Talk:Monty Python/Archive 1

message: The following is moved from the article; see below for discussion of changes within it.
===Pythomenon=== 
=== The Show ===
See: Monty Python's Flying Circus
===The Films===
[To come]
===The Rest===
[To come]
(inserted here because I wasn't sure what else to do with it, other than hang it on the wall and pretend it's avant garde) I see no mention of 2 of the Python LPs which I know exist, because I have them: Monty Python's Previous Record and Monty Python's Contractural Obligation Album. (There are also a couple of live albums not mentioned.) I can only guess at the release dates for each, but I can easily get track listings and even cover photos of the albums if that seems like a useful thing. --Woozle 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction Fence 

message: [To come]
(inserted here because I wasn't sure what else to do with it, other than hang it on the wall and pretend it's avant garde) I see no mention of 2 of the Python LPs which I know exist, because I have them: Monty Python's Previous Record and Monty Python's Contractural Obligation Album. (There are also a couple of live albums not mentioned.) I can only guess at the release dates for each, but I can easily get track listings and even cover photos of the albums if that seems like a useful thing. --Woozle 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rest

message: This is an encyclopedia article about the funniest thing to come down the pike in  i-dunno-how-long.  It is not a comedy piece.
I struck out the heading "Pythomenon" (which is a fine term that deserves mention somewhere in the article (unless it was invented by the person who added it to the article and their friends)).  The purpose of the headings is to inform, to guide, the reader re what is where.  To the extent that you're funny, you're a little obscure.  Here's a rule of thumb:
* We have an article on humor.
* We have an article on  pornography.
* We even have an article on fuck.
* But we don't make jokes, we don't tittilate, and we don't talk dat shit. (Well, except on the talk pages, where a little humor, a little evocation of sexuality, and a little foul language can lighten the day, if kept respectful and focussed.)
IMO, "The Rest" as a heading is a little flippant, but fairly clear; perhaps no one will push for replacing it.
Respect your colleagues that you work on this article with, keep the debate and future plans on this talk page (and sign your entries on the talk page with --~~~~), trust the reader to go away with the hard facts or the links to the jokes (according to their needs) without trying to play it for laughs, and (BTW, guys), don't quit your day job. smile
Oh, and do as i say, not as i do:
Don't use the super-giant heading style that appears in the cases of "Miscellaneous", "Construction Fence", and "Something a Little Different" on this talk page.
I used them here to confine the headings that i moved from the talk page, instead of letting them blend in among the other headings that will arise.  I would not use them in an article, i've used them only once before on a talk page, and i've never even seen them used in an article.  
--Jerzy(t) 18:59, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
:This is very very condascending.  Ground rules? Who are you? --HappyDog 03:13, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ground rules

message: Opening line:
:"Monty Python or The Pythons were the creators and stars of Monty Python's Flying Circus, the television comedy series that did to British comedy what The Beatles did to music."
Painfully POV. This is astoundingly unqualifiable. If the effort is to associate the two as for the proundness they had on Brittish culture, then please include that. The impact the Beatles had on the rest of the world cannot be compared to the Python.
The thing that can reduce the POVness is to specify the areas in which they are similary, otherwise it's an alony.
If no change is made by late Fri, I will attempt to reword the introductory sentence to better fit with the article.
--Duemellon 19:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV edit

message: I think this has enough content to become a Featured Article at some point, although I also think there is still some work to be done.  A lot of the sections/paragraphs need more structure and less POV.  Maybe some of the sections should be shortened, and others (such as the list of films) should get some more content.  Any ideas? --brian0918 talk 16:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Path to Featured Article status?

message: I'm working on trying to get an image from Gilliam's "Beware of the Elephants" animation in order to include in the article.  If anyone can find an image, please post it in the appropriate spot in the article.  --brian0918 talk 20:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilliam's "Elephants" animation

message: The article's head mentions 4 series of MPFC- well after John Cleese left for the last series the show was renamed just Monty Python. How could that be best worked in?
-11:23, 13 Jan 2005 Josquius
I suppose by bringing down a giant foot from the top of the screen, crushing the words "Flying Circus" in the proper context.  Uh, but I'm not sure the technology is ready.     
Blair P. Houghton 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say to leave it like it is, but add in that fact later in the article.  --brian0918™ 14:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Monty Python's FC/ Monty Python

