Talk:Karl Pilkington

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

Karl's head shape[edit]

I feel that references to Karl's head resembling an Orange need to be included. References to his head shape are now cultural and outline part of the public's' perception of him. They are no less significant than some of the things he is quoted to have said or indeed, some of his philosophies on life. Perhaps there should be a section entitled 'Karl's Physical Appearance', or something of that nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.19.105 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree...94.11.69.127 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that the phrase 'Karl has a head like a fucking orange' should be included somewhere in the wikipedia article. 61.255.181.232 (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also think that this addition would be incomplete without listing the actual true dimensions of his head. Possibly with some 3D illustration. Definitely a "yes" though. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

There are loads of references to this article, which is great, but the same referencing format should be used throughout. Someone should fix that. See the references section. Rob (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to those willing to improve the article[edit]

If you're wanting to improve the article, then anyone who listens regularly to the XFM shows, and podcasts -- please make a transcript of them and use them as <ref>'s so then we can have at least, the date and location which he claims to have said things about his life.

Rather than say "Karl Pilkington grew up x,y,z did x, y, z", use the phrasing "According to XFM radio shows, Pilkington claims that he was ... continuation sentence ... etc ...etc [Reference here]". If there's something, which will occur often, which will sound absolutely surreal, then reference it within the paragraph to a quote, or if even better -- use the guardian unlimited interviews, and some others on ricky's website. J O R D A N [talk ] 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Just because his life is surreal and he is a bit mad, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken as the truth. For example, If Barbra Streisand was the source for a piece of her own early life info it would be treated as the truth.

^No no no no no. WP is about verifiability, not about truth. On top of that, Barbra Streisand would be a primary source. You'd still need the info about her life be published by a third party. 88.68.175.106 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no no. WP is or at least SHOULD BE about truth, above all else. You are wrong. Probably a lawyer, no doubt. Adherence to the law while blatantly ignoring the clear intent of the law is nothing more than a case of willful ignorance. And there's no place in WP for that approach. If you can't contribute, don't. But please don't degrade this site for others. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Brand comments[edit]

What were the comments Russell Brand made to Karl to lead to his leaving the show? - I dunno, but I'd love to hear the story of why he left. Russel Brand does come across as an massive ego! - Treasurebum- I heard the comments had something to do with Karl's relationship with Suzanne, his girlfriend of 11 yeards. Apparently they are no longer together.

He still talks about a relationship with Suzanne in the present tense on the latest audible podcasts (Season 3), so perhaps it was just speculation in the absence of any concrete reason? --Durzel 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Where did you hear they were no longer together? That's quite sad :(

I believe the issue was that they had planned to do the BBC 6 Music show together but Karl Pilkington was unable to make the move due to pre-existing contractual obligations around the Ricky Gervais podcasts. Matt Morgan was brought in to replace him. AulaTPN 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, though he did do 2 or 3 shows, pretty good stuff, and Russell comes across quite well too, on his radio show (at least the ones I've heard with Karl) he's not at all the way he is on TV, much more calm and makes pretty much sense.--Hst20 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken anonymous editor[edit]

This is an almost total cut and paste from http://www.rickygervais.com/karlpilkington.php

Quote from rickygervais.com "This page is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Karl Pilkington". You may redistribute this page, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the GFDL"

I think it was the other way round actually, they acknowledge the article is from Wikipedia on there --Eddwardo 10:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rockbusters section added[edit]

Added Rockbusters section with link to seperate page containing clues and answers. Currently researching dates and earlier quotes via XFM's website and my own tapes. MitchellStirling 23:22 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A few changes[edit]

Hi, I've made a few changes to the page. Here's what I did and why...

1. Although the Rockbusters' clues and answers are interesting, they are available on various other websites and aren't strictly relevant to Karl Pilkington's entry. A description of the game, its rules and an example is enough.

2. I've deleted some of the quotations. Lines like "Erm.." and "What I'm saying is.." are not notable quotations, merely idiosyncratic speech. They are also not exclusive to Karl Pilkington, and are therefore of little relevence here.

Other lines like "Looked in the pram, bucket with a face on it", isn't a quotation as such, but more a punchline to a joke. Lines like these are irrelevent without ample context, and still couldn't be considered quotations.

3. 'Knob' is spelt with a 'K'. Without that letter, the word indicates a Biblical village or the different slang term meaning someone who's posh. 172.216.158.41 11:47 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Speech patterns[edit]

I've changed the examples given to the three which I feel give the best idea of how Karl comes up with the clues to Rockbusters. The "Erm.." and "What I'm saying is" patterns to his speech don't belong in the quotations but I'm sure they can be referred to suitable in the text. MitchellStirling 13:52 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think one Rockbuster example is enough to get the point across. After all, the rest of the entry is testament to Pilkoid's wacky mindset. Same goes for Monkey News examples. They don't need to be on this site. I haven't edited anything though.

172.216.158.41 11:47 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

Nice work on the entry there Rich, I've still got a host of shows to get through but you've added some of the stuff I was going to add anyway. Still got stuff on Zoe Harris, Mrs. Matthews and Re-educating Karl to come. MitchellStirling 00:01 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm sure theres a lot more to be added, and work needed on structure too. What is interesting is that someone has added a box entitled. "This article does not make a clear distinction between fact and fiction." Which is fair enough, but I shall remove if people are happy to see it removed. I assume some of Karl's statements are just too hard to believe for some people! Or it might be making a point with relation to citation (i.e. when did Karl say what and when). I don't know. It would be very time consuming to go through each show and record what date each thing was said. A bit cumbersome. --Richj1209 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact or fiction? warning[edit]

I added the "Fact and fiction" warning... I don't think it's a huge issue, given that so much of what Karl says is clearly not intended to be taken seriously. I just wonder if a section labeled "Biography" (a term that implies a certain amount of objectivity and accuracy) should be filled with information that is clearly intended to be humorous and exaggerated.

