Talk:Carry On (franchise)

message: What does the king see, everyday? (when shaving)
The peasant, regularly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:68F:0:21B7:2FFE:EA32:A3A (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  carrion (latinum) 

message: Is there a Carry On wikiproject? Is anyone interested in starting one? TheMadBaron 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good idea. I would happily contribute to one. David L Rattigan 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: Methinks we should have a box template thingummy, such as many other series have on Wikipedia (one good example is the films of Blake Edwards). It would list, and link to, all the Carry On films, most of the actors, and some peripheral topics. It would be placed in this article, and in every article about a Carry On film.
Who knows how to build a box template thingummy? TheMadBaron 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just find a template you already like, and then copy and paste the same code. I'd also wait to hear from others before creating it, as I wonder if some would think it is a bit big for a template - not that I mind, but there's been controversy over other large templates. David L Rattigan 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carry On box 

message: The timeline of films needs separating from commentary of how good they are. Calling one era "decline" and another "revival" is leading. I think the films needs to be put into a straight timeline, and then any commentary on their decline and fall given in a separate section, and any mention of "decline" or "revival" should be cited as with anything else on wikipedia, rather than being an uncited value judgement. Also, I think a Carry On template/sidebar would probably be in order, something oalong the lines of the one at Star Trek. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is useful and meaningful to group the films in this way. After Charles Hawtrey's last appearance in Abroad, and then the last ever Carry On film appearances of Sid James, Hattie Jacques and Barbara Windsor in Dick, it is pretty safe to say the film series was in decline. Also the films declined in popularity at this time. Prouction switched from two a year, to just one each year. England was a major failure. Emmanuelle tried to win back audiences by revamping the formula, foregrounding some new actors and adding much more sex. Then Emmanuelle was the last film - until many years later one more film was made. This pretty much sounds like a decline, and a revival to me. The article never actually makes a critical evaluation of the quality of the film itself, something that would be POV. Asa01 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections are biased / POV 

message: The mainstays of the series were Kenneth Williams (30000000000000 films)—Wasabe3543 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somehow I don't think this is quite correct 

message: :Image:Carry on series.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 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Carry on series.jpg

message: :Image:Carry on series.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 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Carry on series.jpg

message: The article stated that Phil Silvers' role was written for Sid James, who suffered a heart attack shortly before producton started.  However, The Whippet Inn contradicts this, stating that "Although not involved in the film, three days into shooting Sid James was rushed into hospital with a heart attack."  It also suggests that Woody Allen had also been considered for the role.
It is unlikely that Silvers would be brought in at such short notice, so the Whippet Inn version looks more likely.  Without any authoritative citation I have adjusted the article to follow the Whippet Inn version of events. Mrstonky (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow That Camel

message: The image :File:Carry on camping 320x240.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Carry On Cleo DVD.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Carry on camping 320x240.jpg

message: Neither of these articles are properly referenced and they are not the only unmade films of the series. It may be better to merge the content. Corporation Cart (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge: [[Carry On Spaceman]] and [[Carry On Again Nurse]] to this article 

message: Two columns for the list of films seems to make more sense, so you can see the entire list on one screen and to eliminate white space.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, in principle I'm all for it, unfortunately it makes a confusing break in the numbering, showing one list of 16 and another of 15.  This needs to be sorted before the column split.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Ah - okay - bulleting works - maybe we should have a table with premiere dates, box office performances, etc, as another user has suggested...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: List of films

message: I have almost finished a wiki-table consisting of the films, and stage and theatre shows.  I still have a few bits to do which should only take me an afternoon. Does anybody have any thought's or opposes if I replace some information in favour of -  this.  I would really appreciate any thought's. -- Cassianto (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of the changes.  This more concise approach seems sensible to me.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible replacement of content 

message: The article states 34 Carry On films, but only 31 appear in the chronological list.  ???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.143.34 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Films 

message: Are we not in October? Doh, I was really looking forward to Christmas!  Lol... I do plan on going through everything in this article and reference what can be referenced and cutting out everything else.  I have a mad plan of taking this to GAC in the not so distant future, so the article will be heavily cleaned up.  As a guide, I think we should use the excellent James Bond in film article for layout, prose style and presentation.  I have two WP:FACs planned so I am pencilling in this after that. -- CassiantoTalk  10:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and unreferenced stuff 

message: To anyone watching: I will be creating a new list article containing the complete filmography which I then plan on moving from this article.  I have taken the list in this article (which I completed about a year ago) and thoroughly copy edited it and is availible here for anyone to take a look.  Because of this, the list in this article will then be made redundant so I will be deleting it and make a reference to the new article.  I then plan on taking this list to WP:FLC in the next few weeks. As this is a major deletion of content from this article, I have decided to post this for a discussion to take place.   -- CassiantoTalk 22:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Carry On'' list 

