Talk:Carry On (franchise)

carrion (latinum)

What does the king see, everyday? (when shaving)

The peasant, regularly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:68F:0:21B7:2FFE:EA32:A3A (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Second Dumbest Decision

"In 2004 the magazine Total Film described the greenlighting of the movie (Carry On Columbus), and the decision to use alternative comedians, as the number 2 "dumbest decision in movie history"."

I presume this was some kind of survey, or "top ten list of Dumb decisions". Is there a link to the list on line somewhere? PaulHammond 13:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit late, but the Total Film website no longer has any info on "the ten dumbest decisions". Doing further research online, it appears that it wasn't a survey but an editorial article by the magazine published in 2004. There's no indication what basis — if any — Total Film had for making the list, or including the "dumb decisions" they did. If the magazine is anything like Entertainment Weekly, there may have been no legitimate critical reasoning behind it, making it somewhat weak as a source for inclusion here. The only traces of the rest of the list exist only on Wikipedia and websites that use Wikipedia data (like Answers.com). Number nine seems to have disappeared entirely, but the rest of the list was apparently as follows:

• 1st: Sean Connery's costume in Zardoz
• 2nd: Greenlighting Carry On Columbus with alternative comics
• 3rd: The 1941 film adaptation of the Jack London novel, The Sea Wolf, which features a ship collision resulting in loss of life, is premiered on the ocean liner S.S. America
• 4th: On the set of Reds, Warren Beatty lectures Russian extras on the capitalist exploitation of labor, resulting in the extras striking for higher wages
• 5th: Harrison Ford turns down Traffic to appear in K-19: The Widowmaker
• 6th: Lucasfilm sells Pixar to Steve Jobs
• 7th: Greenlighting Fair Game, a $50 million film starring untried would-be actress Cindy Crawford
• 8th: The decision to make sequels to Police Academy
• 10th: Anne Heche announces her lesbianism shortly after being cast in the heterosexual romantic comedy, Six Days Seven Nights

I think anyone could come up with a similar list with different items that are "dumber" (Howard Hughes' The Conqueror spring to mind), so without a copy of the article for reference, I think the citation should be deleted...everywhere that it appears. Canonblack 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Is there a Carry On wikiproject? Is anyone interested in starting one? TheMadBaron 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A very good idea. I would happily contribute to one. David L Rattigan 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Carry On box

Methinks we should have a box template thingummy, such as many other series have on Wikipedia (one good example is the films of Blake Edwards). It would list, and link to, all the Carry On films, most of the actors, and some peripheral topics. It would be placed in this article, and in every article about a Carry On film.

Who knows how to build a box template thingummy? TheMadBaron 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would just find a template you already like, and then copy and paste the same code. I'd also wait to hear from others before creating it, as I wonder if some would think it is a bit big for a template - not that I mind, but there's been controversy over other large templates. David L Rattigan 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections are biased / POV

The timeline of films needs separating from commentary of how good they are. Calling one era "decline" and another "revival" is leading. I think the films needs to be put into a straight timeline, and then any commentary on their decline and fall given in a separate section, and any mention of "decline" or "revival" should be cited as with anything else on wikipedia, rather than being an uncited value judgement. Also, I think a Carry On template/sidebar would probably be in order, something oalong the lines of the one at Star Trek. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is useful and meaningful to group the films in this way. After Charles Hawtrey's last appearance in Abroad, and then the last ever Carry On film appearances of Sid James, Hattie Jacques and Barbara Windsor in Dick, it is pretty safe to say the film series was in decline. Also the films declined in popularity at this time. Prouction switched from two a year, to just one each year. England was a major failure. Emmanuelle tried to win back audiences by revamping the formula, foregrounding some new actors and adding much more sex. Then Emmanuelle was the last film - until many years later one more film was made. This pretty much sounds like a decline, and a revival to me. The article never actually makes a critical evaluation of the quality of the film itself, something that would be POV. Asa01 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I agree that in terms of box office success, the Carry On films certainly did go into decline during the 1970s, but I feel that defining era's as 'decline' etc. is unjustified, as I (and I'm sure at least some others) would argue that the Carry On films of the 1970s (with the possible exception of Emmannuelle) were more witty than the earlier films. Thanks.

Somehow I don't think this is quite correct

The mainstays of the series were Kenneth Williams (30000000000000 films)—Wasabe3543 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carry on series.jpg

Image:Carry on series.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carry on series.jpg

Image:Carry on series.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow That Camel

The article stated that Phil Silvers' role was written for Sid James, who suffered a heart attack shortly before producton started. However, The Whippet Inn contradicts this, stating that "Although not involved in the film, three days into shooting Sid James was rushed into hospital with a heart attack." It also suggests that Woody Allen had also been considered for the role.

It is unlikely that Silvers would be brought in at such short notice, so the Whippet Inn version looks more likely. Without any authoritative citation I have adjusted the article to follow the Whippet Inn version of events. Mrstonky (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Carry on camping 320x240.jpg

The image File:Carry on camping 320x240.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Carry On Cleo DVD.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a bull terrier dog featured in one of the carry on films. My father was a cinema manager in the early 50's. he went to a cinema convention organised by the Rank Organisation. the dog was there at the reception, he ended up taking the dog. we called him Bill but his proper name was Tobias etc etc. Does anyone remember the dog and what film he was in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.159.32 (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Carry On Spaceman and Carry On Again Nurse to this article

Neither of these articles are properly referenced and they are not the only unmade films of the series. It may be better to merge the content. Corporation Cart (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. A section for unmade films can be very easily added to this page. --Crablogger (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

List of films

Two columns for the list of films seems to make more sense, so you can see the entire list on one screen and to eliminate white space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, in principle I'm all for it, unfortunately it makes a confusing break in the numbering, showing one list of 16 and another of 15. This needs to be sorted before the column split. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah - okay - bulleting works - maybe we should have a table with premiere dates, box office performances, etc, as another user has suggested... --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible replacement of content

I have almost finished a wiki-table consisting of the films, and stage and theatre shows. I still have a few bits to do which should only take me an afternoon. Does anybody have any thought's or opposes if I replace some information in favour of - this. I would really appreciate any thought's. -- Cassianto (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the changes. This more concise approach seems sensible to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of Films

The article states 34 Carry On films, but only 31 appear in the chronological list.  ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.143.34 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources and unreferenced stuff

Are we not in October? Doh, I was really looking forward to Christmas! Lol... I do plan on going through everything in this article and reference what can be referenced and cutting out everything else. I have a mad plan of taking this to GAC in the not so distant future, so the article will be heavily cleaned up. As a guide, I think we should use the excellent James Bond in film article for layout, prose style and presentation. I have two WP:FACs planned so I am pencilling in this after that. -- Cassianto^Talk 10:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

New Carry On list

To anyone watching: I will be creating a new list article containing the complete filmography which I then plan on moving from this article. I have taken the list in this article (which I completed about a year ago) and thoroughly copy edited it and is availible here for anyone to take a look. Because of this, the list in this article will then be made redundant so I will be deleting it and make a reference to the new article. I then plan on taking this list to WP:FLC in the next few weeks. As this is a major deletion of content from this article, I have decided to post this for a discussion to take place. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Unmade films" section

This sourced content was removed (possibly unintentionally) when the filmography table was split to another article. The removal of the content was unexplained in any case. Per WP:BRD, I restored this material, but this keeps being reverted. Per WP:BRD, it is for the editor(s) removing the content to justify its removal. Please discuss... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, it could use some cleaning up, but that is no need to expunge it from the article, per WP:IMPROVE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to rely on reverting an edit from five months ago when there have been a number of subsequent edits from different people, is a bit of a stretch when it comes to arguing your way around BRD. Calling the original cut "unexplained" is just plain wrong: there is an edit summary that explains it, whether you agree with it or not. I reverted your edit because the majority of the information does not carry any supporting reliable source. Other sections are unconnected and pointless ("Non-Carry On films" anyone?) For the relevant films that were not made, you need to ensure a reliable source is used to support the entry - that's a rather basic requirement. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There haven't been any subsequent edits on this material - the section was removed. There is not an edit summary that explains it at all. The only edit summary: "Now moved per talk page which had no objections" is in relation to #New Carry On list, which does not make any mention of this material whatsoever. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Rob, this needs references supporting every bit of information, and not just a few in-line citations. Schro and Cass appear to be aiming for FAC, and any text without a reference will be nuked at that level. The solution is simple: find references to support all information, rather than allow whole paragraphs to go unsourced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the information could be tidied up and better presented, but scrapping the information completely seems heavy-handed. Whichever editor added the information does provide three sources (Morris Bright and Robert Ross (2000). The Lost Carry Ons: Scenes That Never Made it to the Screen. Virgin Books. ISBN 1-85227-990-7; Robert Ross (2002). The Carry on Companion. Batsford. ISBN 0-7134-8771-2; Richard Webber (2005). The Complete A-Z of Everything Carry On. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-00-718223-6) although I cannot verify the content myself. The Carry On London section was fully referenced with news articles from the time. Where is the justification for the removal of this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, the referencing. If it can be cleaned up I doubt there will be issues with retaining it. Schro/Cas, I note that the list of titles at the very least appears to be sourced... it could possibly be included) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Carry On London section was fully referenced. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, although the list is itself unsourced. The text seems to be supported, but whether those titles are included in the references referred to above the list is unclear because it wasn't done properly first time round. The other issues with the sections are as you've already highlighted:

• Carry On Spaceman: section unsourced
• Carry On Again Nurse: section unsourced
• 1967: section unsourced
• 1979: section unsourced
• 1988: section unsourced

Yes, the London section was sourced, but it looks a bit pointless and lost without any other films listed... -SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Then we should be working together to improve the section, rather than scrap it wholesale. It does have encyclopedic value. As, I believe, does a section regarding other the films that were made by the same Producer/Director/Writer "team" using largely the same actors, but not part of the series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does have value here, but only after it's been sourced properly. I'm not sure I agree with the non-Carry On films section in a Carry On list, regardless of the personnel involved, but I'm happy to hear the views of a wider audience to reach a consensus on that. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Google books result --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact it is correct that the films were conceived but never made is not in dispute here. I think SchroCat might mean Twice Round the Daffodils, The Big Job, and similar which were Carry Ons in all but name. If you mean do we mention scripts like "Carry On Smoking", "Carry On Again Nurse", "Carry On Dallas" etc, then yes I think we should mention them. Having said that, I don't think we should dedicate a lot of article space to it and it needs to come from a reliable source, ie Ross, Bright etc. Cassianto^Talk 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems we're in agreement for some kind of inclusion then - by all means this could be trimmed and tidied up - it was the wholesale removal without an attempt that bothered me. The "Non Carry Ons" must also be worthy of a sentence (maybe with a better heading" - same Director and Producer on all films, Hudis/Rothwell/Freeman writing, and for the most part the same composer, cinematographer and stars. As you say: "Carry Ons in all but name". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I was never in disagreement about this (I have come late to this discussion). Sometimes, it's best to delete and start again, although I'd like to think it was a transfer from a sandbox somewhere. Who removed it? If it was me then it was by accident I assure you. Cassianto^Talk 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to disappear in this edit. As I noted at the top of this section, I thought it may have been unintentional, but definitely unexplained, which is why I tried to restore it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to take issue with SchroCat's statement "Yes, it does have value here, but only after it's been sourced properly.". This is a wiki, it's a work in progress, and that work should be carried out collaboratively, in the open, on the article itself; not tucked away in some corner of Userspace or elsewhere. I'm getting fed up with this idea that seems to be spreading around Wikipedia that articles (and sections of articles) should be removed, edited off-line, and only reinstated once they meet certain criteria. That is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. [end of rant] WaggersTALK 15:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You can have as many issues as you want, especially as you have misread this entirely. While this is a wiki, we do have standards and one of our core five pillars suggests "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative source". Without such sources we are nothing more than fanboy fluff and trivia. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. Waggers, there is no chance that this article will be rated by the community any higher than a "B" if there are unreferenced sections hanging about. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The section was referenced, although a little sloppy. As it was removed in error, it should be restored in order that we can work on it and WP:IMPROVE. All removed information was verifiable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• We've already pointed to several subsections and paragraphs which were unreferenced. Removal was not in error. Something that you disagree with is not necessarily something which is incorrect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm, Cassianto admitted that it was a mistake, and that it wasn't intentionally removed. I'd count that as "in error". --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I did and to be honest, I didn't really notice the lack of sources. In hindsight, I would have either of deleted it or worked on it to provide better prose and citations. based on the lack of citations anyway. Cassianto^Talk 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there - three books are mentioned at the top of the section, and I can only assume that all the information in the section were taken from these three sources, but cannot check. I've been looking for other sources today and have found a few, but have got sidetracked for the time being. We should be working on this though, not deleting it. I don't think there's any contentious material here - it seems bona fide. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This still isn't sourced correctly, or even nearly correctly. If you want it to remain in place, please provide adequate supporting citations from reliable sources. If you don't or can't provide such sources, then there is a very real danger that the unsupported information will be removed once again.

