Talk:The Benny Hill Show/Archive 1

Music
I would like to see more information in this article about music used in the show. We're all aware of Yakety Sax but there were some other songs that were used regularly in the show, particularly in the undercranked skits. Unfortunately I don't know what they're named or who composed them. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Every time I go to look up what the background music of the sketches is, all I ever get is Yakatee Sax. There are three jazzy tunes I can think of that Benny used frequently as background music to his "silent-movie"-type sketches:


 * 1) Dixieland type, sounds like it could be someone like Humphrey Lyttelton.  Starts out with simple syncopated piano chords; this is followed by full Dixieland style, with a clarinet noodling around.  "Moderate" tempo for something obviously sped up.
 * 2) Another Dixieland type, possibly by the Original Dixieland Jass Band, and obviously sped up.  Begins with a screaming clarinet, after which is another Dixieland arrangement, with clarinet noodling around.
 * 3) Obviously a more modern piece.  Includes Beethovan's Moonlight Sonata and Mah Nà Mah Nà made famous by The Muppets. All sped up as well.

I ran across this the other day. Not sure of its veracity.  Anyone know of a copy of Harry von Tilzer's "Come Back and Love Me Some More"? I thought this might be Irving Berlin's "Stop! Stop! Stop! (Come Over and Love Me Some More", but I'm not sure...

Something else that might help: I once heard one of the first two in a sketch by Freddie Starr... -Barmy Fotheringay-Phipps (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Recorded episodes not a verifiable citation?
I found it amusing that someone put citation needed on some sentences in the article. If you actually watched the show, you would see that the statements are true. Wouldn't the show itself and its episodes provide a significant and verifiable citation? Or do video taped recording of the show not count as a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wistex (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will go through and remove such "Citation Needed" statements which refer to specific episodes--TimothyJacobson (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Removing Tags?
I left tags on display because there were too many problems in this article. I cannot identify too many at one time; guest appearances may be too unnecessary. The "reference" section is too jumbled with trivia and, obviously, less styled. Also, the article has no table charts, and the "programme summary" is too wordy without table; are there any ways to resolve this? Unless there is no reason to tag them, even when no one talks about it, I am reverting IP edits and leaving message until the article is cleaned up. --Gh87 (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you add a multiple issues tag at the top of the article, there's no need to tag individual sections as well. That's overkill and rather annoying to those of us who actually fix what's wrong with articles. Also, if there's POV and neutrality issues, it is incumbent upon the person who places the tag on the article to explain why those problems are perceived so they can be fixed. According to the history of the article and talk page, you did not do that. Unless you use inline cites to indicate POV or other problems, other editors have no idea what you have issue with and how they can be fixed. That means the tag(s) can be removed at any time by anyone. Same goes with purposing the article be split. There's no discussion about that yet there's a tag there. Either start a discussion on the matter or be bold and split off the article yourself. Regardless, I have cleaned up and reorganized the article and removed what I felt was unneeded. I have also removed said tags associated with the supposed problems the article as two editors have seemingly taken care of some of the issues at hand. In addition to the tags, I also removed the edit note accompanying the tags because no one can demand something not be done unless it is a violation of policy. Removing tags without leaving a note on the talk page may be considered somewhat rude or even non-collegial, but it's not a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Pinkadelica ♣  07:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean up
I have now done a clean-up on all sections except the introduction and the Show Format; will do these next week. However, not being a fan of the show myself (not having watched too many episodes) I may have inadvertantly changed facts written, so please do check. Likewise, I may have kept and rewritten things that weren't accurate in the first place. I would appreciate someone going through the page and adding references where possible--TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some clean up and re-organization as well. Not being a fan of the show either (I've only seen it in passing on BBC America years ago), I've really no idea what details should be included. I removed a few long uncited statements, along with what appeared to be original research and just plain guessing on someone's part. I also attempted to organize the sections in a similar manner to other television show articles.  Pinkadelica ♣  07:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
The sentence: "Incarnations before, during, and after of the show aired on the BBC from 1951 to 1968 and from 1957 to 1960 on ITV (this time produced by ATV)." doesn't mean anything to me.