message: This sourced content was removed (possibly unintentionally) when the filmography table was split to another article.  The removal of the content was unexplained in any case.  Per WP:BRD, I restored this material, but this keeps being reverted.  Per WP:BRD, it is for the editor(s) removing the content to justify its removal.  Please discuss...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, it could use some cleaning up, but that is no need to expunge it from the article, per WP:IMPROVE.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to rely on reverting an edit from five months ago when there have been a number of subsequent edits from different people, is a bit of a stretch when it comes to arguing your way around BRD. Calling the original cut "unexplained" is just plain wrong: there is an edit summary that explains it, whether you agree with it or not. I reverted your edit because the majority of the information does not carry any supporting reliable source. Other sections are unconnected and pointless ("Non-Carry On films" anyone?) For the relevant films that were not made, you need to ensure a reliable source is used to support the entry - that's a rather basic requirement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There haven't been any subsequent edits on this material - the section was removed.  There is not an edit summary that explains it at all.  The only edit summary: "Now moved per talk page which had no objections" is in relation to #New Carry On list, which does not make any mention of this material whatsoever.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed that the information could be tidied up and better presented, but scrapping the information completely seems heavy-handed. Whichever editor added the information does provide three sources (Morris Bright and Robert Ross (2000). The Lost Carry Ons: Scenes That Never Made it to the Screen. Virgin Books. ; Robert Ross (2002). The Carry on Companion. Batsford. ; Richard Webber (2005). The Complete A-Z of Everything Carry On. HarperCollins. ) although I cannot verify the content myself.  The Carry On London section was fully referenced with news articles from the time.  Where is the justification for the removal of this?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: *As I said, the referencing. If it can be cleaned up I doubt there will be issues with retaining it. Schro/Cas, I note that the list of titles at the very least appears to be sourced... it could possibly be included) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Carry On London section was fully referenced.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Then we should be working together to improve the section, rather than scrap it wholesale. It does have encyclopedic value.  As, I believe, does a section regarding other the films that were made by the same Producer/Director/Writer "team" using largely the same actors, but not part of the series.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does have value here, but only after it's been sourced properly. I'm not sure I agree with the non-Carry On films section in a Carry On list, regardless of the personnel involved, but I'm happy to hear the views of a wider audience to reach a consensus on that. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books result  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact it is correct that the films were conceived but never made is not in dispute here.  I think SchroCat might mean Twice Round the Daffodils, The Big Job, and similar which were Carry Ons in all but name.  If you mean do we mention scripts like "Carry On Smoking", "Carry On Again Nurse", "Carry On Dallas" etc, then yes I think we should mention them.  Having said that, I don't think we should dedicate a lot of article space to it and it needs to come from a reliable source, ie Ross, Bright etc. CassiantoTalk 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we're in agreement for some kind of inclusion then - by all means this could be trimmed and tidied up - it was the wholesale removal without an attempt that bothered me. The "Non Carry Ons" must also be worthy of a sentence (maybe with a better heading" - same Director and Producer on all films, Hudis/Rothwell/Freeman writing, and for the most part the same composer, cinematographer and stars.  As you say: "Carry Ons in all but name".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I was never in disagreement about this (I have come late to this discussion). Sometimes, it's best to delete and start again, although I'd like to think it was a transfer from a sandbox somewhere.  Who removed it?  If it was me then it was by accident I assure you. CassiantoTalk 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems to disappear in this edit.  As I noted at the top of this section, I thought it may have been unintentional, but definitely unexplained, which is why I tried to restore it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: You can have as many issues as you want, especially as you have misread this entirely. While this is a wiki, we do have standards and one of our core five pillars suggests "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative source". Without such sources we are nothing more than fanboy fluff and trivia. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: *Precisely. Waggers, there is no chance that this article will be rated by the community any higher than a "B" if there are unreferenced sections hanging about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was referenced, although a little sloppy.  As it was removed in error, it should be restored in order that we can work on it and WP:IMPROVE.  All removed information was verifiable.   --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *We've already pointed to several subsections and paragraphs which were unreferenced. Removal was not in error. Something that you disagree with is not necessarily something which is incorrect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, Cassianto admitted that it was a mistake, and that it wasn't intentionally removed.  I'd count that as "in error".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did and to be honest, I didn't really notice the lack of sources.  In hindsight, I would have either of deleted it or worked on it to provide better prose and citations.  based on the lack of citations anyway.  CassiantoTalk 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are there - three books are mentioned at the top of the section, and I can only assume that all the information in the section were taken from these three sources, but cannot check.  I've been looking for other sources today and have found a few, but have got sidetracked for the time being.  We should be working on this though, not deleting it.  I don't think there's any contentious material here - it seems bona fide.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I agree.  I'm all for them being mentioned within a couple of sentences at best, or paragraph at worst, but certainly not in a section all of its own. --CassiantoTalk 15:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: SchroCat, the "unmade films" section isn't about films that were not part of the series - it's about films that were going to be part of the series but were not completed/released. As such, if the section can be properly referenced, it very much belongs in the article. And we can only find references for the text in that section if we can see the text in that section - which is why it has to stay in the article. By all means, give it a cleanup tag, that's what they're for, and that's how we acknowledge that a section doesn't quite meet the standard we would like. Removing the section entirely is far from helpful. WaggersTALK 08:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No Waggers, firatly, if you read through the thread, you'll note we're also talking about the Non-Carry On films section, which is—as the title suggests—entirely about films that are not relevant to the article. Secondly, see WP:NOCITE: add a citation or the material gets removed, it's fairly simple and straightforward. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we are talking about both sections, seeing as they both keep being removed, and as you can see from Cassianto's responses above regarding the "Non-Carry On films", we seem to be in agreement that they are "Carry Ons in all but name".  The cast and crew issue is verifiable, so lets try and WP:IMPROVE the article, not delete verifiable encyclopedic information.  As Waggers says, "removing the section entirely is far from helpful"   --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm confused; what are we talking about here?  The SCRIPTS "Carry On Spaceman", "Carry On Again Nurse", "Carry On Smoking" etc, or the FILMS  Twice Round the Daffodils, The Big Job etc... If we are talking about the scripts, then yes I think they should be included briefly and NOT in a section of their own.  If we are talking about the films then NO I don't think they should be included anywhere in this article.  CassiantoTalk 09:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm confused.  When we were discussing including the "Carry Ons in all but name" above, you stated that you were "never in disagreement about this".  Or at least it seemed like you did.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