I still think it's rather ridiculous and shambolic to have a section about films that are not part of the series and never pretended to be part of the series. The logic is seriously screwed in including it... - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. I'm all for them being mentioned within a couple of sentences at best, or paragraph at worst, but certainly not in a section all of its own. --Cassianto^Talk 15:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, the "unmade films" section isn't about films that were not part of the series - it's about films that were going to be part of the series but were not completed/released. As such, if the section can be properly referenced, it very much belongs in the article. And we can only find references for the text in that section if we can see the text in that section - which is why it has to stay in the article. By all means, give it a cleanup tag, that's what they're for, and that's how we acknowledge that a section doesn't quite meet the standard we would like. Removing the section entirely is far from helpful. WaggersTALK 08:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No Waggers, firatly, if you read through the thread, you'll note we're also talking about the Non-Carry On films section, which is—as the title suggests—entirely about films that are not relevant to the article. Secondly, see WP:NOCITE: add a citation or the material gets removed, it's fairly simple and straightforward. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we are talking about both sections, seeing as they both keep being removed, and as you can see from Cassianto's responses above regarding the "Non-Carry On films", we seem to be in agreement that they are "Carry Ons in all but name". The cast and crew issue is verifiable, so lets try and WP:IMPROVE the article, not delete verifiable encyclopedic information. As Waggers says, "removing the section entirely is far from helpful" --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused; what are we talking about here? The SCRIPTS "Carry On Spaceman", "Carry On Again Nurse", "Carry On Smoking" etc, or the FILMS Twice Round the Daffodils, The Big Job etc... If we are talking about the scripts, then yes I think they should be included briefly and NOT in a section of their own. If we are talking about the films then NO I don't think they should be included anywhere in this article. Cassianto^Talk 09:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. When we were discussing including the "Carry Ons in all but name" above, you stated that you were "never in disagreement about this". Or at least it seemed like you did. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You can cite another editor if you want to: I'll cite a policy, which carries a little more weight. As I have said - and as is supported by policies - add references, or there is a danger that the unreferenced material in the "unmade films" section will be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, seeing as they were marketed in the UK under the "What a Carry On" banner, is that good enough? [10], [11], etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Films within the infobox

Sorry, but the box now looks utterly ridiculous! Cassianto^Talk 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but our MoS dictates that composition titles are always italicised. The main problem with the infobox is its length. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not either remove the excessive list, or out the titles in a collapsible section? - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A collapsible section might work. Another option might be to include a titles and years only list in the "Films" section in the body, rather than in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I have no idea why you mention MOS and the Itals, that is a given. My issue is with the excessively stupid length of it caused by the listing of the films. I would go with collapsable if we are being insistent on having the films in it. Cassianto^Talk 15:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, with you! Your note here appeared just moments after I'd italicised the infobox, so I thought it was in relation to that! Hadn't spotted that it had been changed! Yes - it's ridiculously long. I'm happy to go back to how it was, but maybe a title/year only list in the "Films" section isn't a bad idea for readers who want a simple overview. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That's better! I will try. And do some stuff on the article over the next week or so. Your changes all look good! Cassianto^Talk 16:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• If this a franchise article then it should have a franchise infobox, examples Star Trek, and Highlander (franchise), Die Hard (film series) but I realize I am wasting my time.REVUpminster (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-merge discussion

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 merged. There was no consensus to merge the page, and no further discussion was held for almost three weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it, but this article is very similar to Carry On series on screen and stage, which I (very slightly) edited earlier. Unless anybody sees a distinction between the purposed of the two articles, I'd think this one could be folded into the other. Or maybe the other way around... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't my tag, but I wholeheartedly support it. As I said at Talk:Carry On series on screen and stage per this diff, and in response to Betty: "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) 16:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Erm, oppose. One is a list of all the works in the franchise (units), while another is about the franchise itself (as a whole). List is lengthy enough that a merger is not feasible. Hasn't this already been hammered to death once already? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) I also note that a similar situation exists with the FL List of Final Fantasy video games and the FA Final Fantasy. This has precedent, and the FF series is a good template to follow in the expansion of the CO franchise article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of other precedents not to split also (and as far as size goes, the FF article without the list is twice the size of these two articles would be when re-merged). Let's face it, the "franchise" article is a pile of shit since its guts have been ripped out, which is exactly why there is no justification for two articles. By re-merging we can create one quality article without duplicate leads, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• WTF, really? Are you counting only prose, or are you counting actual length (i.e. in screens?). Even then, are you looking at what could be (and, if I know Schro and Cass, will be... i.e. FA), or what is right now? What "precedents" for merging do you have, in which the number of entries is similar to Carry On? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the re-merge option came late in the discussion, which was about a move, and the discussion was closed as no move shortly after. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• And? It was still discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The close came too soon after suggestion to give a merge consideration, and is not mentioned in the closing rationale. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