message: I don't know how to deal with several things:
*One sentence paragraphs. They really badly need fixing. 
*Bullet points in the middle of the first section? Are you sure we need these? Makes it look... odd. This might not be fixable. 
*Why don't we have a picture of the giant foot that squashes things? That should go into the first section "And now for something completely different: Flying Circus and the Python style". Also, I distinctly remember that it has its own name. 
*"After Python" : "Going solo" mentions Cleese's career, but doesn't mention Fawlty Towers!!! 
*Wikilinks in headings... big no no. 
*I see pythonesque comments leaking through... "That left Terry Gilliam in his own corner, a sensible position in view of the arcane nature of his work, and Eric Idle." Now they're amusing, but they also aren't NPOV. 
*"References" should be "Notes", and then a new references section created. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Consistency is all I ask! 
Sorry, I'm busy working on other articles and am taking a break to deal with the PR section. Hope that someone finds this useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with wikilinks as headings?  I see it all the time in other articles. --Thebends 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the page

message: The article says "Neil Innes is the only non-Python to be credited with writing material for the Flying Circus", but I'm certain Douglas Adams gets a credit at least once in series four. Does anyone know for sure? Angmering 23:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Adams had two on-screen appearances (very VERY brief ones!) in episodes 42 and 44 and got a writing credit for contributing to a sketch in episode 45. See his page for details. His contributions were so small - I think the notation on the page here is fine, and the details are spelled out in his biography. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing credits

message: What's with Fawlty Towers (John Cleese) and the Beatles parody The Rutles - All You Need is Cash with Eric Idle as Dirk McQuickly and as Michael Palin in a guest role as Leggy Mountbatten?
:Michael Palin was not Leggy Mountbatten in The Rutles: All You Need is Cash film - and he had a role in the film - not a guest role.  Michael Palin appeared in The Rutles' film as Eric Manchester, the Rutles Corp. Press Agent/Lawyer. Figaro 11:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going Solo

message: Flying Circus and the Python style says that "Monty" comes from a guy Idle knew in a pub. The head of the article, however, says it was a tribute to Field General Montgomery. Which is the truth? 
Also, there's generally a lot of information about the series that seems to properly belong in the article about the series, rather than about the group.
Yours truly in a white wine sauce,
Jiawen 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, that is completely NOT what they said at Aspen.  (I don't even think they mention Montgomery.)  I remember them saying the name came about as follows:  The BBC was calling it 'circus' in their initial programming titles, as the group had no name for the show.  Jones wanted it to be some long obscure nonsensical name, but they said no.  They suck with circus and added "Flying" because it sounded like a real-life circus.  Then Palin had the idea of giving the show to random people all across England each week.  So then they decided to create a name of a made-up scummy agent, and "Monty Python" sounded scurrilous enough maybe from the guy in the pub?).  I don't recall anything about Montgomery being said at all.  Sonofabird 18:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of "Monty"

message: This page says that his name was changed from Cheese when his father joined the army in WWII ("Born on October 27, 1939 in Weston-Super-Mare, England, Cleese’s surname had originally been Cheese. His father, however, had the name changed to Cleese when he joined the army during WWII.") However, the John Cleese entry says that his father changed the name upon entering the army in 1915, which would be WWI ("His family's surname was previously "Cheese", but his father, an insurance salesman, changed his surname to "Cleese" upon joining the army in 1915.") This also implies he was born as Cleese, and that the change was made before he was born. I don't know which is accurate, but I think one of the statements is wrong.
:You're absolutely right, it is. According to the Python biography and the interview with John Cleese on the Fawlty Towers DVD, it's WWI. Cleese's father was relatively advanced in age by the time Cleese was born - too old to have been in the Army. Also, the claim that Cleese made a cameo in Series Four is absolutely incorrect. I've watched Series Four (indeed, all 45 episodes) many times and have never seen Cleese make a cameo in that fourth season - although his wife, Connie Booth, whom Cleese claims to have been a reason he left the series (he supposedly wanted to work more with her, and did on Fawlty Towers four years later), does appear in the episode "Hamlet." I can also find no support for the claim that the series title was changed to "Monty Python." If nobody can present any, I'll be happy to fix the page.JCaesar 06:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book Monty Python Speaks by David Morgan refers to Cleese leaving the show and taking the circus with him as the new title became simply Monty Python. I believe it was mentioned in Kim "Howard" Johnson's book as well. IrishGuy 16:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between this page and John Cleese page 

message: It seems to me (silly American that I am) that each one of the Python troupe had a characteristic speaking accent. Was Eric Idle supposed to be Cockney and John Cleese supposed to be upper class or something? Did each Python speak with his usual voice or did some/all put on stage accents? I'm pretty completely in the dark about all this, so if it's just rubbish feel free to ignore it. 64.48.193.107 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They would usually put on a differant voice (be it through accent, pitch, etc.) Idle occasionally played cockney characters, but then so did they all. Likewise, Cleese would often play upperclass charcters, but not always. They all had a wide variety of characters and therefore voices.--Crestville 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would deem most Python voices as caricatures (Cleese would portray the "thicko" just as much as the "upper class twit of the year" type) depending on the type of sketch. They would sometimes use their "real" voices for comic effect in scenes of otherwise nonsensical unreality. Palin and Idle were perhaps least likely to affect a speaking style, unless they were in drag (which is confusingly reasonable, I suppose!)LessHeard vanU 21:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! That's what I was trying to say, but I don't speak good England.--Crestville 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents 

