Talk:Mr Creosote

message: Why was he called Creosote?  Any ideas?--Jack Upland 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Did he die? Cuzandor 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a foolhardy assumption. -- 71.102.194.130 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: "pronounced 'caruso' "
I'm taking this out.  There is no citation, and it sure sounds like the fish in The Meaning of Life says "Creosote" if you ask me.  The "t" may be barely (if at all) audible, but I hear no "u."  Funkeboy 03:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: In the "References in popular culture" section, a previous editor added:
*In Sourcery by Terry Pratchett, the ruler of Al Khali is named Creosote.
I have removed this on the basis that it is a reference to Croesus and it has nothing to do with Mr Creosote at all. 64.232.207.151 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :Image:Mr Creosote.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mr Creosote.PNG

message: I'm not going to revert/change the edit, but the trivia sections of IMdb are not considered reliable sources per: WP:SPS and archived discussion on RS/N. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: If the article survives deletion, should it be merged with the main article on the film?  I'm leaning toward merge, but I am not a member of the project and only came to know this page existed through the AfD.  Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Pretty sure we aren't going to reach consensus on the merger. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger_proposal 

message: Protonk asserts that this article is of low importance.  I studied the scale and consider that the article is obviously of high importance.  The discussion at the AFD, where Protonk seems out of step with the general consensus, seems to confirm this.  I shall therefore continue to edit accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Depth of knowledge here refers to the field itself.  The way I look at it, this question should be similar to asking a film professor how important topic X is to the study of film.  Or a historian.  The ranking should help guide the project toward making edits on subjects that are more central to the field.  I'm going out on a limb here (I'm not a film historian), but I suspect if you ask a historian how important Mr. Creosote is to film (Or, to phrase it in the terms used by the ranking, "How important is knowledge of Mr. Creosote in establishing a breadth of knowledge in the field?"), the answer would either be "who?" or "not very".  Even a student of film who rightly recognizes British sketch comedy as significant among developments in the medium will probably tell you "not very".  Try this.  Assemble, in your mind, the most important elements of WHATEVER the Pythons have done, in rank order.  This includes the pythons as a group, individual members, TV shows, and films, scenes, etc.  How far down the list do you have to go before you reach a character?  I have to go about 15 spots, and the first character I come to is Chapman's Brian.  Now, imagine where on the list of FILM each of those elements of the python list fall. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: At present, there is no indication that this article's topic harbor any notability that is independent of The Meaning of Life". Of the four references/citations currently in the article:
*One is just a link to the clip on YouTube, which is not a secondary source, and cannot go to notability.
*One is just a recitation of some of the dialogue.
*One is a link to a Channel 4 story that has gone dead. I tried using that site's search engine to find "Creosote" and "Tarantino", but found nothing. Interestingly, the editor who added it didn't even bother including the Volume number that was clearly a part of that story's title, because it just said, "Quentin Tarantino on Kill Bill Vol." Fortunately, a found a replacement url via Google, but this isn't really about critical reception, as Tarantino merely mentions the scene grossed him out. That is hardly something that goes to notability, and the one passage in that section that is about critical reception, which mentions "other critics" and Leonard Maltin, would go to notability if it were sourced, but it isn't, and I could not find a replacement for it. I removed that passage.
*The Yorkshire Post citation is the one secondary source that is valid, but by itself, and even with the Tarantino bit, this does not demonstrate notability that is independent of the film itself. The material in it should simply be added to the article on the film, which I have just done now with the Tarantino passage. 
Unless secondary sources can be provided to establish independent notability for this one scene, it should be deleted. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course an article should be deleted if there are no reliable secondary independent sources substantively treating it. But we only delete articles if those sources do not exist, not if they haven't been substantiated through citation. The only way this could be properly deleted is at AfD, and the very first thing you should do before taking it to AfD is to spend thirty seconds doing a Google Books and News Archive search and then you wouldn't properly take it to AfD because that search would reveal that there are huge numbers of those sources in existence so there's no basis for deletion on notability grounds and you would be wasting everyone's time in nominating it (which is also why a prod would be inappropriate). Your choices would appear to be: source it yourself, tag it with an appropriate maintenance tag (e.g., ) and/or call attention to the issue, maybe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Monty Python. For those reasons, I'm not sure what your purpose is in stating how poor the sourcing currently is. Note that I am in no way defending the sorry state of this article's sourcing (and in fact believe and have in the past argued that we should delete unsourced and poorly sourced articles [and not doing so has gotten us into the current mess of a few million such articles]; I support making verifiability have teeth for present sourcing, such as through something like Wikipedia:Requests for verification. Those pragmatic policies have never caught on and so we molly coddle the unsourced and poorly sourced. But that policy, that I would support, is not now nor has ever been the state of actual policy and guideline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability