Talk:Carry On series on screen and stage

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. While filmography articles typically include television as well (which, after all, is a filmed medium), stage appearances throw a wrench into things. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Carry On series on screen and stage → Carry On filmography – Content fork. The information for the TV shows is best off at Carry on Laughing and Carry On Christmas Specials, the stage shows at the Carry On (franchise) article, leaving this article to be concise and focused on the films, and named as such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and what drugs are you on this week? -- Cassianto Talk   09:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive input. Are we having WP:OWN issues again? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blimey Rob, the OWN accusation only took you two minutes this time!  Cassianto Talk   09:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your WP:UNCIVIL and bad faith accusation took you even less. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And your edit warring was even quicker. Not sure what you're strying to do here, but it's a mistake from every angle. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you expect when you come along and request a nonsensical move on a featured article. The title works in its current form and doesn't need to be changed.  Or did you request for a name change so you could use the OWN tag when someone objected?    Cassianto Talk   09:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain how, rather than make it personal (again). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See below: my oppose makes it clear: and there is nothing "personal" in anything I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hardly, "reduce the quality", and allusions to other stuff, does not address the issues I presented. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it does: your edits reduced the quality by removing information. The other articles carry different information and this list acts as an overview, as I have already said below. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: there is no "content fork": the Carry on Laughing and Carry On Christmas Specials pages are articles, not lists: they both need a lot of work and do not best express the subject at the moment, but that is no reason to try and reduce the quality of this page - which the community has decided is worthy of the featured status. Didn't you do something equally disruptive on The Flashman Papers too? I seem to remember you got equally short shrift for your equally misguided approach there too. And stop with the uncivil, unfounded and frankly ridiculous ownership accusations: you did an utterly misguided page move and content deletion: it was reverted because is was in no way an improvement - that is not ownership and it's a mite churlish of you to start throwing around such accusations because you were reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we have a muddled article here, mixing three separate media onto one article, a split from the Carry On (franchise) article, when the same information would be better presented under a different structure. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who has ever said you cannot have mixed media in one list? The Chrisye discography has music videos and film as well, and it (like this) is a featured list. Don't go making up rules to support your own position, especially when the community has reviewed the article and found it well put-together. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "making up rules", I'm just presenting my own opinion that this mixed media approach is a muddle, and would be better presented on specific articles about each medium, especially seeing as we already have them. And of course I'm going to go on the defensive when you see Cassianto's frankly uncivil and unhelpful response to my suggestion.  This isn't my first bad experience with this editor.  We're all entitled to our opinion - no-one's opinion is inherently "right".  Let's discuss this civilly.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can stop throwing OWNership accusations around then I'm sure we can. There are several lists which take the view of a franchise or an individual and look at their work in several media. There are others that look at the history of an individual in just one media. There is no right or wrong and it certainly doesn't end up in "a muddle". If there was a consensus against this approach, it would be outlined in a guideline or policy: there isn't, and coming into a featured article, deleting a substantial chunk of the content and renaming that article without any agreement, discussion or consensus goes a step or two beyond a bold approach, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The content wasn't deleted, it was included elsewhere. The fact is, the content here was better than what was previously on the Carry On Laughing article, which was arse-about-face to my mind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's a monumentally arse-about-face piece of logic! Why don't you try and improve the Carry On Laughing article, rather than try and reduce the quality of this one? - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, thus making the episode list here redundant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your efforts and I would hardly call them an improvement.  Cassianto Talk   10:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's apoosible to have good quality content on an article about a topic, and good quality content in an overview list too.... And cutting and pasting from one page to another does contravene one of the copyright guidelines we have somewhere or other. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A move request should be based on policy/guidelines, and right now there is no policy/guideline against having mixed media. Such a rationale doesn't appear here either. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to unilaterally move a page, nor is it a reason to badger people who disagree with you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose – Per SchroCat, goes without saying.  Cassianto Talk   09:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither one of you have specifically addressed the points I raised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because your points don't deserve an answer. Why can't you have mixed media in one article? That is the giveaway with the title don't you think?  The main Carry On article should be about the films and the list should be separate.  See the Bond articles for how it should be done.   Cassianto Talk   09:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose These are all parts of the franchise, no matter what media they are in, and this is a list of different entries in that franchise, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stage isn't film.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but stage can be included at Carry On (franchise). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What, and break up a featured list? Have you gone completely mad?!   Cassianto Talk   10:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's that protectionist view of the hallowed "featured list" status that prompted my WP:OWN accusation. Just because something has been a featured list, doesn't mean that the handful of editors hat assessed it looked at every possibility for the article, or that the information can't be presented differently.  The self-adulation of reaching "featured list" can cause blindness.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you clearly have shit in your eyes if you think removing information from a featured list to add to a lesser-in-quality article is an "improvement". The whole point of this project is to improve and educate:  that's why a FL is considered to be the best of the best. The reviewers there didn't see a problem so I don't see why you should.  If you removed information it would void the whole FLC, thus making C or B class.  That is not an improvement! --   Cassianto Talk   10:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I popped something at the film project - let's see what others have to say before we deteriorate further. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you going to pop something appropriate at other relevant projects? As you keep saying, this article is about more than just films - it's about other media as well. Perhaps you could add something neutrally worded to the other projects, rather than just the one where people know you? - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I can't say I'm a huge fan of "xxx on stage and screen" titles, but if you ask me for a better title I got nothing.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment Since a rename can't go ahead unless the TV and stage content is cut out of the list this is effectively a "split" discussion, so I may as well address it in those terms. First of all, I think this list is a useful inventory of all the Carry-On credits, and it's a featured list to boot, so obviously we have to think twice before carving it up. I'm not a fan of sending readers all over the place if the information can be offered all in one place: in short, if it aint broke don't fix it. The problem is more Carry On (franchise), which looks like a spare wheel: it's a bare bones article that doesn't serve much purpose in its current state and Carry On series on screen and stage is the de facto franchise article as it stands. Are there any plans for developing Carry On (franchise) into a prose based overview of the franchise? If not you could probably just bring the documentaries and album into the list and redirect the franchise page here for what's worth. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem has been caused by the content being stripped from the Carry On (film series) article (as was) in order to create this list, effectively ripping the guts out. It's all very well to create a "featured list", but I don't think that this should be at the expense of a bastardized article.  Maybe we need to re-merge the two articles back together, in line with other franchise articles and MOS:FILM, and add the Carry On Laughing episode list to its article, where it should be, in line with MOS:TV and every other TV series article.  You're quite right - the decimation of the "franchise" article has made this the "de facto" franchise article - we don't need two articles when one will do. The leads to both articles are practically the same, just worded differently, and this seems to make up the "meat" of either article.  In short, the split should never have happened in the first place.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What a Carry On 4 October 1973
Should it not be mentioned this was a highlight show of the stage show Carry on London ref http://www.thewhippitinn.com/carry_on_tv/ REVUpminster (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The link you provide is a fansite, so no. See WP:FANSITE.  Cassianto Talk   22:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this the closest we have to an official site? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, although I seem to remember them closing it shortly after Peter Rogers's death in 2009. I don't know if that was just out of a mark of respect, but appears they have opened it again.  Andy Davidson, whose book I have just read from cover to cover (excellent BTW and well worth recommending), devised and set up the site in 1994 so he is certainly an authority on the subject and I trust him implicitly with what he says. I think it is certainly the best out there, although some may argue that it is still a fansite, thus not reliable, thanks largely to the forum that it operates. Having said that, I see no user generated material so I would be happier with this inclusion than anything else.   Cassianto Talk   22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