text: You can cite another editor if you want to: I'll cite a policy, which carries a little more weight. As I have said - and as is supported by policies - add references, or there is a danger that the unreferenced material in the "unmade films" section will be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing as they were marketed in the UK under the "What a Carry On" banner, is that good enough? , , etc.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Unmade films" section 

message: Sorry, but the box now looks utterly ridiculous! CassiantoTalk 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way, but our MoS dictates that composition titles are always italicised.  The main problem with the infobox is its length.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not either remove the excessive list, or out the titles in a collapsible section? - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A collapsible section might work.  Another option might be to include a titles and years only list in the "Films" section in the body, rather than in the infobox.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, I have no idea why you mention MOS and the Itals, that is a given.  My issue is with the excessively stupid length of it caused by the listing of the films. I would go with collapsable if we are being insistent on having the films in it. CassiantoTalk 15:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, with you!  Your note here appeared just moments after I'd italicised the infobox, so I thought it was in relation to that!  Hadn't spotted that it had been changed!  Yes - it's ridiculously long.  I'm happy to go back to how it was, but maybe a title/year only list in the "Films" section isn't a bad idea for readers who want a simple overview.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better!  I will try. And do some stuff on the article over the next week or so.  Your changes all look good! CassiantoTalk 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films within the infobox 

message: The above merge discussion was closed with no consensus, but I think we were reaching some kind of consensus regarding the structure of the articles and moving the production information here, and adding plot to the list article, although the conversation fizzled out.  Should we look into this possibility further?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Carry On (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130527184026/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4417593.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4417593.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any evidence that this statement is not true of the James Bond series, which has been running "continually" for 53 years from first to last movie? Even if you count Casino Royale as a break - a tenuous claim given that continuity between films is sketchy at best and the Carry On series had no continuity whatsoever - it's still 40 years against Carry On's 34. And how is "longest continually running" defined? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. 45.72.244.163 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what the definition of "Film series" is. One could argue that the Carry On films were produced by an ensemble cast and crew where as the Bond films have always been stand alone productions (executive producer notwithstanding!). 90.249.136.231 (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...it is the longest continually running UK film series..." 

message: I changed "poorly paid" to "modestly paid", although personally I would think they were well paid. If Kenneth Williams earnt £5000 for Carry On Behind (for example, one of the later films), that amount in 1975 is equivalent to about £40,000 to-day. For 6 weeks work. Or to put it another way, about an average Briton's annual salary in a month. Seems quite a lot to me. And the films helped them get loads of other well paid work, such as the associated stage shows and television specials, as well as advertising and sponsorship contracts, and other acting roles. So maybe "modestly" is correct compared to Bond stars, Alain Delon, Hollywood etc. But definitely not "poor". 66.130.207.107 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "poorly paid" is cited to a source. If the source says poorly paid then that's what should be in the sentence. And the poorly paid is relative to other actors not the general workforce. If you check the source and it says something different, or is more nuanced then by all means change to match the source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Poorly paid?"