they don't warrant an entire article on the subject. If you actually can provide and utilize the sources in a manner that is suitable for an article (which is what I am asking), maybe we'll get somewhere. TTN (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do not merge. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Don't merge per the AfD. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• While I agree that this is no ordinary hand grenade this is clearly a strong Merge candidate. Having this as a standalone article encourages the accumulation of drossy, junky unencyclopedic fancruft; the cultural important aspects of this topic can be covered at the Holy Grail page; and can I please see a source that asserts out-of-universe notability that is distinguishable from the movie itself...? Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Do not merge. the article stands at 33kb, and were some keen editor wanting to improve this for possible future FA - there still needs to be a fair chunk of critique and opinion and influences on the evoluition of the movie that is not in the current version. Thus I could see a significantly larger article without fleshing out the extra bits. The daughter articles have been highly referenced in their own right in the 30-odd years since their appearance. If i find hte sources one day I will add them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• No Merge - The HHG far transcends the bounds of fancruft. Again to counter Eusebeus argument, this item is so well known that people who have never seen the movie still know of the Holy Hand Grenade. Give it a rest. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please actually provide relevant sources that show that it is more than a quick joke that is mentioned here and there. Its current standing warrants nothing more than a mention in the plot summary and possibly a mention in some sort of popular culture section depending on the available sources. TTN (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion on what depth we should go to. And thanks for repeating the message yet again; we get it. I for one may be less antagonistic if I actually saw you contributing sourcing or material to the 'pedia once in a while. Kicking everone else's sandcastles over is not an endearing or collaborative way to edit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge, Hack, Slash, and then Merge again: These articles are essentially plot retellings. Rabbit of Caerbannog could maybe be justified in terms of the press that killer rabbits got after the Jimmy Carter incident, but it sloughs that off into a See also and concentrates on plot and trivia. Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is an enormous pile of trivia described as "references in popular culture", with a verbatim rendition of the script of the major part of the scene it occurs in. Black Knight (Monty Python) is nearly all primary sourcing ... if someone could find a independent source that thought the tale of the two wrestlers was important, the article could perhaps be salvaged, but I don't think such a source exists. And so on.