carry on box office
Were any carry on film release in cinema? If so do you know the gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.228.222 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All the Carry On films were released to the cinema to the best of my knowledge. It's not like they had a "straight to video" market back in the 60s. Carry On Nurse, for instance, was the highest-grossing film of 1959 in the UK. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, all of the films were released in cinemas. I can dig out a reference if needed, but personally, I don't feel that it is.  Cassianto talk 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is their over 30 films if their was 1 page with all the box office or some as well as some Critical response it would be usefull
 * What do you mean "critical response" in this context? - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviews Their needs to be one page with box office, budget ( which is on here now.) And Critical response it would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.238.244 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I'm confused: if what your requesting what is "on here now", then what are you requesting? I think this is the wrong article to have critical responses of the films in.  As someone mentioned earlier, the film articles have those in.  Cassianto talk 09:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

carry on Critical response
Do you have any Critical response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.228.222 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See the film's own articles. Ditto for the box office information, if available, which is isn't always. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Carry on Doctors"
While some would argue (me) that this is so far removed from the original series that it's inclusion here would not be justified, I appreciate others may see it as such. So, cue a discussion, here. My view is that seeing as the original production company, crew, cast, writers, directors, producers, and even studios, are all missing from this film, this film, and others after it, should not be considered as part of the series; in fact, the only link to the original series is the title (and even that lacks imagination by the predicted title. I would go on to compare it with the Bond franchise's Never Say Never Again, but even that shared the same principle character, as well as a few other similarities in terms of the cast.  Should, then, any new "Carry on" film be added to this list?  With only the media hailing it as a "return to the series", I see no reliable information legally saying so.    Cassianto Talk   20:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Carry On series on screen and stage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202230354/http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2013/p/planningstatement.pdf to http://www.southbucks.gov.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2013/p/planningstatement.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28840''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28835''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28842''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28825''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28837''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28827''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28822''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28833''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28841''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28824''Carry
 * Added tag to http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/28826''Carry
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227143417/http://www.freewebs.com:80/carryonforever/ to http://www.freewebs.com/carryonforever/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Biographical films?
Would it be worth adding the various biographical films that have been made such as Hattie, Kenneth Williams: Fantabulosa!, Babs and Cor,_Blimey!? I know they are not directly part of the Carry On franchise, but most of them focus on some aspect of their lives in Carry on. Tommi1986 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)