It is so confusing I can't rewrite it because I don't understand what it is trying to say. Would someone with a little more knowledge of the show be able to rewrite it ?

It might just mean: "The show originally aired on the BBC from 1951 to 1968, and on ITV (produced by ATV) from 1957 to 1960."

But I don't want to change it to that in case I'm missing some nuance.

It's the phrase "Incarnations before, during, and after of the show aired on..." that I can't understand. I have no idea what that means. If it's explained later in the article that still doesn't help, because the lead is supposed to make sense on its own.

I also edited the sentence after that one, to try to make sense of it, but I may have made an error there - it was quite confusing, too - if someone could check that I'd be grateful.

-  Begoon (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How about: "There were previous incarnations aired on other networks, such as the BBC, from 1951 to 1968, and ITV (produced by ATV), from 1957 to 1960."? --Gh87 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's much better. I actually understand that, and I support that change. Thanks for taking the time to look into it.


 * Maybe it can still include "of the show": "There were previous incarnations of the show aired on other networks, such as the BBC, from 1951 to 1968, and ITV (produced by ATV), from 1957 to 1960."?


 * but either version works for me :-)  -  Begoon (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the paragraph and included the sentence. --Gh87 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Up Articles?
I tagged "split" because three incarnations happened to exist, including BBC and ITV. This article may be more related to ITV one; I could not create the article myself because I am always a novice to great writing, or should I say "not a great writer I wanted to be". --Gh87 (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We all have to start somewhere. See WP:FIRST to get you started. You can also go to the village pump or the help desk to ask others for help in starting the article. There's far too many resources here to put things off on others.  Pinkadelica ♣  01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe that the page should be split up as (to my recollection) the BBC shows were remarkably similar to the ITV ones. Also, the silent films etc would not fit in either. I also don't believe an episode guide is necessary--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - splitting this already short article would be pointless and unnecessary.  -  Begoon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cast and guests
I think about removing a bunch of names and leaving only a few per group (cast or guest). However, I cannot figure out which to remove and to keep. I think I need help. --Gh87 (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't figure out what to remove - how about not removing anything? You haven't given any indication as to why you want to remove information. Do you think it's inaccurate? I can't understand why you want to remove names of cast members in the first place.  -  Begoon (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those were guest names. Are they relevant to the whole article? --Gh87 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In an article about the Benny Hill show? Yes - I think the names of a mere dozen notable guests over a 40 year period are relevant. Don't you? - (I also commented on your removal in the Possibly Overdetailed and a Fansite section above, replying to your note about removal - here the section was called Cast and Guests, and that is what I was replying to)  -  Begoon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Big cut
I have cut the following two paragraphs from the opening section of the atricle, as they go too much in depth and the info is repeated further down the page anyway.

It was produced by Thames Television (for the ITV network) from 1969 to 1989 and was broadcast in over 140 countries.

There were previous incarnations of the show aired on other networks, such as the BBC, from 1951 to 1968, and ITV (produced by ATV), from 1957 to 1960. There were also specials, including a one-off by ATV in 1967, another by the Australian broadcaster Network Ten in 1977, and a one-off D.L. Taffner Entertainment (now DLT Entertainment Ltd.) production transmitted by the American broadcaster USA Network in 1991. --TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware (and have just noticed above) that there was some big debate earlier about this lead section. I still stand by my point though; although it makes more snse now than it did, I can't see how this matters much--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As other editors have said above, the revamp you did to this article is outstanding. Just one bit of constructive help, here, if I may: according to Manual of Style (lead section):


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.


 * and


 * While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.


 * So, whilst I agree that the lead section wasn't very good, removing it almost completely isn't a good solution.


 * Try this:


 * The Benny Hill Show was a popular British comedy television show starring Benny Hill.


 * There were various incarnations of the show, between 1951 and 1989, and it aired in over 140 countries.


 * The show was generally sketch-based, with heavy use of slapstick, mime and parody.


 * There was some criticism of the show's use of scantily-clad females, and double-entendre.


 * Thames Television cancelled production of the show in 1989, due to declining audience ratings.


 * It still needs work - but that's, imo, the sort of thing to aim at  -  Begoon (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)