And to Casliber: it really doesn't matter what you think of TTN's motivations. His comments accurately reflect the way Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch needs to be treated under WP:N: if multiple, third-party independent sources that examine the topic of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch directly and in detail can't be found, then it doesn't get an article. Third-party, independent sources do not include cast memoirs or DVD commentaries. If people want to keep these articles, they need to pony up those independent sources.Kww (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect A Snowy AfD close with at best hints at tangential sources doesn't an article make. This topic really, really isn't sufficiently distinct from the movie. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• No merge At least for some of those pages. You've got to be freaking kidding me if you guys think sources can't be found here. -- Ned Scott 02:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed. There is no need for me to reiterate the numerous great reasons already given above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Could you at least take the time and trouble to point one of them out? I haven't even seen a good one. No one arguing against the merge has compared the articles to the standards laid out in WP:N and demonstrated how any of these articles meet them.Kww (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely no merge, use summary style, and give a more expansive exposition to major aspects of the movie in their own article. If these kinds of things were merged into the article, they would have to be unconscionably compressed so as to not crimp the flow of the article, and thus very significant encyclopaedic information could not be covered, or would be covered only in a very poor fashion. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The article on the hand grenade needs rewriting I grant you but, in many areas you will probably find that it is more "well known/famous" than the movie itself (personal experience speaking admittedly). If people are worried about it having too much connection to the movie why not write a "Holy Hand Grenade" article and incorporate and expand the material in this one which isn't about this particular one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• I've had a look at the articles, and I find that all of them consist of (1) an in-depth description of the events in the film, i.e. plot retelling, which is redundant with the Plot section of the movie article, (2) mostly trivial and OR Appearances in popular culture sections (just read through Tim the Enchanter), and (3) here and there some really good stuff (parts of Rabbit of Caerbannog and Patsy (Monty Python)). As there seems to be resistance to AfD (understandable as per point 3) and merger (understandable as per worries about article size), may I propose to merge these subarticles into a new article named Influence and legacy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail (I am just throwing ideas around)? Such an article would be able to reach GA or FA much easier than the current sub articles, and is also safe(r) from future AfDs (and let's not kid ourselves - unless the current subarticles are improved to B-class and beyond, they will always be subject to future merge proposals and AfDs.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I for one thought your proposal was interesting, Sgeureka. Trying to squeeze everything into one article doesn't make sense, but an "influence and legacy" article might have been a winner – more "out of universe" material, more sources to work with per square inch. A pity that revert-warring over templates, not discussion, is the order of the day here. It might be worth proposing this some time in the future when people have calmed down a bit. H.G. 13:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• How exactly can anyone claim that these are notable without actually providing a single source in this entire discussion? Little bits do exist here and there (as shown in a couple of the articles), but not in the manner that people seem to believe. Now, have any of you actually taken a second to think about how these articles need to be structured? Unless it is possible to obtain many paragraphs of pure real world information, these are barely going to push two paragraphs. Their plot summaries do not need more than a single paragraph, and unless someone actually starts providing some information rather than overhyping the effect of this film on culture (it's definitely prominent, but not to the level of analyzing everything as with works from hundreds of years ago), there will not be much more after that. TTN (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Second this sentiment. No-one has adduced even a single, non-trivial, reliable source demonstrating notability. Absent such material, this merge absolutely should proceed per consensus about the need for references & sourcing. Sgeureak's suggestion is not a bad compromise, however, and could be an acceptable solution. Eusebeus (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• NO to the merge per the AfD and previous citations. no no no.--Feddx (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• NI! NI!! NI!!! Merge you not or I'll bite your legs off!! -- M (^speak/_spoken) 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Elements of MPHG are notable and should be improved. When they're looked at slowly (like the rabbit) they're even improved as we go. This is to fast for that, so just let them sit and slowly improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose merge Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC) struck Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• (Oppose merge) CONSULT THE BOOK OF WIKIPEDIA! Book II, Chapter 5, pages 9&endash;12. "Bless this thy articles and protect them from the impending merger"... =) —the_ed17— 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - the consensus is clear and I also support it. Watery Tart (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• MERGE - Biggest load of in-universe, trivial, non-notable articles I have ever seen. If they were started today, they would be up for speedy deletion in less than an hour.129.215.149.98 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a serious problem with people refusing to use logic here

When we have merge discussions, the idea is that people from all over Wikipedia discuss the issue, putting forth pro and con arguments, and consensus is supposed to occur by people reading and responding to others arguments.

So far, this has been pretty lopsided: TTN argued for merging the articles back together. He pointed out that there wasn't a problem with length, and wasn't a problem with the amount of unique material. Both of these are logical arguments in favor of a merge.

CW, Hobit, and Erik the Red all argued from a precedent situation: they quoted a recent AFD, and argued that it set a precedent against the merge. OK, one argument against.

DGG provided kind of a non-sequiter argument against the need for external sources to be focused on a topic. No one had argued that they did, so I'm not sure what he's responding to. That's a wash.

Eusebeus argues that the material for HHG can fit in the parent, and having it be standalone acts as a dross attracter. Call it the attractive nuisance theory of article layout. Reinforcement for the original merge argument, and one new one.

Casliber argues that TTN is wrong, that the parent article sits at the edge of needing a split, and a merge would make it grow too large. This is a new argument against merge.

Tonir uses his personal feelings about the topic. No argument to be found there.

I argue that the standalone articles constitute plot-only articles, violating WP:NOT#PLOT. A new argument for merge.

Protonk argues that the topics aren't sufficiently distinct, which I guess is a variation of the notability argument. I put this in the same class as I did Tonir's : there just isn't enough of a reference to existing policy and consensus for me to treat it as a valid argument.

Ned Scott uses a sources argument, but can't offer a single one, nor even identify the articles for which he believes sources exist. No argument to be found there.

Cimon Avaro uses a summary style argument. One more for the non-merge camp.

Eusebeus proposes a compromise: don't merge everything back into Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but develop a new article by merging these subordinate articles together. Not an argument, per se, but something to discuss.

Jasynnash2 repeats the same fallacy as Tonir: personal feelings about notability as opposed to any argument based in policy and consensus.

Then we have the first problem: the people that don't provide any logic or reasoning at all. RepublicanJacobite agrees with something, but there's no way to tell what. Feddx, Mattderojas, and Yngvarr took Nancy Reagan's advice, and just said "No".