message: Hi, does anyone know the name (and composer) of the orchestral waltz used as the underscore music in The Cycling Tour (episode 34 of the TV series). Cheers, Musicmaker 11:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUSIC FOR THE CYCLING TOUR 

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

message: The above image is about to be deleted, as it fails the criteria for fair use. If anyone can find something more suitable, that would be lovely. The BBC website, where this image was originally sourced from, statesthe following:
:You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.
Great. We need something better. Unless we can gain "prior written permission"... riana but of course i'm listening 07:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:MontyPythonCast.jpg]] 

message: It has him listed as a devoted fan and an occasional stand in... would mentioning his surrealism in comparison to the Pythons be worth mentioning?--Artega 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddie Izzard as the 7th Python 

message: Very good and valid to add Douglas Adams.  Disagree about listing "Associate Pythons" in alphabetical order.  If there were a lot of names - it might make sense.  But with very few - it is much more appropriate to list them in some sort of sequence of import and significance to the Python canon.
If listed alphabetically Adams (who co-wrote just 2 skits) and Connie Booth (who appeared in a few) are listed above Neil Innes and Carol Cleveland who both became integral to the Pythons.  Innes in their stage shows, films and records (plus the last TV series). Cleveland on the TV shows, stage shows and films.  Both of them have multiple credits and appearances - and logically they should be listed before Adams and Booth.  Davidpatrick 14:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Associate Pythons

message: "That left Idle in his own corner, considered to be a sensible position in view of the arcane nature of his work, and Idle." One of the two has to go and maybe Gilliam take his place. Hoverfish 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it was a pun, you know, Idle wasn't working hard on his own -- he was idle. ;)  Anyway, Irishguy took care of it. Banaticus 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Idles 

message: Hi Crestville, I experimented a bit with padding and tested for Firefox, IE and Opera compatibility. Wiki seems to have a disproportionate default left and bottom padding for framed images in boxed content, which is hard to diminish. Even the way it is now, the box frame is a bit too large. Hoverfish 08:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beg pardon?--Crestville 11:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just used some detailed styling to center the image in the infobox and since it was your work I thought I'd let you know I messed with it (compare the versions to see what I mean). Hoverfish 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ta very much.--Crestville 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox padding 

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

message: I've done a general rewrite on a lot of sections, tightening up the style and adding some new information. I didn't finish the whole article - if everyone thinks what I've done is too bold, feel free to revert, but a lot of it is unchanged (and I didn't touch the formatting).
There's still a lot wrong with this article, though. It still creaks a bit in terms of style, and a lot of the problems listed above still need to be corrected. The biography section just doesn't work: there's very little information on the lives of the members, and a lot of repetition of stuff that's already been covered. Also, because the entries are mostly about that member's writing style, there's a lot of overlap between the Palin one and the Jones one, and the same with Cleese and Chapman. Strikes me that this is a pretty good article that could be very good indeed if someone does a bit of spade-work on it. I didn't want to change too much myself, as I've already rewritten large chunks of it MrBronson 07:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight rewrite

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

message: Shouldn't a claim of anything besides commonly held beliefs and scientific facts be supported by some sort of references?
This is a question about the Monty Python wiki as much as it is about wikipedia itself.
I'm noticing a trend where obvious fans of a person/product/service make universal claims about the subject with no citations to back up their position.
It's one thing to state the known and irrefutable facts about a subject like Monty Python.
It's an entirely other thing to say that the subject is highly regarded as blah blah blah.
Who regards the subject as that?  I don't.  So, how many people did it take for the author to determine it's a "highly" regarded belief?
Sorry... I'll give you an example.  In this article, there were several such instances, but the last one I noticed before writing this was the statment that South Park was inspired by Gilliam's work on Monty Python.
This may or may not be fact, and until you can cite an interview where the South Park creators made this statement, then you can't post it as truth.  It's only an opinion.  And quite possibly, only the opinion of one person - the author of the wiki.  The mere fact that the two productions have cut-out animation in common does NOT mean that the South Park animators have ever even SEEN Monty Python.
Sorry for the rant.
But the more and more wikipedia poses articles that are filled with gushy unsupported claims, the more it will turn into a discarded fan site run by some 15 yr old.
: I know I have seen a interwiev with the makers of south park saying this.Can anyone find a link?
:BTW since this is about Monty Python, earbuckels and snowhead, thats right, fistcleaning and morebread. Thank you everyone, thank :you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.19.122 (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support claims of inspiration with references? 