Any thoughts? Juansmith 10:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would think most of what Karl says is fact or his version of events (as unreliable as that may be.) I don't think anything Karl says should be taken seriously but I'm pretty sure that most of what he says is based in fact. I think a less humourous "Biography" is the way to go with another section of "Incident's from Karl's youth" of something along those lines to contain the stories. MitchellStirling 17:43 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as long as a clear distinction is there, and an appropriate statement is made to indicate that the "incidents" were presented in a humorous (and consequentially, a factually unverifiable) manner.
Juansmith 21:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This week's Podcast contains one of the funniest things Karl has ever contributed to. His diary from his holiday hopefully will get a publishing deal and it's own wiki page. MitchellStirling 00:57 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This podcast is just so damn funny, it's not even funny

I'm removing the fact/fiction warning, because there's no reason to assume it isn't fact. It has been repeatedly maintained that Karl is a real person, not an act, and the events in the biography bit are not fictional. They might be exaggerated, but there's no evidence to suggest this might be the case, and the same could be said of any individual's biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidlophile (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know, it seems far more believable that it is a persona, if he really was like that I just couldn't imagine Ricky and co finding what he says so funny - it is like Rickys character in the Office - very very well acted - it is a persona surely.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.72.63 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing bit[edit]

Suggest that edit about Karl never laughing be taken out, when he does laugh (which isn't very often I'll admit) it can be heard on XFM shows as he barely audibly chuckles to himself (Like the time he made a quip about Liz Hurley's pregnancy.) MitchellStirling 16:41 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much lying low... @nt1-H3r0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.125.139 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is in danger of becoming a fan-site rather than an encyclopedia entry. Is there really any need for that many quotes in the views/beliefs section? Or so many Monkey News examples? --Ukdan999 17:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I cleaned up a little bit of that, mainly it's the formalisation and making it look a bit less like a WikiQuotes page is what needs to be done before we go adding more things. Dav 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big fan of the Podcast and have listened to them all. I was laughing so hard at Karl's diary when I was driving I nearly had to pull over. The thing that is really weighing on my mind is how much of an accomplice is Pilkington in the show. Howard Stern has been riding his producer Gary (aka Ba-Ba-Booey) for at least 15 years. He use's Gary's incompetence as the basis for a lot of his comedy. It seems that making fun of Karl is like shooting fish in a barrel. He just seems so stupid.

But it doesn't all hold together. He claims to not know what an analogy is. He can't fathom what a "stitch in time saves nine" means, but he makes a pun about "a chimp off the old block." He creates these stories for Monkey News that cannot possibly be considered true. Also, the format of the show is basically Gervaise and Merchant making fun of Karl. They have nothing else prepared -- just a few letters to read, which mostly involve Karl. I would think that Gervaise would not do a show like this unless there was some material prepared. Did the three of them work out that Karl would talk about his trip to the "cobbler" or would say that he could "eat a knob at night" or would have an opinion on never seeing a Chinese person who is homeless? It's unlikely that it's all scripted, but it's possible that someone is putting it on to make it funnier. Similar to the way that many of the contestants on the first rounds of American Idol really try not to sing. It's my feeling that Karl is an improvising comedan. The Karl Pilkington that we hear on the radio is a CHARACTER. I don't know if there really is a person named Karl Pilkington, and if he worked at xfm, or any other radio station, and had a real job. There is a voice that I recognise on the podcast as Karl Pilkington, and most of the things he says fits together -- but he has no problem with Ricky busting on him week after week, and yet he goes out shopping to a Russian antiques store with Ricky. Does it matter that Karl is not exactly what he seems to be? I'm not sure. But no matter what Karl is very funny.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, however it seems to have been formed without all the facts. If you listen from the beginning, XFM that is, you'll see that at first Karl was just the producer for Ricky and Steve and was hardly featured at all, but as they came to know him and all his crazy thoughts they begin to feature him more as he's obviously pretty fun to listen to. At first they barely even made fun of him when he'd say something completely stupid, 'cause they didn't know him well enough.
Nowadays it's different - the podcast totally revolves around Karl, and he knows it, and he's allowing Rick and Steve to have a go at him. And I do believe some things might be scripted or prepared in advance, but Karl as a person is 100% real. Also there are parts of him that he doesn't show, like in the XFM shows there's stuff that wasn't meant for radio, phone message to Ricky for example where he's really mad and swearing, but not showing that is just him being professional ("never swear in an on-air studio" as he says).
As for the laughing, I love it when Karl laughs. True it doesn't happen often (as has been discussed in the show), but that just makes it all the more fun to hear. Best part is when he tries to deliver a rockbusters clue but can't 'cause he's laughing too much. :)

Fact or fiction[edit]

This page needs to decide whether it wants to describe a fictional character (in which case it must say so at the start) or a real person (in which case a lot of the information here is either flat-out wrong or at least in heavy need of a source). Arbor 14:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards the two previous points Karl is not a ficitious character. Anyone who has been listening longer than 10 weeks knows this. Is Karl more self-aware about what is comedy? Yes. All the information here is from things Karl has said either live on XFM, BBC Radio 2, BBC6 Music or in the podcasts, interviews and DVD extras. MitchellStirling 11:52 7 February (UTC)

Well, I am extremely sceptical about the information under Biography, especially if that comes from anecdotes he has related during his radio shows. Arbor 12:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arbor. I am amazed that people actually believe, that Karl - as we know him from the podcasts at least (I haven't seen/heard anything else with him) - is not a character. To me, it is very obvious, that he is playing a role. Dim witted people do not tend to consistently say funny things, like Karl does. With most of his stories comes a comedy punch line in the end. He is using a very subtle kind of humour, which is very intelligent, in my eyes. When I first saw the biography on richygervais.com, and saw, that they gave credit to "Wikipedia", I thought it was another joke - and I came here just to check. I really hope this article will be changed, so that it is made clear, that Karl is a character. Unfortunately, I have a hard time trying to express what I mean in an elaborate way, in English :( But I think I got my main point across... Marc K 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pure editorialisation -- there is no way that the diary is created by somebody authentically dim. It's too perfectly funny, too carefully crafted for verbal delivery. Uucp 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The XFM series of shows had me convinced that Karl was real, but as the podcasts continued and the clever improvisation became more apparent, I started doubting. The diary clinched it: brilliantly funny, something worthy of Spike Milligan's war diaries, and most definitely not written by the dunce Karl Pilkington is made out to be. Karl Pilkington the human being may or may not exist, but Karl Pilkington as sidekick to Ricky Gervaise must clearly be a ficticious character. Fugue 16:28, 21 February 2006 (CET)

