Talk:Monty Python sketches

Merge

Most of these sketches shouldn't require full articles. This list should be able to cover the topic from a broader perspective, and those that later prove to be notable can always be split out again. I've started with five for now, and we'll see about others depending on how this proceeds. TTN (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge The Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python) is notable enough for its own article. The information in those articles makes them long enough to stand on their own, no way to merge all that over here, they'd just be deleted entirely or left as pointless stubs with virtually no information in them. Dream Focus 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The OP asserts that "these sketches shouldn't require full articles". No evidence is provided nor is it explained what a "full article" is. How would merger be anything other than busy work just shuffling our content around to no purpose and inviting improper synthesis? As there are many notable Python sketches (such as The Fish-Slapping Dance which inspires our very own WP:TROUT), merger would create a bloated page greater than advised by WP:SIZE. Warden (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like this wouldn't have potential, especially with some general information on the production of the sketches and the like. For the individual sketches, some of these do have some sources, but really not enough to get more than a few sentences a piece. One paragraph describing the sketch (there is no need for a four paragraph long plot summary for two to ten minute sketches, and there is also the episode list that needs to be fleshed out), one paragraph for production information, and one for reception/cultural impact would be ideal. Removing some of the really silly stuff like the cheese list in one of the articles and other stuff would get most of these down to a reasonable size. It's not like it would be all of them, nor would all of them be permanently stuck here. If they actually do show potential, splitting them out without all of the unsourced information and giant plot summaries would produce better articles should they get to that point. TTN (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some experience editing these articles and so am quite sure that items like the list of cheeses are exactly what our readership wants and creates. If they wanted material along the lines you suggest then that's what we'd have. But I'm not here for the full 30 minutes. Suffice it to say that your arguments are unconvincing and my !vote stands. Warden (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very good argument. The general readership has always wanted giant plot summaries, unsourced trivia, original research, and all sorts of stuff in fiction related articles. If they cared otherwise, it would not take dedicated individuals to build good, sourced articles. The majority of these skit articles have barely been truly worked on in the sense of improving them to GA status and beyond. Something like the cheese list would be good for Wikia where anything can be explored, but an entire transcript of a conversation without any real purpose does not fit well with anything here. Even if that article turned out to be GA material, I can say for sure that section would have to be removed for it to be promoted. TTN (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query - can anyone explain what the purpose of this list is? What I mean is, it would seem to replicate Category:Monty Python sketches and duplicate the navigational work of {{Monty Python}}. But it only includes 4 entries as "notable and recurring sketches" though dozens of notable (enough to have their own articles) sketches are listed in the template and there are 43 in the category. Is it the "recurring" bit? And why merge those four in particular and not any of the other 39? Stalwart111 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as a basic merge target rather than clog up the main page, and I started with four because I didn't feel like taking the time to tag all of them in the case that this would fail miserably from a bunch of people voting with nostalgia glasses instead of editorial standards. I'll probably have it speedy deleted if nothing comes of this. TTN (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand. Must have missed that explanation somewhere, but it makes sense to me. I'm not sure that merging would be a great idea, simply from the perspective that it might create a massive and unwieldy article, even with only short summaries of 43 sketches (many of which would need at least a couple of paragraphs, even when summarised). But I get where you're coming from and good on you for doing it this way rather than just unilaterally merging/redirecting. And thanks for the very quick reply! Stalwart111 06:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all of them will actually need to be placed into a list. Some of them "establish" notability with a few basic sources, while a number of others simply exist for the sake of existing. Summarizing the basics of the sketch rather than summarizing the exact "plot" of the sketch, and then focusing on their real world influence would likely save some space as well. TTN (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]