These things don't work. Personal feelings about notability and personal feelings about sources you can't be bothered to look at or for don't hold any weight.

The argument it stands today is:

• Monty Python and the Holy Grail can hold all the relevant information. It's not overly large. The current split has created sub-articles that are only plot, and violate WP:NOT#PLOT. Having these small articles that are based in plot invites the addition of sections like References to Tim the Enchanter in Popular Culture, which violate WP:NOT by being lists of indiscriminate information.

vs.

• The article is written in summary style, and each subarticle is essential to maintaining that summary style. A lot of other people said that in an AFD, and we can extend that to every subarticle.

That's the issue we should be debating. Is that a correct paraphrase? If so, which argument is stronger?

Eusebeus's proposal deserves discussion as well ... if Monty Python and the Holy Grail is too large to accomodate putting all of the subarticles back in, would merging the subarticles together address enough of the merge arguments and enough of the anti-merge arguments to make everyone only mildly unhappy?Kww (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got some leads to check out (literally) at the library tomorrow:

• Monty Python, Shakespeare and English Renaissance Drama By Darl Larsen, William Proctor

• Popular Film and Television Comedy By Stephen Neale, Frank Krutnik

• King Arthur on Film By Kevin J. Harty

• Cinema Arthuriana By Kevin J. Harty

• Monty Python and Philosophy By Gary L. Hardcastle, George A. Reisch

• The Life of Python By George Perry, Perry George

• Postmodern Medievalisms By Richard Utz, Jesse G. Swan, Paul Plisiewicz

-- Ned Scott 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All of which will probably be good for supporting the position that it is possible for some or most of the independent articles to exist. Would you please engage the question of whether it is best for an independent article to exist? This isn't an AFD. No one is fighting a life-or-death battle over the existence of a redirect to use as a search term, or deleting an article history. No one has even proposed deleting anything except parts of those list of xxx in popular culture sections.Kww (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• The issue here is that TTN is refusing to observe consensus. The AFD discussion could have returned a merge result but instead it returned a keep. Reopening the matter so soon is obvious disruption. Persisting in debate when it is again clear that there is no consensus for a merge is further disruption. Accusing other editors of not using logic is uncivil. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

An AFD discussion on one article doesn't keep the others from being discussed. Why would an AFD on Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch prevent people from discussing a merge of Tim the Enchanter? Besides, at this point, the "merge" position is much stronger than the "no merge" position. If I had to evaluate consensus based on the above discussion, I'd merge. As to your second point, I have not been uncivil in the slightest.Kww (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus is clear here. Just because everyone makes the same argument doesn't mean that that argument isn't valid (usually it is evidence toward the opposite). This is an organizational question, not one of notability (from what I can tell). Is it organizationally cleaner to merge all these? Not in my opinion. There need not be a policy-based reason for editorial decisions. Rather it is a subjective thing as to how best to present the information. And it appears most (by a wide margin) people in this discussion share the same subjective view. Discounting subjective opinions because they are, well, subjective opinions, seems somewhat 'illogical' to me (to borrow your word). Hobit (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• On a related note: I think merging things to one or more summary articles as a variant on what Eusebeus suggests might be a good organizational move. I'm personally opposed to merging all these articles, as I think the popular culture parts should stay (this is after all an element of popular culture and while trivia is discouraged, this is a good example of why it's not banned) and I worry that a merged article will get trimmed too much. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Credit where it's due, I was merely parroting User:Sgeureka's suggestion, which I obviously support. Also, I assume that most editors appreciate that consensus is not local and TTN has clearly raised legitimate WP:RS and WP:N concerns (although I look forward to seeing what Ned digs up). As a result, intellectual honesty suggests that if material cannot be derived to support standalone articles, then a merge is the best solution, regardless of the individual enthusiasms that editors may bring to the topic. Consensus on notability and references is NOT made on this page. (I'll except Colonel Warden from this remark since he has stated elsewhere that he simply doesn't believe in nor abide by our notability policies - he counts votes.) Btw, note the overwhelming ongoing confirmation of existing consensus that spinouts must demonstrate their own notability in the current RFC. So per the summary developed by KWW, a merge should be at least under further discussion. Eusebeus (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• So I'm confused. Is the claim these articles lack independent notability and so should be merged? I disagree with that strongly. If you disagree, AfD is probably the right home for that discussion. If the claim is that editorially it makes sense to merge for readability, that's a different argument, and I'll refer back to the arguments I made above about subjective opinions. From an editorial viewpoint I think merging these into groups makes good sense. (characters, items maybe). Hobit (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have yet to see a single source that demonstrates notability independent of the film itself, with the obvious caveat, which I have made elsewhere, that given the overwhelmingly white, male, nerdy, American, <40 systematic bias here, the idea that that's no ordinary rabbit is not a super-duper, independently notable, UBERmeme may well seem beyond laughable (stretching to sheer incomprehensibility for many no doubt). But that's a narrow prejudice of the demographic and part of our distorting systematic bias. I am, of course, serene with the obvious disagreement here expressed; but a solution per Sgeureka's suggestion may be scratch several itches at once. Eusebeus (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the notion of "independent of the film itself". What exactly are you looking for? There are plenty of 3rd party sources that reference these various notions/items/people mostly in passing, but in such a range of books and news articles (from those one the Movie or Monty Python to medical books, to economic texts) that notability seems plain to me. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of these articles don't have a notability problem per se. It's that the only things said about them are either plot recappings or trivia, with a minimum of encyclopedic content. Look at Tim the Enchanter: 6 lines of dialogue that support naming him "Tim the Enchanter"; an unsourced statement that the character used to have a different name, but no statement as to what that name actually was; one statement sourced to a primary source; a plot recap of the two scenes in which the character appears; and no less than 14 pieces of trivia. Strip the plot, strip the trivia, and what's left? One unsourced statement about the name that can't even tell us what the old name was.