User:JSpudeman removed the fiction tag (diff), and uselessly pronounced Karl to be a non-fictional. (By the way, he labelled the removal of the warning template as minor edit.) As far as I can see, the problems with the verifiability of this article remains, so I put the template back in. But it's up to debate, of course. To clarify: the existence of Karl is not in dispute, just as the existence of Jerry Seinfeld is not in dispute. Arbor 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, The New York Times ran an article yesterday (24 April 2006) about Gervais and the podcasts in which it was presented as simple fact that Pilkington's behaviour on the show was an act, compared to Ali G and American comedian Steven Wright. I think I'll add this to the main page. Uucp 11:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to question the following paragraph found in the article: "There is also a noticeable change in Karl's on-air demeanour. On the Xfm show, he laughs at jokes made by Gervais, and occasionally stands up for what he has just said, or objects to being ridiculed. In the podcast however, Karl deadpans perfectly, and not once objects to the barrage of abuse suffered under the cackling Gervais." The last sentence of that paragraph is demonstratably false - listen, for example, to the end of monkeynews in Podcast 2. Having listened to most of the XFM shows and the podcasts, I didn't detect a change in Karl's character, though, to be fair, I wasn't looking for one, so don't feel qualified to remove the paragraph altogether. Any Pilkologists willing to give judgement? 194.82.121.38 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilkologist is a strange & bizarre word very much like the man himself, it seems to me that all I ever do at work is listen to those damned shows, the podcast, (Though those the video cast things they are doing did seem so disjointed, a bit cut-and-paste. I hope they work on that, as it could be just as good. Point in example the videocast of Ricky, Steve and Karl watching Brokeback Mountain which of course is about 'two little gay fellas.'), including almost all of the XFM shows I have been collecting since I managed to get the Bittorrent XFM file. Listening to the XFM shows, I believe one of the shows is based around good honest fun and name calling about Times journo Chris Campling, a supportive radio critic who never the less couldn't believe Karl was real. This reporter found inaccuracies in one of Karl’s stories about never being to Scotland before, when he had gone to the Edingburgh Festival a previous year. So the man has a terrible memory, I went to Wales and quite frankly forget sometimes I have actually been there.

Also a change in his character is often noted, the change must come from the fact that Karl’s employer, is himself. As he is no longer a producer for XFM and has in a way become a celeb. He was during the stint on the podcast unemployed, the podcast where his job. Monkey News, their does seem a sharp difference, though, on the podcast episodes it does end a lot of the time with quite a wry line, which is done with an attempt at what can be interpreted as joke, for example ‘Chimp of the old block‘ story. A lot of time on the XFM shows it does seem that Karl is reading this literally word for word off the net, and it always seems to end in a barrage of abuse from Ricky Gervais, for example a chimp called Crap having his name tattooed on his head, that was it, nothing more nothing less. So what? Now he has more time to prepare, maybe add a few jokes, he has this liberty afforded to him. A lot of people might say a man that stupid can't exist, but is he really that stupid. His stories seems wild and quite fantastic, having heard many similar stories, whilst it doesn’t shock or surprise me, I like to hear them, Ricky Gervais has compared him to an Alan Bennett creation, this is not to say Karl’s created but it sometimes can be a joy to listen to his stories. So he doesn't know lots of stuff about politics, history, science, but likes his gadgets and facts, gees, people pick up a copy of any mens mag like Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front and that’s all they cover. I find a lot of reasons given by Ricky and Stephen, on the show, to Karl’s stupidity to be relative, yes he doesn't know lots about Isaac Newton but I'm sure he gets on in life. So he believes in ghost, I don't, but I know people who I consider to be intelligent not dimwits, who go on ghost hunts, whilst I know a person with degree, I don’t, (Fair enough it's in maths) dismiss evolution in favour of intelligent design, it's all relative. The man is just a normal working class male who likes a bit of football, goes to the pub, and tells you facts like ‘Cockroaches can hold their breath for 45 mins.’ (Though to be honest the injection in the head thing on the podcast is borderline crazy, but I remember being told at my work that the way to solve the immigrant problem,‘was to solve it like the rabbits, one word, Myxomatosis.’ It kind of puts Karl's nonsense into prospective, harmless fun and never meant with any intent of hurt or harm. I think Karl is a rare insight into how people lived and still live today quite content with their lot in life. Though it's very true that you never see a old man eating a Twix. Also I think Stephen Merchant suffers from working class phobia, yes I appreciate the irony, and he is a very funny man, but if you listen and re-listen I think he kind of fears Karl views, past and outlooks on life.User:Jondevoy

I think User:Jondevoy has solved the dilemma here over whether Karl is real or not. Reading User:Jondevoy's post, it is obvious really really dumb people do exist. --- Mike

