Jump to content

Talk:Carry On Laughing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Episodes

[edit]

What part of WP:BRD do you not understand? Your Bold, I Revert, you Discuss. Do not just revert again because you don't like it. The current table is a shameless cut and paste from Carry On series on screen and stage. And I suppose you are using the references which I sourced for the aforementioned FL on this article. We are not offering the readers anything by repeating this information here. If it were up to me. I would delete the entire article. CassiantoTalk 11:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reworked the table in accordance with the examples at MOS:TV. Did you not see that? It is customary to include episode lists at TV series articles. If you don't like the article, why not nominate it for deletion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that as I was contemplating in doing so. The whole article is now redundant because of the FL. CassiantoTalk 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly why the episodes should be listed here, on an article about a TV series produced independently, and independently notable, from the feature films, and not on what is ostensibly a filmography list, in order to avoid that redundancy. Not the other way around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is why this article should be deleted. So what if the series were produced independently? It carried the "Carry On" prefix and had Rogers down as the Executive producer, not to mention the fact it carried the same cast as the films. If anything, this article should be about the conception of the television series and what went into making it with a link to the FL's relevant section. This article should be prose based and not a list. CassiantoTalk 14:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well say that each of the film articles are now redundant because your list made it to featured list status. Yes, this article could use some work to get it to a decent standard and in line with MOS:TV, but it clearly meets the notability guideline at WP:TVSERIES. Part of the work to WP:IMPROVE this article would be to include an episode list, as per any TV series article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you have the decency to explain why? This one liner is pretty useless without an explanation. CassiantoTalk 14:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it isn't a separate entity. Like I say above, the tv series carried the "Carry On" prefix and had Rogers engaged as the executive producer, not to mention the fact it carried the same cast as the films. This article should be prose based with a neat link to the list IMO. -- CassiantoTalk 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a separate entity. The TV series is a standalone production within the franchise of the Carry On series. Any other TV series that is part of a franchise will and should include an episode list. Off the top of my head, Freddy's Nightmares, RoboCop: The Series, Firefly (the latter being a featured article). And before you start saying that for some of these, the episodes are on separate articles, it is generally accepted that series with a few episodes don't have a breakout "list of episodes" article, such as Fawlty Towers, Dads (2013 TV series), or, again Firefly. An episode list belongs here. I had hoped for more input from the TV project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not keen on the way this has been split either, and would have preferred the filmography to have stayed on the main article, as its removal has reduced the article to a shell, but didn't see the note at the time. You could always suggest a re-merge, but now the list article has been peer-reviewed, and considering the tenacity of the editors involved, it would be an uphill struggle. However, this is not the correct forum for this. If you feel strongly about this, you could always offer it as an alternative at the current move request. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]