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch starts out with a bit of WP:OR about what it resembles. A bit more OR about the Holy Spear of Antioch. This may be salvagable ... with sources, that is interesting and completely encylopedic material. Then a description of a toy: again, salvageable. Then comes the plot recap, which is 80% a direct quote from the script, without any analysis or critique. Then comes a trivia list of 32 items. Strip out the trivia and the plot, source the OR, and you have a one-paragraph article.

Rabbit of Caerbannog is reasonable.

Black Knight (Monty Python) starts out with plot retelling, and then goes to information sourced only by primary sources, and then goes on to a combination OR/Trivia problem: a trivia list based on the assumption that every reference to a "flesh wound" in popular culture is actually a reference to this skit.

Stripping these articles down to encyclopedic material and merging the result somewhere is the only way I can see to generate an article that isn't a permastub, a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, or dominated by trivia. I don't care much about whether it gets merged into the parent article or into a new cultural impact article, but the good bits need to be collected together and merged somewhere.Kww (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On the point of trivia lists, which on the face of it is reasonable; I would suggest that though a list of references to the Black Knight or the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch outside of Monty Python itself, is not reasonable inline in the article, the fact of their existence as a massive outside of Monty Python influence on popular culture is definitely something that needs to be covered in both articles, with perhaps only a few of the most illustrative examples given, and perhaps adding the rest as footnotes/references, to forestall some idiot removing the claim of widespread influence as unsourced. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So I guess libraries are closed on Sundays... I'll try to swing by tomorrow before work or during my lunch break (a boring hour anyways, and the library is only ten minutes away).

In any case, even the ones I do believe could support independent articles probably should be cleaned up/trimmed/whatever. I generally feel that even notable fictional topics should grow in a way that is healthy, if that makes any sense. So I do understand what you guys are saying when it comes to the articles that are pretty much all re-cap and not much else. I do think that some of them will likely be merged in some form. Some merging might not even have to do with "notability" as much as better organization. My apologies for my initial knee-jerk reaction.