As others have remarked it has become more and more apparent lately, particularly with the video podcasts, that the character of "Karl Pilkington" is so exaggerated and contrived that it can be nothing but a comedy creation of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. The irony of course is that it was predicted a long time ago during the XFM shows by Chris Campling that KP was a creation of Gervais and Merchant, and whilst I believe at the time this assessment was incorrect (Karl was after all still a producer at XFM who essentially just happened to cross paths with RG and SM because of his job), it is obvious now that Karl's whole marketability rests on his consistently inane "opinions" and controversial viewpoints - and as such Chris Campling's comments have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Is it worth mentioning this descent into becoming a character rather than a real person or would this be perceived as negative editorialisation? Durzel 17:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that makes me think he is fake is the fact that he talks about using CB radios in the early '80s, yet in 2005 he is only 32...which would make him 9 when he was using it, which seems quite odd. --195.82.104.122 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved to see some common sense prevailing here. I am truly astonished that ANYONE could believe Karl was just a simpleton and not a made up character. It is blindingly obvious that he is simply playing a game of being thick to generate comedy material for Gervais and Pilkington (which by the way I happen to find extremely amusing). Firstly, Gervais is actually a very decent and moral human being and there is simply no way he would subject a genuinely stupid person to such brutal and offensive abuse. It would be like mocking a handicapped person and would be quite simply unacceptable. Gervais would not do this. Secondly, if Pilkington were genuine, would he not protest at his appalling treatment? He never ONCE raises even the slightest objection to the way he is treated in some 9 hours of podcasts. Thirdly, (and this point has been made above) his stupidity is far to "crafted" and "interestingly perverse" to be genuine. If it were authentic, it would be much less interesting and "mock-worthy". Finally, how could such an incredibly stupid person ever have become a recording engineer? The people who vehemently insist he is genuine are allowing themselves to be fooled, I guess, because they want to believe he is genuine; it's funnier that way. But even a cursory listening to the podcasts make it perfectly clear it is a comedic set-up. ---- Stuart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.207.28 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He is supposed to be a very good a recording engineer award winning too. Though you can be a great recording engineer and still believe that injecting a age reversal drug into someone’s temple makes perfect sense. As for protesting try to find a few of XFM shows they are on the XFM site, Bittorrent and You Tube. He raises quite a few objections and in one shows he sounds incredibly angry and unresponsive in fact the whole show is quite unpleasant. He returns then next week saying he has decided to quit. Sure could be great acting on his behalf or the fact that up to that point he had only been a friend of Ricky Gervais for just over a year so he wasn‘t prepared to take the name calling and jibes humorously. Its not that I think your wrong because with the podcast it does sound more crafted,scripted, each person playing to type and more importantly edited but with some of the XFM shows he comes across as quite a genuine person who is offended by some of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchants jibes.

The truth is out there[edit]

Karl Pilkington is A REAL PERSON. I know this as I used to work in a comedy club as a barman. While working there I used to chat to the comedians and was frequently told about Karl. Many people had met him through the various comedians he is friends with or through brief stints working at XFM. This all points towards either a real person OR an elaborate hoax. I also have a friend who works in a hotel in Soho who once went for a drink with Ricky Gervais and the next day regaled me with stories of 'a little weird bloke with a spherical head' Ricky couldn't shut up about. I made a few changes to the page as Karl can be quoted as saying that two types of toffee is enough rather than one, and the 'pillow' man is more likely a pillar man as he is described as having no arms or legs I also feel I should point out that as an XFM listener I have been aware of the existence of Karl Pilkington for many many years. In addition some have argued that Karl can't be real as he accepts constant abuse from Gervais and yet seems on friendly terms with him, I believed this was self explanatory but it may be a British thing here it is fairly common practice to constantly abuse one's closest friends, in fact the closer two men are the more likely they are to be abusive my friends and have never said a remotely kind thing about another person while in their presence. In addition if you watch the Ricky Gervais DVD Politics it has a documentary with Ricky and his best friend Robin Innes who gets much harsher treatment from Gervais

I'm glad you can confirm that Karl is genuinely stupid, but can we please, please start editing this article to make it of a higher standard (more formal, less of a fansite) rather than just adding as many examples and quotes as possible? Dav 12:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Idioteque Dance's comments: Of course Karl is a real person. So is Jerry Seinfeld. But he is not the same as Seinfeld#Jerry Seinfeld. One had sex with Elaine, the other hasn't (at least as far as I know). I want this article to tell me if there are two Karl Pilkingtons as well, and which Karl Pilkington worked a 24h shift overseeing the production of audio cassettes. Arbor 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, and even though this is just my opinion, I get the impression that Karl is able to do that work he was made to do, otherwise he wouldn't have worked there for so long - but not necessarily that he changes his personality. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I think Karl is not stupid, just really, really dim. He can have a sense of at least some wit when he wants to - check this page here: [1], to illustrate my point.
I, aslong with the many others who have been listening to Karl for a period that stretches back to late 2001 will defend that no matter how many times it is repeated for new audiences (and whether it has been streamlned slightly or at all) was orginally mentioned and relayed as a true story or honest opinion. There are not two Karl Pilkingtons, there is one who has all these strange opinions and all these events happen to him. There is no doubt in my mind that everything in the biography section is true. Relevant is a different kettle of fish however. MitchellStirling 00:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have friends just like Karl. I thought that was why he was funny...bob.appleyard 16:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have friends, who come across as stupid, but the stories they tell me always make me laugh, horse in a house, trust me there has been stranger. User:Jondevoy

Well...what Karl Pilkington might not know is that there is a strong possibility that he might be a descendant of the former occupants at Pilkington Manor, Lancashire, England. In fact, my 20th great-grandfather was Roger Pilkington, whose daughter, Margaret DePilkington was wife to John Whalesborough - these were nobles under Edward III, King of England. Happy and safe travels, Karl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.179.134 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl and the show as two articles[edit]