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

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

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

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

message: I see in the introductory text above the table of contents that there have been 5 Monty Python films, but the films section only names 4.  Is there a mistake in the introductory text, or has a movie been left out from the films section? --Steve Kroon 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. The intro says 5 and the infobox names them. The one missing from the Films section is Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl. Don't see why it shouldn't get a subsection of its own under Films. Not offering to do it myself, mind... Cheers,  Ian Rose 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four films or Five 

message: The separate article on the has been proposed for deletion.  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Architects_Sketch  There are other articles on individual sketches.  If this one is to be retained it will probably need to be cleaned up. Kablammo 09:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jabberwocky (film) was not a Monty Python film. Although some Python members worked on it, Palin, Jones and of course Terry Gilliam the director. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion of [[Architects Sketch]] 

message: was this a monty python film or just from one of the residents?
Jabberwocky (1977)
A movie about a poor farmer named Dennis who ends up invulountery slaying the Jabberwocky and marrying the princess.
:Jabberwocky (film) was not a Monty Python film. Although some Python members worked on it, Palin, Jones and of course Terry Gilliam the director. Garion96 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jabberwocky

message: There are currently five articles about or related to Monty Python sketches being considered for deletion:
*Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election (deletion discussion)
*Medical Love Song (deletion discussion)
*Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism (deletion discussion)
*Silly Job Interview (deletion discussion)
*Sit on My Face (deletion discussion)
__meco 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles proposed for deletion 

message: The chicken carried by the Knight is most definitely not rubber, but a real, plucked, dead one. If it wasn't being used to move silly sketches on it would be pushing up the daisies. I've amended this page, and the subsequently-affected Rubber Chicken page. From Monty Python's Flying Circus – Just The Words, vol 1, p33; Methuen, 1990 (How To Recognise Different Types of Trees From Quite A Long Way Away):
After a few seconds he sees that the rest of the court are staring at him in amazement and he loses momentum rapidly, almost as rapidly as he loses confidence and dignity. At last he subsides. Our knight in armour walks up to the counsel and hits him with the traditional raw chicken  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.169.3 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Knight's Chicken 

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

message: :Image:JonesPalinIdle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:JonesPalinIdle.jpg

message: :Image:Reunion.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Reunion.JPG

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

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

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

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

message: Just removed this from the list of notable sketches in the section about the TV series. It's a common misconception, but this sketch, while undoubtably a classic, is not from any episode of Flying Circus, but actually had its birth in At Last the 1948 Show (which, of course, did feature Cleese and Chapman, hence the understandable confusion.)
Elsewhere, I have gone through the article, mostly performing a structural cleaning up (either just the structure of individual sentences, or of particular paragraphs). About three or four pieces of information have been added, mostly to the sections on the films and the individual members - but they're not Earth-shattering. Most don't need any outside verification. Slightly more oblique references have been taken care of with footnote links. (Some of these are really just slight - but sometimes necessary - expansions on what was already here e.g. mentioning that Terry Jones' cancer scare did not last long. The article previously gave the impression that it still afflicted him.) Also felt that it was more appropriate to mention South Park instead of a Franz Ferdinand video in the 'Pythonesque' section.
Also, with regards, Palin's 'retirement' from comedy. I am sure he has declared something along those lines (after all he hasn't done anything on this front since Fierce Creatures in 1997), but I cannot find a written source just yet. I'll keep looking.
Kisbie (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Yorkshiremen 

message: Prior to being on PBS in the US, Monty Python's was sold to the public broadcaster CBC in Canada.  I recall as do others on the net(  ) seeing episodes in the summer of 1970 or 1971 initially on Saturday evenings during the summer then later on (after the CBC became uneasy with the shows' content) it was shown well after the evening news.  Eventually the CBC canceled showing the series in 1972 (  ) resulting in street protests that Eric Idle mentions in an interview many years later (  ).  The first Americans (in the U.S.) therefore to see it broadcast were those living close enough to the Canada-US border to receive one of the first CBC transmissions.  
I also recall one of the cast members (some years after the breakup) joking in an (TV?) interview that Canada and India were the first to buy the show outside the UK which was much appreciated though apparently the Indians were disappointed at not seeing any circus acts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.23 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of Flying Circus  (in Canada) 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "MBC piece" :
** 
** x
DumZiBoT (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Is this a real film? I've been unable to find any references to it anywhere else. Also, I don't know how to sign my comments, sorry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.29.128 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The adventures of John?