I think we all agree that we don't want what we currently have to continue. These articles are in poor shape. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ned you absolutely do NOT need to apologise. unlike many who have weighed in, you have taken the time to amass a compendium of possible sources to demonstrate independent notability. But KWW's analysis of the existing length, combined with TTN's initial observation regarding the current content, suggests, to my mind at least, that a merge to a collective spinout would be a good solution. Moreover, it could be applied to similar cases elsewhere. We all know that these individual articles are neglected magnets for unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• We have more unpleasant incivility above where Eusebeus, in a hateful rant, tries to discount the editors who hold a different view to him using demographic arguments that just seem to be speculative bigotry and prejudice. When we note that he is a Francophone editor, should we then speculate that he knows nothing of English humour, is engaging in a kulturkampf and so should be excluded from this topic? Moreover, we have the misleading suggestion that notability is a policy. It isn't but, even it it were, these articles would tend to pass it, as has been repeatedly demonstrated at AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sgeureka's idea is more worthy of consideration but does not offer a good way forward for several reasons. Firstly, the notability of the suggested topic is doubtful and its essay-like quality would lead to accusations of improper synthesis and OR - I would not like to have to defend such an article at AFD. Secondly, existing articles such as the one about the Rabbit are quite focussed upon their topic and I do not see how such material would sit well within the proposed article. And, most importantly, there is clearly no consensus for such a merger. Attempts to steamroller the matter will just result in unnecessary conflict such as this tedious discussion. We have better things to do. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looking down the list, I recognize a number of people in this discussion, and suspect they are already aware, but for those who aren't, this discussion brushes on a lot of the same concepts currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. I would say that it'd be a good idea to wait for that discussion to conclude. However, it looks as though many of the relevant points in the discussion will be recorded as "no concensus", so take from it what you will. Concerning this discussion, I'm siding more to a position of ambivalence. If the organization of this content stands one way or another, I don't think it crushes the universes. There are valid arguments on both sides. -Verdatum (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still hunting for those books. None of the public libraries in the county have any of the ones I listed, so I'm going to try the community college and university next. -- Ned Scott 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

In the 'discussion' above it was alleged that reliable sources establishing the notability of any of this material are impossible to find. Linked below, several thousand news articles which easily do just that. Plus links showing thousands of people viewing these articles last month... which, logically, they would not be doing (decades after the fact) if the pages were not notable.

Black Knight [1] [2]

Holy hand grenade [3] [4]

Knights of the Round Table [5] [6]

Knights who say Ni [7] [8]

Patsy (Monty Python) [9] [10]

Rabbit of Caerbannog [11] [12]

Tim the Enchanter [13] [14]

Monty Python & the Holy Grail in Lego [15] [16]

There are also of course the numerous sources actually listed IN some of the articles... particularly Rabbit of Caerbannog and Patsy_(Monty_Python). Then there are books like this encyclopedia, this collection of synopses, and this text on the philosophical concepts in Monty Python's work... all of which cover these topics (as can be seen via Amazon's 'search within this book' feature). --CBD 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I really do hate the Google argument: I'd have a hard time writing much of an article about the Black Knight based on [17], [18], [19],[20],[21].

This is close, but all it really lets you say is "Sideshow made a Black Knight toy."

This yields the astonishing news that the blood in the stage play is fake.

If you are going to argue that there are sources that examine these things directly and in detail, please find a few. They probably do exist. What you should take note of is that no one is arguing that there is no meaningful content or no sources. People are arguing that the information is improperly arranged and overloaded with plot details, and that with the sources we have, the current allocation of articles can't be justified. We are patiently waiting for Ned to come back with his paper sources, and let us know if any of these articles could ever be really written based on third-party sourcing.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