So, here's an idea, how about we make an article, perhaps called "The Ricky Gervais Show" (I believe it was unofficially titled that on XFM, as well as being the name on the new podcasts, from what I remember seeing on Sky Digital when I listened to it when it was aired) where we can have all the information about past and present features, including the list of quotes and examples in this article which are waaaaaaaaay too long, and leave this article with what it should be - an article with information about Karl Pilkington? Dav 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work, as long as it was made clear what information would go where. Things like Monkey News and Rockbusters belong in the show. Karl's back history belongs on his page and the factual parts of his biography in the same place. MitchellStirling 05:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, that's the same split as Jerry Seinfeld (about the man) and Seinfeld#Jerry Seinfeld (about the character). The only problem is to find any reliable information about the "real" Karl. In fact, I cannot see how the RealKarl article will ever be more than a paragraph, which means he wouldn't deserve a separate article. The gist of this is that I think the idea of separating the two issues is good, but I don't know if we need to separate into two articles, Two sections in the same article would be just as good. (FictionalJerry doesn't have his own page either, by the way. He has just a section.) Arbor 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, however, it's different to the point that the show has become quite a popular thing, and considering Ricky Gervais and Steve Merchant are also primary figures in the show, mean that it shouldn't have anything to do with an article about Karl Pilkington, the person. Whether it's real or not, it can be stated that information is received only through what's happening during the show, but there's no doubt that there is not a huge difference between Karl on-air and off-air, if that's what you're implying. An article about the show would involve Monkey News and Rockbusters, and Do We Need 'Em and That's Rickydiculous and so on, and would have information about the history of the show with XFM and its popularity at the time. This Karl Pilkingon article should solely have information like a biography, for which there's plenty of information already. Basically what I'm trying to say is that the Ricky Gervais Show has nothing to do with the article 'Karl Pilkington'. I'm all up for creating the two articles and ironing them out a bit if everyone else is. Dav 13:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am less convinced than you that there is "more than enough" in the biography section. Going through those paragraphs with a marking pen reveals that pretty much everything consists of anecdotes about his childhood related in-show. If we play the game of being extremely sceptical about those stories (assuming for a moment that all these things are part of the fictional RadioKarl) then what remains is his date and place of birth, employment details about his time as a radio producer, and possibly a history exam (which he himself claims to not remember). But why not play this game here? Copy to this talk page whatever passages from the biography section you think adhere to WP:V. I then try to shoot it down. That would be a very efficient way of seeing what material we have got. Arbor 13:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was "more than enough," all I had said was that there were far too many examples of Monkey News, quotes and so on so much it pretty much looks like a WikiQuotes page. What I'm really trying to say is that the Ricky Gervais Show is such a popular show now with many of its own non-Karl related things that they would fit in its own article more than here, regardless of whether or not there's a lot of information about Karl Pilkington we can leave in the article. Dav 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Independently of what the current page will end up as, there certainly should be an article called The Ricky Gervais Show, and much of the content of the current page can be moved there. Links from Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, as well as from Podcast. (Picard voice:) Make it so. Arbor 19:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Seeing that my link above isn't red, I conclude that there is an article about the show. It's two days old. Let the editing commence. Arbor 19:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! It needs a LOT of work though. Obviously, a lot of people, especially those not in UK, believe that the show only existed as a podcast and have made it looks like that. I've attempted to make a start with the opening paragraph but we need some more information about the XFM show in there, too. Dav 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem like a good idea to have the seperate section for the features of the original radio show. I will say this though. Karl is not a fictious character he is a real person, all these opinions are his own. The things said in the diary are his opinions and thoughts and they fit in with the kind of nonsense he has always said. Do you really think that Gervais could fake laughter to an extent where he is short of breath? Karl is a much more self-aware person now, he does try to be funny now. There is no real reason to think that stories about the web-footed freaks with big heads are made up. I don't think that his lack of memory regarding his exam results 15 years ago prove that he is making it up. Also bare in mind that the podcast isn't live, it's editted. While I will maintain that most of the parts of the biography section did happen, they don't belong in the biography section anymore, then Ricky's stories he told on Room 101 belong in his. An amusing child anecdotes section would be more helpful. MitchellStirling 08:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think Karl Pilkington is real in the same way that Derek and Clive were real in terms of being a stepped-up-for-comedy version of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. The two comedians DID often rip into each other, and (particularly when Cook made fun of Moore) the jokes would sometimes touch raw nerves. (If you've listened to the tapes, a good example of this was when Cook spent most of the "Cancer" sketch eviscerating Moore about what having cancer would be like, if I recall. (The worst thing was that the ever-unpredictable Cook knew that a person in his partner's close family had recently fallen prey to the disease...)) Derek and Clive, though, was an example of Cook and Moore taking the comedy relationship and "getting into character"--talking as if the cutting jokes/rude chat between them were the only part of their relationship.

In terms of KP, then, there seems to be a real bloke called Karl Pilkington, who has worked with Gervais and Merchant on XFM and now on the Podcasts. I think he's someone who genuinely makes stupid comments/weird observations: I reckon he amplifies this in the name of comedy, though. (John Walker)

Those damned links[edit]

Here's a quick thought. Surely we can get rid of some of those links at the bottom? I'm not sure which are more valid than others but if somebody could give it a go, that would be a lot nicer. I mean, anybody must agree that there are far too many now, and it seems to me that people are creating this Karl Pilkington fansite and sticking their link into this article for more traffic. May not be the case, but that's the feeling I'm getting... Dav 11:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New game[edit]

I just added a new game to the list - Rockbusters online from XFM.co.uk

Professed opinions[edit]

Okay, what's going on here? I'd delete this whole section but I guess lots of people wouldn't like it. We only need a couple for people to get to know the mind of Karl, don't we? That just looks like a rubbish skip for a bunch of "funny quotes." Seriously people, use Wikiquotes if you want to white down something he's said so much. Anybody with me? Dav 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete it all. But 5 examples are certainly enough. Arbor 11:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Delete the whole cumbersome section. I think this article needs a complete rewrite to make it more concise, and to remove some of the focus from the current podcasts and back to other stuff. I suspect this will have to be done once the excitement over the podcasts has died down. Dave 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a selection of them into the Ricky Gervais Show article Mitchell Stirling 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop deleting them, they are not out of place on a Wikipedia article, as his "unorthodox" views are one of the main factors in why he is funny and a part of the show. They are also a good read. barrett90
They're not a good read. His opinions are funny, but only really when you're listening to him saying them. Transcribing them into a big long list like this is just not the way to convey his sense of humour - it's just a bit sad, and does not belong in an encyclopedia article about KP. Dave 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you like them. I think they're funny too. However, they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you want, create a fan site and share them there. Uucp 18:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I read this article my reaction was 'Is this attempting to be droll? Or funny?' The heavy handed deadpan used in the construction of the revelations about this man's life would be uncyclopedic even it were less crude. Frankly, it reads like a Ricky Gervais script without Gervais present to give it life.--82.44.21.151 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

If you haven't listened longer than the Podcasts, you should not be editing this Wiki. Karl does not laugh ever? Take out the wacky fanboyism and make a clear and concise entry about the man. I am goign to say the links are fine, but for the love of God, this is not a fan site. I love the man as much as the next person, but please keep it encyclopedic.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Sort of. Dav 20:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big edit of 30 March 2006[edit]

This is not a fan site. This is an encyclopedia entry. I have tried to edit the piece to remove things unlikely to appear in an encyclopedia, and to return the proportion of the remaining sections to something that reflects their relative importance. The links section is still too long and should probably be cut by half. Many of the entries seem to be people promoting various personal websites about Pilkington and the podcasts. Uucp 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio shows[edit]

You can download 48 complete episodes of Ricky, Stephen and Karl's radio show from the XFM archives at http://xfm.co.uk/Article.asp?id=87560. There are often two or three week long gaps between the episodes though. If anyone knows where to find any missing show please post them.

