Talk:List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters

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

message: Mrs. Gideon has appeared in only a few episodes in the first episode. Can she be considered a recurring character? Was she even in the radio series? --86.12.232.113 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She appeared more than once. Ergo, she recurred. Thom (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mrs. Gideon? 

message: :Image:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg

message: Can I make separate pages for Howard moon, Vince Noir, Naboo and bollo? Also wich user template would I use?
JordanAshley (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be okay to create individual articles for Howard Moon, Vince Noir, Naboo, Bollo and Bob Fossil when this article itself comes to fruition, is detailed and is properly sourced. Thom (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Pages

message: There have been a number of contradictory claims made concerning the actor's relationship to other cast members. Any further edits on the matter need a proper citation. OrangeDog (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC the "Boosh Night" documentary on BBC3 mentioned Kirk and his relationship with Noel (or Dee as I seem to recall). So I'm currently struggling through it on youtube and will get back to you on it. Any scenes of the fans make me quite depressed so I'll have the answer in about an hour (Presuming it's right at the end) because I'm not 100% sure how to site yet. Hope that's OK Agent452 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: After sitting through nearly 1 hour of bum licking I can exclusively reveal that, according to the documentary, Kirk is...Noel's Nephew. If someone wants to cite it feel free. Agent452 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMltQ_eRje8&feature=related at 7:12 there is a shot of Kirk with the caption "Noel's nephew."Cbsite (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Please be specific.  Which of the ten were violated?  Which images were not given rationales?  What changes need to be made to allow the images to stay?
Sorry, but we're all busy.
Cbsite (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: non-free content is not allowed in lists. βcommand 13:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Link, please.Cbsite (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use βcommand 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is obviously a lot of controversy regarding this "policy" or lack thereof, I'm reverting on the assumption that the deletions constituted a disruptive edit.  When the policy is clear and reached by consensus, I will go along.  Cbsite (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted edits by HiDrNick (talk) for same reason as in previous paragraph.Cbsite (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your edits. So consensus (all two of us) is on your side on this. I've also asked an admin who helped stop the image removals on several other list articles to protect this page so the edit warring can stop. Buspar (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: They are characters and they recur therefore they should be on this list82.1.68.117 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which episodes? OrangeDog (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tundra and Party, at least.  Maybe this IP will check back and feel compelled to contribute. Radiopathy (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parker people

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

message: Should he be referred to here as "Sir," since he wasn't apparently knighted during his time on the TV show?  His knighthood was only just revealed in The Mighty Book of Boosh. Radiopathy (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generally say that we include character information from all media, but in this case I'd lead towards omitting the sir from the title. OrangeDog (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sir" Dixon Bainbridge 

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

message: I removed
It is also revealed in the episode Journey to the Centre of the Punk that Bollo suffers from asthma.
because a) I don't know if it's true and b) the person who put it in also used the wrong citation and damaged The Call of the Yeti citation. Radiopathy (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He certainly claims to suffer from asthma in that episode. I don't think it's worth including though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asthma 

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

message: All of the non-free images in this article have been tagged for speedy deletion.  If anyone objects, please weigh in on each file's talk page. Radiopathy •talk•   04:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone point out which criteria of WP:NFCC#Policy are not being met by these images? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: My re-introduction of the images was to prevent them all being speedied before discussion had even occurred (as was about to happen). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that our policy and practise regarding fair use images in lists like this (see this helpful essay, alongside our non-free content criteria and more general non-free content guidelines) are incorrect, I advise you raise the matter on this talk page. If not, why do you feel that these images should be treated differently? Why is it so urgent that this list is illustrated so heavily? J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and don't worry about the images being deleted, they can easily be restored if the consensus is to include them. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how are non-admins supposed to see the images and discuss whether they are appropriate? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't feel the policy is incorrect, I fail to see how these images violate it. Again, please point out which criteria are not being met. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But once again, J Milburn, you're being asked a direct question, and you're dancing around the answer.  What is it about the images specifically that violates NFCC 3 and 8?  Please either give a straight answer or else delete the CSD tags.  Thanks.  Radiopathy •talk•   18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They add nothing to the article. The appearance of these characters is not significant. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the material to demonstrate why it is needed. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Erm, what? I advise you reread our non-free content guidelines; this essay may also be useful. If you believe that this article should be treated differently to the many others, you're welcome to offer your explanation. J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how policy demonstrates your point of view in this situation, rather than just linking to essays (which I have read). If each character had a separate article, then a single image would be useful and appropriate. Clearly in a compilation of characters, multiple images are useful and appropriate. The image-to-prose ratio still leans largely towards the prose. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Argeed - one character, one image.  No "over use" here.  Radiopathy •talk•   20:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ignore the "overuse" issue for now, then. Why do you feel it is so important to see what the characters look like? J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: There is no possible image featuring all characters as they are played by the same people. Not every character had an image, just the more significant (number of recurrences or cultural impact) ones. One picture was already used to illustrate two separate characters. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you determine that they were more significant? How are you judging which characters warrant an image, and which do not? J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Number of recurrences, cultural impact, quality of available images... OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do those things suddenly mean that we need to see what a character looks like? Why do they suddenly mean that the use of an image meets non-free content criterion 8? J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, a named criterion! Because one of the features of The Mighty Boosh is a distinctive and unusual visual style. Being able to see the characters conveys both this overall character design style, as well as showing the appearance of the characters being discussed. Their appearance is unusual, particular to each character, and difficult to convey using prose alone (e.g. "pink clefty octopus thing" or "green polo-based cockney"). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You're certainly welcome to your opinion. However, it is incorrect. The issue of per character images has long been decided, and the wording at WP:NFC hammered out over quite a long debate. It simply isn't supported anymore. I'm sorry you disagree. You're welcome to include a cast image, but per character images as was done in this article is no longer permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the evidence (policy, content guideline) of this lack of permission? Why are you enforcing the removal of all NFC from this article? There never was one image per character. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the inclusion of each image was indiscriminate, with no eye towards which characters are more significant.  Get a cast photo showing some or all of these characters. Alternatively, use free alternatives where the real life actors look very similar to their in character appearance (two images doing that now). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really answering the question. As explained before, they were not indiscriminate selections. Would you find the inclusion of a single Saboo & Tony image plus a Hitcher and Old Gregg acceptable? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a matter of what's acceptable, it's a matter of what's needed, and, as far as I can see, none of them are. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah.  Looks like I'm behind the times Jheald (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jheald, not only is that bullshit, it's downright deceptive, bordering on offensive. I'm not against non-free content at all. Many articles I've written contain non-free content, and I've certainly defended the use of specific instances of non-free content many, many times. I know the same is true of admins you'd probably categorise in the same way- Stifle, Maxim, Perpetus, Black Kite, PhilKnight and others. All I can assume is that you aim to turn this into some kind of ridiculous "us and them" situation- the valiant encyclopedists versus the evil anti-NFCers. Well, you know what? Grow up. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we're not going to fight with you. If you're looking for someone with which to fight, I'm sure you'll be able to find plenty raring for a go at your local school... J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Jheald sees it in the way he expresses above. I doubt he's being deceptive really. It's just his apparent impression. It's wrong, but it's the impression he has. I too have recommended the use of fair use images at a number of junctures. I'm not out to get every image, so I'm certainly not part of that windmill. Maybe he's describing other users in the windmill though. *shrug* --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we try not to stray off topic with accusations of bad faith please. Direct answers to the direct questions that have been asked would be more constructive. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would perhaps be better to discuss the images at the IfD debates now. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 2 

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