message: The image :Image:Terry Gilliam Elephants.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.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Terry Gilliam Elephants.jpg

message: I have a feeling that this is an urban legend. Does anyone have a reliable reference?
:No such event is alluded to The Pythons' Autobiography. The relevant line in John Cleese's section simply states, "After I'd gone to Clifton for five years, I came back to Weston[-super-Mare] and taught at the same prep school I'd attended as a boy." He later says that he finished at Clifton at the the age of eighteen. He also describes the plays in which he took part, in which "there was never any sense of doing it for anything other than fun" and that he "liked the experience of being part of a team". I think it's fairly safe to consign this to the drawer marked 'Urban Legends'. Chris 42 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it from the article. Chris 42 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says the same thing in the article about John Cleese. Should it be removed there as well? BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cleese expelled from Clifton 

message: In reference to the above discussion regarding the order of Associate Pythons - in what order are the actual Pythons currently listed and what is the reason? CWL 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question.  I don't see any particular logic governing the current sequence. Since the Pythons didn't grow out of a single member's vision - eg as the Beatles evolved from Lennon's first band - there is no "first member" per se.  In this particular section - ie the 6 Pythons - i think they should be in alphabetical. Unless someone has a better idea.   Davidpatrick 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with alphabetical. C-w-l 21:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I. Figaro 11:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since everyone seems to agree, I just changed it. Garion96 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two souls, one thought. :-) C-w-l 11:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I noticed it too. I guess this time you were in the edit conflict. Usually that's me :) Garion96 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Pythons saw themselves as being equal to each other Python; thus, they were always listed alphabetically in the credits. --Wack'd About Wiki 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't they be listed as they were in the show? In the credits of every show, it went Chapman, Cleese, Idle, Jones, Palin, Gilliam, which isn't alphabetical. Wouldn't it make more sense to list them the way they did? BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of the Pythons

message: "When Jesus does appear in the film (as he does on two occasions, first in the stable, and then later speaking the Beatitudes (Matt 5:1-48)), he is played straight (by British actor Kenneth Colley) - the comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statement “Blessed are the Peacemakers” (“I think he said, 'blessed are the cheesemakers'”)."  Jesus also appears a third time as Brian is carrying the cross with the other people to be executed.  Jesus is selling crosses on a stall, when he offers to lighten a condemned man’s burden, who then runs off leaving Jesus to carry the cross and be executed. – if no one objects I will edit this sometime next week. --Radioactive turnip 12:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reckon you're right, MrBronson (may I call you Chuck?).  Pretty certain the 'real' JC is only on screen twice... Cheers, Ian Rose 05:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall him ever seen in a stable at all. If you're talking about the opening scene, with the three wise men, wasn't he supposedly in the manger, but couldn't actually be seen? BaboonOfTheYard (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life of Brian 

message: The following gibberish has been removed. As a native English speaker I can't make head or tail of it. Moreover, I believe that the expression "The Full Monty" predates 1969.
While the name origin has been romanticized to great lenghts,the popular jokes on the Marshall famous moonings and shenanigans,did produce the use of other expression "The full Monty" as a more euphemistic way to declare the obvious answer to the aides de camp's insiders' joke, "Have you seen the Field Marshall's Pet already?".Self Irreverence intended on Great Britain's Might,very much in accordance with the Sixties' times and attitudes.
Rob Burbidge (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gibberish

message: Many segments of the show mention Freemasonry in ways that are very unusual for an average television series.  ADM (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasonry

message: Monty Python isn't agroup of six comedians, it's a group of five, hence one is deceased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.14.106 (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not six comedians.

message: On reviewing the main article, I noticed a  tag added to the section called Things named after Monty Python. This requested the placement of any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. On consideration of this, and the sections for Pythonesque and World Record Holders, I realised that what these sections were collectively about, is the influence of Monty Python on culture. 
There is little doubt that Monty Python has an influence on various aspects of culture. However, since there was no section pertaining to this, I created one.
Having done this, I then subsumed the aforenamed sections within this. I put the World Record Holders at top, simply to allow for a natural flow from the discussion of use of the term 'Pythonesque' in the language, to other uses in the language, which further indicates the degree to which Monty Python has permeated aspects of culture. I hope this has been of some assistance, and that it allows for contributions that help flesh out, or at least give pointers to, this cultural influence.Wotnow (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New section: Cultural Influence of Monty Python

message: The article says "In 1975 the series was first broadcast in the United States."  Is that correct - I seem to remember seeing it on PBS about 1970-72.  (My memory may be wrong.) Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 14:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First broadcast in US? 

message: What exactly are you questioning as "uncited and unexplained"? That a contemporary photo of Neil Innes with several Pythons was added to his section? That Innes was and is instrumental behind The Rutles and their mockumentary All you need is cash with the intense participation of several Pythons? That I broke up that huge paragraph into several smaller ones? I hope you're not gonna remove that photo from other articles I've put it in. Also, due to the revert the photo of Carol Cleveland again messes up the section's layout. --79.193.29.33 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a long series of edits with little to no explanation in your edit summaries.  Furthermore, as this is the article about the Pythons, and not the Ruttles, detailed information about the latter should be in the appropriate article.  The Cleveland picture can be moved again if it is interfering with the section layout.  But, all edits should have an explanatory edit summary. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I elaborated on the many ties between the Pythons and The Rutles, particularly in personnel (and I added some qualifying attributes; such as making clear that All you need is cash is a mockumentary movie), and thus explained why the Pythons and The Rutles are significant in each other's histories. No Pythons, no Rutles. In fact, The Rutles even originated from an Eric Idle sketch. --79.193.29.33 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the great majority of that belongs in The Rutles article, not here, and it needs attribution. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by [[User:RepublicanJacobite|RepublicanJacobite]] 

message: I know it's against custom to start a new section when there is one dealing with it already, but the original section is pushed back so far that it has lost all attention. 
When listening to Cleese's speech, I hear: "(...)'All right Cleese', he was saying, 'you're very proud of being the very first person ever to say shit on British television'(...)" (Example here). However, it is not clear in the article whether Cleese or Chapman said it. The passage in the article reads:
:: 
This either means that Chapman was the first to say "shit" and wouldn't forgive Cleese if he didn't say "fuck", or that Cleese was the first one to say it and that Chapman wouldn't forgive him if he didn't follow through and say "fuck" also. Qopzeep (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shit" inaccuracy (2) 

message: Can someone update the "Influenced" part on the right side and add prominent British comedians like Steve Coogan, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Simon Pegg, etc. Trey Parker & Matt Stone of South Park fame could also be included. I think that section does not do justice to their huge influence on comedy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.70.31 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without references in reliable sources that say Monty Python was an important influence on their work.  Otherwise, it is only an editor's opinion that they were influenced.  Nothing can be added without references. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For Coogan see, (http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/coogan-was-a-monty-python-parrot_1119691), for Bhaskar (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23500426-sanjeev-bhaskar-is-king-of-comedy.do), for Peter Serafinowicz (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3668264/The-floor-is-his.html). I know nothing can be added without references, hence I did not edit the page, I'm only suggesting it. The latest documentary "Almost the Truth" is a good source for understanding their impact of modern comedy. Comedians like Pegg, Phill Jupitus, Bhaskar, Russell Brand and Stephen Merchant were citing Python as an influence in that documentary. Of course there is no space to add all the above mentioned names but the prominent ones should be mentioned. I have no intention to change it, I am only suggesting it to the editors who have spare time in their hands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.70.31 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those sources look good.  I will try to integrate them soon.  Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced by Python 

message: 'The Pythons' section seems a bit ill-conceived. This is an encyclopedia with hyperlinks so we do not need to re-include material about each individual member that can be accessed by a single mouse click which goes to the main article for the person. The section should only contain each individuals specific connection to MP. Ashmoo (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Needless repetition. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pythons section

message: Doesn't "Monty" mean "nude" in British slang? -as in going "the full monty", just like the movie of the same name? And "Python", isn't that slang for a penis?  So doesn't that mean they were called the Naked Penis Circus?  This fits in with their pushing of boundaries for the era that they produced the show in.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.8.197 01:09 24 March 2006 (UTC)
:No it does not mean that.  "The full monty" means "the whole way", i.e. with nothing missing (e.g. pure unadulterated alcohol).  The usage in the movie, "The Full Monty", is in line with this definition as an indication of how far the stripping went.
:If the word has come to mean "nude", it is as a direct result of what happened in the movie.  "Monty" had no such meaning at the time of "Monty Python's Flying Circus".  As for your suggested alternative meaning of "Python", that's just your imagination at work, and it has no basis in fact.  Figaro 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if Monty Python came to mean "Nude Penis" only in 1997, yet they were named that in 1968, then they must have *really* been ahead of their times. 99.67.239.69 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

message: Hazel Pethig was the costume designer for Flying Circus and all the Python movies. It seems fair to say that one can't think of a non-cartoon skit without thinking of her work. Doesn't she rate some mention in an article about Monty Python? She also doesn't have a Wikipedia page, which seems a little odd.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.59.64 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazel Pethig 

message: Steve Martin hosted 20 Years of Python: Parrot Sketch Not Included. He was also a Python fan. Even though he said in the show that he said that it was was crazy and stupid to say that he loved them. Fact or fiction? Maybe somebody knows.
:I have always asociated Leslie Nielsen with good humour, and he must have....Sorry, it was Steve Martin we were on about...? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Martin: A Python Fan? 

message: I'm a big fan of both Python and Carlin, but to claim the Pythons influenced Carlin seems a bit of a stretch, is there a proper citation for this?.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.40.53 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced George Carlin? 

message: I'd like you guys to know there's also a color version of the top pic. Here's a link: .
PS: Also, what about that recent film that all Pythons are doing voice acting for? I don't mean A liar's autobiography, I mean the one where they're voicing aliens that are giving an earthling almost god-like powers, said to be similar to Bruce Almighty. AFAIK, it's written by Terry Jones. Why is there no mention of that film? --79.193.57.86 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the film via googling, it's called Absolutely Anything. There's a little of it in Terry Jones's own article, but I know for a fact that the voice recordings have already been made in late 2011 or early 2012. --79.193.57.86 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top picture 

message: I notice that my hatnote added in this edit was removed. It had said:-
: This article is about the group. For the show known as Monty Python during its final series, see Monty Python's Flying Circus.
The removal summary said:-
: That's covered in the first sentence. (i.e. "Monty Python (sometimes known as The Pythons) was a British surreal comedy group that created Monty Python's Flying Circus, a British television comedy sketch show that first aired on the BBC on 5 October 1969.")
This, however, assumes that one already knows that "Monty Python" (i.e. the fourth series) was just a continuation of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"(!) Whereas the hatnote was pretty much aimed at people who *didn't* know that...
I appreciate that there's a fine balance between being genuinely helpful, and cluttering things up with excessive pre-emptive navigational help(!), so I'd like to ask if anyone else thinks this is worth including or not. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a decent point.  I wonder if we could just add a parenthetical in the first sentence mentioning the last series was just Monty Python.  But I don't have super strong feelings on this and am also okay with putting the hat note back if preferred. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 21:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV series disambiguation 

message: I've just created a page for Kim Howard Johnson.  Please add to it-- it's just a stub. Fuddle (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kim Howard Johnson

message: Why is Themes in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy as Reflected in the Work of Monty Python under "Things named after Monty Python"? Just because it mentions the group in its name doesn't mean it's named after them. Silvermael (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper inclusion or not? 

message: I submit that Aaron McGruder ought to be included as one of the significant artists to have been Influenced by Monty Python. This is significant partly because the African-American demographic is not usually thought of as particularly receptive to Monty Python, something McGruder himself has affirmed and lamented in articles and interviews, and most of McGruder's own work is strongly rooted in/concerned with that culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.135.124 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request April 18 2013: Aaron McGruder, Python Fan 

message: the last movie don't exist, not british humor, just a fakt.
79.234.226.191 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film >> I don't go to your funeral<< only invented, kind of brainfart 

message: Prospectively way way too many to be shown in an infobox - and far far too subjective an issue anyway.  Showing a list of people who influenced THEM is easy and can be backed up.  Putting a list inside an infobox (which is intended to be for verifiable facts) of those that they influenced is asking for trouble.  You could have dozens of names.  What qualifies as "influenced"?  The entertainer's opinion that he/she was influenced?  The opinion of a critic? A wikipedia editor?  All too sketchy for an infobox.  By all means create a section in the article of people/groups who MAY have been influenced by Python.
Here are a few to consider:    Not the Nine O'Clock News, Rowan Atkinson, Douglas Adams, South Park, Eddie Izzard,  Fry and Laurie
Davidpatrick 20:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, for a group whose "influence on comedy has been compared to The Beatles' influence on music", trying to pick a few for the infobox seems pointless - I cut this a while ago but it's creeping back. "Cultural influence" mentions Matt Groening (which seems a bit weak) and South Park owing an explicit debt to Gilliam's animation style (which is much more interesting), and should definitely be expanded. --McGeddon (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: List of people/troupes influenced by Python