The two or three week gaps are when Karl isn't there, Claire Stugess and Chris Campfield take control of the buttons. Good shows, though they miss the wit of Karl. jack_black_and_hisdogsilver2007@yahoo.co.uk

Sorry forgot to add http://www.karl-pilkington.com/, Pilkington site message board has most of the other episodes download links, also quite a few compilations of some of the best of Karl. Including some of the stuff he did with Russell Brand, I think that's his name. jondevoy

Missing radio shows[edit]

In responce to the request above, a complete collection of the XFM shows (with none missing) is being made available on archive.org, with links at: http://www.karl-pilkington.com/xfm-radio-shows.php

Incidentally, I think this article is fine now! - Jamie

Get your facts right[edit]

I think too many people are editing this article who haven't listened to the radio show.

Suggestion about change of persona[edit]

As a listener to all the podcasts and most of the radio shows, I'd like to, first of all, thank everyone for the work so far. Secondly I'd like to add the following explanation for the perceived change in Karl's on-air persona.

There is also a noticeable change in Karl's on-air demeanour. On the Xfm show, he occasionally laughed at jokes made by Gervais, and occasionally stands up for what he has just said, or objects to being ridiculed. In the podcast however, Karl deadpans perfectly, and not once objects to the barrage of abuse suffered under the cackling Gervais. This argument cannot ultimately prove that Karl is a fictional character.

An explanation for the above is that the radio shows were live, while the podcasts are edited.Ste 00:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that and even without editing, I don't think it's a change of personality, necessarily, than it is just Ricky putting up Karl to talk about certain things, as it seems to have a bit more forward planning than the XFM shows (which was almost non-existant most of the time). Dav 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly true anyway, I remember at least once on the podcast once he objected, saying that just because he'd said something Gervais and Merchant mocked it, but if Newton had said it, they'd say -quote- "Hmm, interesting" Matfo 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) And he told Gervais to 'shut up' in Episode 4 of the latest podcast Matfo 21:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main author[edit]

I find it hard to believe that more is known about Karl Pilkington than Ricky Gervais, as demonstrated by the fact the Karl Pilkington's entry is slightly longer than Gervais's. I hadn't even heard of Pilkington unitl I followed a link. With is conversational yet confident tone and lack of supporting sources I am quite suspicious of this article. My 'expert' verdict: this is either written by Pilkington himself or someone very close to him (maybe his girlfriend of eleven years who he presented with, as a christmas present, his leaving present from xfm; seriously who knows that much about him?)

This needs to be cut down to the facts which can be proved by linking to its sources; self-promotion especially in this way is pretty low and incredibly boring

You CLEARLY have not listened to any of the podcasts, nor the XFM radio shows and therefore are not qualified to give that opinion. For example, the leaving present, girlfriend thing was featured in the podcast and provided much humour. Karl Pilkington is a minor celebrity, has a substantial fanbase - just look at www.pilkipedia.co.uk and fully deserves an article. All of these, what you refer to as unsubstantiated facts, can be found in the podcasts and radio shows. Try actually listening to them. Many people do not find them 'low and incredibly boring'. Matfo 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length and depth[edit]

The length of the whole entry, and depth, is completely unwarranted. A sense of proportion is surely desirable. Pilkington is not an ex-President of the United States nor Mahatma Gandhi.

The length isn't too absurd. For comparison, it's shorter than both Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, while the George W. Bush article is roughly triple the size. --TM 22:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the responder to my 'Length, Depth' comment, your reply is, I'm afraid to say, completely ridiculous. Comparing the KP entry to the length of others, which might also be unbalanced isn't a remotely credible thing to do, I'm sorry.

Looking at the KP entry again just now, it appears to me to also suffer from a quite remarkable poverty in terms of analysis and insight. It's fair to question the provenance of some of the information about Karl gleaned from the XFM archive and more recent podcasts, but the way it's done here would barely do credit to a mediocre GCSE History pupil. It's entries like this which draws some of the fundamental criticism of the entire Wikipedia project. In this case, I'm afraid, rightly so.

88.109.21.24 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be cut to 20% of its current length. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Uucp 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for original research, a category into which analysis and insight would certainly fall. Also as, according to iTunes rankings, the Ricky Gervais show was the No. 1 downloaded podcast in the world for longer than I can count, Karl Pilkington certainly satisfies the notabililty guidelines and is worthy of however long an article it takes to document what is known about him, particularly his effect on popular culture. To claim that the length of this article cannot be compared to the length of an article about someone else is derisable - Wiki is not meant to be a competition to see who's the most important/noteworthy, simply an effort to document the facts. AulaTPN 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

I have said this before and had the comments removed. I would like to stress that the self-consciously deadpan/droll/ironic delivery of this article smacks of fandom and (to my tastes) an unsuccessful attempt to raise a laugh. For example, Karl wants to take a paper round or dog walking but 'as stated by Karl, only if it doesn't rain.' Funny much? Surely this sort of stuff is only included because it has Karl's fans in ecstacies, but shouldn't readers be spared this rather rather clunking style of 'Let us all laugh at the man who maketh mock of himself by his own professions and by his own ambitions?' =/--82.44.21.151 20:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that you are not the first or last editor to make this valid criticism. The entire article is marked with the {{tone}} template which indicates the tone is unencyclopedic. To help, you can start removing/modifying material which is undesired, rather than flogging a dead horse. Thanks. --TM 09:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be using on-air anecdotes as a reliable source of information. Anything that sounds as such should be removed unless another reference can be found. ed g2s • talk 14:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Office...[edit]

Was it him in 1x06 of The Office fixing Brent's computer?

-Nah, it was an IT professional. The actor Matthew Holness is in Garth Marenghi's Darkplace.

That's the one who talked about Chuck Norris etc, this guy literally had 20 seconds on camera, said nothing and was bald =)

It wasn't Matthew Holness, and he didn't talk about Chuck Norris. His only line was "So what's a goblin then?" and despite being bald and effecting a dim witted stare, it wasn't Karl Pilkington. --TM 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I coulnd't take that on I'm busy, I'm not gonna start goin into stuff in depth, just gimme the details" Karl Pilkington.

Opening paragraph[edit]

Now in its third season, the show features Pilkington in the role of a comedy foil, playing a dope opposite his more intelligent co-hosts.

I think this sentance is misleading. It suggests that Karl Pilkington's character is a portrayed character rather than it being a natural response. The sentance also suggests that Karl's role in the podcast series has changed for series 3 - which it hasn't. I know some believe that he is a character created by Ricky and Steve but there is no evidence for this. I think there is no reason why this sentance should be included therefore I'll remove it. Jamie 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charged?[edit]

"Karl was also charged with littering crimes when he was 14 for throwing his BMX in the local river, he was released uncharged " - was he charged or not? 88.109.66.11 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even heard about this. What Xfm/podcast/souce is this from? Thanks in advance Pifko87 13:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I've had a go at cleaning the article up - including ripping out some of the more pointless statements. But there is just so much nonsense in the article and so many unsourced statements it's very tempting to remove them all and let them rebuild gradually (with sources).--Ukdan999 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is absurd - an example of a wiki-failure of unsourced, untraceable 'facts'. I'm about to remove a large amount of unsourced material. -SCEhardT 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some things that might be worth researching & adding back:
-SCEhardT 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to rely too heavily on google; niche things tend not to appear on there, particularly things like pilots and so forth. Similarly, don't throw around words -- the article Final Fantasy X contains mere refereces to dialogue, but so long as they are phrased well it is more than acceptable. 212.219.39.146 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verso -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/stephen_merchant/ was the first result. "Wierd, innit?". Still, he's not the producer of that show. 212.219.39.146 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have a go at cleaning it up when I have the time, I'm a big fan and I've heard almost all of the old xfm shows, most of them probably more than once. There's been complaints about this article being too long before it seems, but right now it's just too short, too much editing down for no reason it seems. The thing about Karl is that through everything he's mentioned about himself and his upbringing in the xfm show, the podcasts and elsewhere, there's definitely more biographical material available on him than both Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, for example. The article is pretty bad at the moment, seems to have been edited down quite a lot and the things left are, certainly in the biographical part, just a few anecdotes (or little stories told quickly...no, that's analogies). :) I'll have a go at it soon enough. --Hst20 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Based upon"?[edit]

In the opening paragraph, the world of Karl Pilkington is described as being "based upon the subject matter discussed in the podcasts." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it almost exclusively consists of transcripts of these shows? 86.142.211.237 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC) ~[reply]

"Death"[edit]

. As I've no reason to believe this is true - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.177.224 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Somebody removed the blurb on his death, so I removed the template and fixed wording. Booticon (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher?[edit]

Karl's occupation is a philosopher? Surely not!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.28.14 (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Technically speaking you are philosophising right there, so you could be a philosopher and so could he. Markthemac (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless[edit]

Maybe Wikipedia has had its day, this sort of promotional crap -- whether you think it's funny or not, and I find it monumentally boring -- renders the whole exercise pointless. I'd recommend keeping the bare facts as a stub until enough verifiable information is known or posterity decides he was never all that notable in the first place.Sartoresartus (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see your point--the article needs a complete overhaul and contains a lot of completely irrelevant information: This "Despite his absence, Pilkington has been remembered by a schoolmate on Friends Reunited as bringing to school his pet magpie "Maggie" to show his friends, before it unexpectedly flew away; a story confirmed by Pilkington during the show in which this story was revealed." is of no relevance and I have just deleted a few examples of this sort of thing. However, I think the basic structure and most of the information is largely sound and necessary in an article about him. Jhbuk (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I also agree. This article remains to be an advert for books and other projects by Mr. PILKINGTON. I would have expected this page to read something along these lines:
Karl PILKINGTON (born on 23 September 1972, Sale, Cheshire, England, UK) is a Sony Award-winning English radio producer, podcaster, raconteur and author, best known for producing and co-presenting The Ricky Gervais Show on London radio station Xfm from 2001 to 2005 and later in the form of podcasts.
Everything else seems to be essentially irrelevant. Excusesofpuppets 11:12:18, 25 December 2009 (GMT+12:00)


So you just say that 99% of Wikipedia is Pointless... because what's the point of having an online encyclopedia when you write as short as in paper ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.119.21 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth book[edit]

I added the fourth book he has written in the profile summary. I saw it was oddly missing but was included down below with his list of books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.225.139 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton-on-Mersey School is in Sale, Cheshire - not Greater Manchester.[edit]

http://www.trafford.gov.uk/content/admissions/schooldetails.asp?DFESID=358-5401 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.218.155 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources.[edit]

Some of the sources seem to breach WP:RS, as well as WP:SELFPUB:

  • The source cited for the Reuters article is an article on Ricky Gervais' website - this is self-published, refers to a third party (Karl Pilkington) and is published by someone whose career is linked to the subject - fails WP:V for not being a third-party source. Could this be replaced with a link to the actual Reuters item?
  • This source is also from Ricky Gervais' website - fails WP:V for not being a third-party source.
  • The source cited for the Culture show seems to be a blog, fails WP:BLOGS.
  • The Qvoice link looks like an agency that represents Karl Pilkington for voice work - fails WP:V on the grounds of not being a third-party source.

Autarch (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr Pilkington.JPG nominated for deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Mr Pilkington.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 January 2012[edit]

Karl Pilkington is also an inventor. He invented the Pilko-Pun Pants. Sold about 50 pieces live on TV.

109.228.148.107 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, unsourced and I wouldn't say that makes him an inventor--Jac16888 Talk 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 April 2012[edit]

He is now an actor in Gervais' new comedy show so this should be included. He also is primarily a comedian and this should be included also.

90.215.77.147 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already included at the bottom of the 'Television and DVD' section. As for being a comedian, you would need to find a source for that. Zarcadia (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate information[edit]

From the television and DVD section we have "Pilkington made his acting debut on 12 April 2012 in the Channel 4 sitcom Derek. He portrays caretaker and bus driver Dougie." Then, a few lines down in the filmography section, we have "In 2012, he appeared in his first proper acting role in Gervais' Channel 4 comedy-drama pilot, Derek. He played the role of Derek's (Gervais) best mate, Dougie." This kind of repetition looks unbelievably poor.2.28.47.24 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl's personal life[edit]

Partner Suzanne Whiston for 10 - 15 years now? Brother Mark Pilkington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.65.64 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Why does it say "Religion: Atheist"? Atheism is not a religion. - Jetro (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more proper to state it as "Religion: None (atheist)", which is the way I've seen it done in several bio articles. But do we know that this is indeed Karl's stated belief system? — Loadmaster (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If his religious beliefs, or lack of them, are not relevant to his notability, it should be left blank.--ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film roles[edit]

We need proper sources (not a YouTube video or a self-published statement) to say that Pilkington has been in any films. I don't think being in the deleted scenes of a film is notable. --John (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An official video straight from his mouth; Karl Pilkington the guy who this page is based on physically saying he was in a film but his scene got deleted.
The fact you "don't think being in the deleted scenes of a film is notable" I've seen many other pages that list "being in the deleted scenes of a film" Example; The Wiki page for Llyod Kaufman has noted "Rocky V (1990) - Drunk (Scenes Deleted)" in his filmography section point and case.
So if it shouldn't be in films section that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the wiki since it's correct information also it's relevant despite how minor it might be.
Even so, such a little thing like that doesn't justify deleting a whole section of other films he's done that have nothing to do with a single deleted scene of a film.
In truth I think you're nitpicking just to be annoying, either that or you have nothing better to do (This isn't an attack either before someone deems it so).78.145.92.13 (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does sound a little like an attack ("you have nothing better to do"), but ok. Pilkington doesn't get to decide whether this is notable enough for the article, and neither do you. If it appears in multiple third-party verifiable sources we can include it, but not until then. In articles on living people especially we err on the side of not including stuff. Sorry. --John (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly familiar with the history here, but I think we should all assume that nobody is attacking anybody.
@78.145, we generally don't like using Youtube videos as sources. Would it be possible for you to find a text source supporting your statements? Something perhaps along the lines of IMBD? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imdb isn't that good a source as it is user-generated; it may even be less reliable than Wikipedia as a source! But as far as it goes, none of Pilkington's supposed film roles are mentioned on their database. I suspect we are being hoaxed here. --John (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added yahoo source, and "film" to filmography. If you don't want it as "film" then remove the entire entry and retain the paragraph blurb in the Biography/Career section. Has this video appeared on television? -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery Junction role[edit]

In the table of his television and film roles his Cemetery Junction appearance is not mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:1116:640C:C042:8CC7:41E7 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like how his most famous and important job is not listed.[edit]

Deadpan comedian. I guess he's so good at it that people believe it even in 'geek' places like Wikipedia. --fs 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilford?[edit]

What leads us to believe Karl lives in Ilford now? Why on Earth would anyone move from Hampstead to Ilford? Steve is King (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • His dislike of London is well documented. Having said that, the article about his TV series The Moaning of Life implies that he now lives in Swanley, Kent, so not sure which is correct. MFlet1 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships[edit]

Hey guys, it says Karl has been with Suzanne since 1994 yet I am sure pre-2013 he has mentioned he has been with her for 20 years at least? This could be a generalised statement from him but I just want some clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.173.9 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013[edit]

<!-- Begin request --> Please change Suzanne under 'partner' to Suzanne Whiston as the use of Suzanne on its own is only known by those with pre-existing knowledge of the work of Karl Pilkington. <!-- End request --> Edrayton3 (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed this as it needs a reference. I took out some other unreferenced stuff at the same time. WP:BLPSOURCES is unambiguous on the standard of sourcing we need on articles about living people. --John (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth is WRONG[edit]

Karl's place of birth is given as...

"Sale, Greater Manchester".

Given that his date of birth is 23 September 1972, it should be corrected without further delay to read "Sale, Cheshire".

This is because Greater Manchester did NOT exist prior to 1st April 1974.

If you're reading this and have access to editting, will you please oblige? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.204.223 (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took the initiative of making the edit. Please refer to, and if possible, improve it (?the wording?). SPNKs (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Pilkington. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karl Pilkington. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15 Taiwan[edit]

In the Early Years section we've got it saying that Karl created a number of features for the show eg. Rockbusters, Monkey News, and 15 Taiwan.

Unless I'm misremembering Karl suggested 15 Taiwan where he would buy 16 cheap products and Ricky and Steve (or the callers) would have to work out which one looked like it was from Taiwan. This was such a bad idea for a radio show that it never went any further.

Am I right in that? It could easily be replaced by one of the features that actually did run regularly like Do We Need 'Em? or Cheeky Freak of the Week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch1pp0 (talk • contribs)

Yep, you're right -- not even Pilkipedia has an article on 15 Taiwan. I'll remove it now. To be honest, I don't think we need to replace it with anything. There are already 3 other things in the list (an ideal number), followed up with and many others. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 09:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

The article should also mention that one of the reasons Karl missed a lot of schooling was due to semi-regular holidays to Wales during term time. 51.9.13.215 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Pilkington&oldid=1220102070"