CBD, we are all perfectly capable of doing Google searches, and no one is arguing the popularity of the topics in question. But copying a link to a Google search does nothing to support the existence of sources that support the WP:GNG. My argument is, even if the topic is perfectly notable and excellent sources exist, if the article only has a small amount of content, and it is appropriate as child to a parent topic, what's wrong with merge/redirect? Doing so doesn't mean to imply, "this topic is stupid/unpopular/unimportant/etc", just that until it grows with appropriate content, it can be fully expressed as a section of another article. -Verdatum (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kww, what really frustrates me is the amount of energy put out here for such a topic - yes it is silly to some but it doesn't hurt anyone. There are numerous areas of the 'pedia where information and misinformation really makes a difference - Eusebeus asked me to comment but I have been busy at major depressive disorder much of the time, or I could go running about looking for sources here..hmmm, which one is more useful? There are some books and those of us familiar with the material know they are pretty prominent plot elements that have been quoted ad nauseam. I find the whole 'stick-my-head-in-the-sand-nope-can't see-any-sources' attitude pretty tiring really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am not sticking my head in the sand ... I'm simply saying that the sources currently available, and the sources I can find, are not sufficient for a standalone encylopedia article. The sources available all concentrate on plot description, which is not a permissible way to expand the articles (per WP:NOT#PLOT). I've made constructive critiques of the existing articles, and explained why I find them so deficient. I've suggested that we seriously consider the alternative of an article which consolidates the useful bits of information. I've discussed the issues with other editors, and ma waiting on input from Ned Scott, who has access to physical libraries (I would have to fly thousands of miles to reach a physical, English language library). That's what editing an article is about. If you haven't got the time to actually make arguments about this article based on sourcing and guidelines, perhaps you should consider whether dropping by to criticize those of that that are working on the article is a constructive use of what time you have left. Feel free to spend your time on major depressive disorder, and I look forward to seeing the improvements you make there.—Kww(talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources are "not sufficient for a standalone encyclopedia article"... even the one which contains standalone encyclopedia articles. Oi! Between that and the dismissive 'Google search' comments (ignoring the other sources) it really begins to look like 'notability' and 'reliable sources' and 'encyclopedic presentation' are all just smoke for, 'we do not want this info covered here no matter WHAT sources are available'. Google news is a very different animal than just a general Google web search. That you would even try to claim lack of notability for subjects covered in hundreds of news articles is absurd. --CBD 22:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When exactly did I claim that the topics weren't notable? I've been arguing that the articles, as they stand, violate WP:NOT#PLOT and that they are full of trivia, which violates WP:TRIVIA. Certainly there are enough sources to satifisfy WP:N, but there doesn't seem to be much to say outside of plot retellings. I am not arguing for removal of any valid information from Wikipedia, but once you strip out the plot and the trivia, all that is left is three-line articles. That's what merging is for ... consolidating information into well-arranged, meaningful articles that present information in a coherent fashion.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Verdatum stated that there were no sources meeting WP:GNG. You apparently disagree with him. Chopping out all plot details and 'trivia' would be another way of limiting Wikipedia's content... but there are no policies or even guidelines advocating erradication of such material. The only possible 'trivia lists' falling under WP:TRIVIA in these articles are the 'Cultural references' sections... which that guideline would then suggest should be re-arranged into paragraph form noting significant references and themes. NOT excising the material completely as you would have it. As for WP:NOT#PLOT, it argues for a concise plot summary... which is precisely what these articles contain. Merging all of that information into this single article would result in an excessively large page. Which is why good article design has always been to split such things out. Again, your position is that Wikipedia would be better with less of this information... even though you concede it is notable, it is obviously verifiable, and also clearly of interest to our users. That's something which I just do not GET. We hear all of this clamoring about notability (from Verdatum and others above if not you), verifiability, and what not else... but even when those claims are shown to be completely specious the REAL underlying drive remains - to remove information people want to read. How is that a good thing? We can make Wikipedia less useful? We can prevent it from being any more useful for info on fictional topics than it is on particle physics? Yay? --CBD 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can manage to find sources for each of those trivia items (quite a different thing than finding sources for the topic in general), and rearrange them into some kind of coherent, logical, flow without violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in the process, you are a better man than I.—Kww(talk) 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

CBD, Please be so kind as to not misrepresent me. I did not claim that "there were no sources meeting WP:GNG" I claimed that linking to a Google search is not evidence of such sources. Nor was I talking about removing information. I merely suggested relocating it. -Verdatum (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Coming new to the discussion, it seems self-evident to me that all of the sources discussing the Holy Hand Grenade only do so in context of the film. Having a separate article on this topic not only is not helpful, but actually negatively impacts our readers' ability to understand the topic in context (by forcing them to read two articles, instead of one. I think people are reacting emotionally here, and it simply isn't warranted. Merge and redirect is the right solution. Nandesuka (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge as they are notable outside of the individual works and have entered popular culture (I got here by searching for 'Knights who say Ni' and seeing the merge tag, for instance). There is enough material and sourcing to justify the existance of the secondary articles, which also make it easier to keep the main article "trim", since you can reference the larger, more detailed secondary articles. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 19:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge Most famous and major works of fiction have pages dedicated to characters in them; also, each page has a significant amount of information, merging would make the page unmanageable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentRew (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, remove the merge tags already. --Pixelface (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)