message: Hi,
The timeline is not correct anymore since Eric Idle disappeared of the reunion in the movie "Absolutely Anything"
He is actually in the movie.
Source :
http://www.gfmfilms.co.uk/news/eric-idle/
Also, Graham Chapman was in a sort present in the reunion of Aspen in 1998 and in the london reunion of 2014.
So, can we put him back in there ? He was present as a dead guest in a way....
Thanks !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.172.222.205 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Pythia was a Monty Python groupie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.219.128 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pythia [a Monty Python groupie] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monty Python. 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/20141129021126/http://www.etonline.com/movies/120548_Holy_Flying_Circus_clip/index.html to http://www.etonline.com/movies/120548_Holy_Flying_Circus_clip/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080708204831/http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/greatest-comedyfilms/index.html to http://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/greatest-comedyfilms/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091108103158/http://www.bafta.org:80/access-all-areas/videos/monty-python-special-award,877,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/access-all-areas/videos/monty-python-special-award,877,BA.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091002220042/http://www.mediaweek.com:80/mw/content_display/community/programming-insider/column/e3icbd5f8a8048766fc980ec4910fe71b25 to http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/community/programming-insider/column/e3icbd5f8a8048766fc980ec4910fe71b25
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/python.htm
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 04:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Many sketches are well-known and widely quoted. "Dead Parrot," "The Lumberjack Song," "Spam," which--much to the aggravation of Hormel Foods Corporation, the American food-processing firm--ended up causing "junk" e-mail to be so identified"
Not true. In the early days of the internet it was possible to send e-mail to everyone on the entire system. When this happened it was called "S.P.A.M.", and stood for Send People Alotta Mail. Even if the line was true, there is no connection between the Spam song and people complaining about email. I have struck the line out, as it was not sourced anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been restored and sourced since, but the email spam article has clearly stated for many years that the term originates from the Python sketch, with Merriam Webster as a source. It does not mention "Send People Alotta Mail". --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Afraid I have reversed your change IP, as there was a valid source.  Never heard of "S.P.A.M" and I've been in this business a long time. Stephenb (Talk) 10:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeding an Urban Legend 

message: this is just too silly. Howcome the article doesn't state clearly which ones of the pythons are still alive? Do I have to go through all of their individual articles to find out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.151.189 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  too silly 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monty Python. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090514060346/http://musicforhumanrights.org:80/news/secret-policemans-balls-dvd-release to http://www.musicforhumanrights.org/news/secret-policemans-balls-dvd-release
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091007211249/http://www.life.com:80/image/first/in-gallery/34232/monty-python-40-years-of-insanity to http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/34232/monty-python-40-years-of-insanity
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 11:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Monty Python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-17/how-spam-meat-has-survived-spam-e-mail
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Monty Python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20070929171724/http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1152963371205
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bafta.org/access-all-areas/videos/monty-python-special-award%2C877%2CBA.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527070757/http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/06/movies/main2071659.shtml to http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/06/movies/main2071659.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407012456/http://www.netplaces.com/comedy-writing/lets-get-sketchy/profile-in-comedy-david-cross.htm to http://www.netplaces.com/comedy-writing/lets-get-sketchy/profile-in-comedy-david-cross.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822091424/http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/trey-parker-and-matt-stone-on-monty-python to http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/trey-parker-and-matt-stone-on-monty-python
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/5mq7vTf06?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstamendmentcenter.org%2Fabout.aspx%3Fid%3D12881
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it would be appropriate to mention Margaret Thatcher's "Dead Parrot" sketch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ6TgaPJcR0) - speech text available in http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108217
I think it's a classic performance but am not sure where would it fit. Thanks.
Amos Shapira 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference by Margaret Thatcher 

message: How come there's not a single mention of Python Music Ltd. in the article or the Monty Python template and how it fits in the troupe's activities? According to , it's actually part of Apple Music (yes, The Beatles's Apple! maybe something to do with how George helped finance their films?), and I couldn't find it either as the label in any of the articles about the troupe's records. --2003:71:4E07:BB07:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Python Music Ltd. 

message: And for that matter Jabberẃocky, Time Bandits, Ripping Yarns, and so on.
Having a couple of Python members on board does not mean that the work belongs here. Simple as thät. Britmax (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Wind in the Willows, Yellowbeard, etc. 

message: you forgot this important movie. and i miss a lot more, not a good work at all here in wiki. and because other meanings are cut down in wiki, i only show you what is wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.222.140.215 (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: TschebberwookyJabberwocky (film)Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tschebberwooky 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monty Python. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828222440/http://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/;art772,2004101 to http://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/;art772,2004101
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current timeline suggests Neil became involved with Monty Python around 1974 - around the time of "Holy Grail",The 4th t.v. Series , and the Drury Lane recordings.
In actuality , his first credit is on the 1972 album "Monty Python's Previous Record". ( Credited for "Fairytale Music" , and "Yangtse Kiang Song" ). He is also credited for music and singing on the 1973 album , "Monty Python's Matching Tie And Handkerchief".( Specifically, "Background To History,Part IV".)
He was possibly involved earlier. Several interviews / books , mention Eric Idle asking Neil to be the warm up act for the studio audiences of the t.v. series.( Although which particular series seems to be vague. )
75.104.162.58 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil Innes Timeline.