FFS, move on Rob! This, as pointed out above has been thrashed out before. That discussion was closed. The selling of associated merchandise, and planning of ill-fated films does not form part of the series. Cassianto^Talk 17:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the suggestion of a re-merge has NOT been fully discussed previously. It was mentioned at the move discussion, but not explored. And, it was not me that brought this merge discussion, but another editor, who could also see the obvious overlap. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And, as has been suggested to you before, why don't you do something constructive like improve one of the articles, rather than bitch and moan about processes and procedures of discussions? It's nice and easy to stand on the sidelines and try to throw your weight around without being useful: it's a lot more difficult to be useful and craft a decent article. You really should try it someday. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And you should try being WP:CIVIL someday and consider not being a bully when someone disagrees with you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• You'd find that a lot easier if you were to try and fix the problem by writing encyclopedic content instead of arguments. A section on the films in the Carry On series here could easily be two paragraphs, with a {{Main}} link to the actual list. Then there could be a paragraph for the television specials and another for the album. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not being a bully at all: I'm pointing out to you that you either act in poor faith in a number of circumstances (such as this, where the discussion has already happenened recently), or there is a comeptence question. Either way: try building an article, rather than criticise, destroy or whine the work of numerous others. (And, given your inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK when this has been discussed and closed relatively recently, I am being civil). - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I did not instigate this discussion. But I do strongly agree with the suggestion of a re-merge. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• You may not have instigated it (which I believe was done in good faith by someone who had not seen the previous discussion), but you had seen it, and have used this as an opporunity to pick up the stick once again. I note that in the short time between the two discussions you haven't taken the opportunity of improving the articles in any way. Perhaps you should make an effort in that regard? - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

See below - I have asked the closing admin their opinion whether a re-merge was given due consideration in the previous move discussion. As regard improvement to this, something about polishing a turd... (Not to mention the fact that any attempts to work on this article were met with extreme prejudice from your cabal - see discussions above - it's easy to be disheartened). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's bollocks. Just because you can't be bothered to do something constructive doensn't mean you can crap on the work of others. You were not "met with extreme prejudice from your cabal": in one instance you tried to do something that wasn't supported by sources and this was pointed out. in another instance (#Films within the infobox) there was agreement on how to proceed. Again: stop bitching about others and improve the article so it isn't a turd. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I have asked the closing admin at the previous discussion for their opinion as to whether it is appropriate to consider a re-merge. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with letting this discussion take place. In the previous RM, it looks like the option of merging only came up once, as one of the last comments in the discussion. If Rob had opened this discussion and no one else agreed with his proposal, it may be a bit WP:IDHT-ish. As such, there's some legitimate interest in the merge. There may still be consensus against it, but the issue should have its day in court, so to speak. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• CommentI just seen this and when I tried to use the franchise infobox, see previous discussion, the small clique who edit this article reverted it and as I said, waste of time and I'll add too many egos.REVUpminster (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the snide dig: a small number of people interested in this article does not a clique make. I'll also add that the change was made by one editor (as all edits are), not a collective number of people pressing a button simultaneously. Why don't you look in the edit history to see who made the change and ask them why, rather than try and smear anyone who is interested in this topic? - SchroCat (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because no one bothered to reply why a franchise infobox as used on the example franchise articles does not suit them. I suspect because this article was, as Robsinden said, guts ripped out to make another article. REVUpminster (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• So you whine about there being a clique just because no-one replied to something you asked? Good grief! Well, as Sinden was the editor who reverted your use of the franchise infobox, why don't you try asking him why? As to the information being moved, there is sufficient reason to have two pages, much as there are in other series and franchises. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Stop sulking and engage with a bit more civility. Otherwise I and the rest of my clique will start playing this Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• All the hot air above to avoid the question as to why a Franchise infobox is not used. Shall I restore the one I added?REVUpminster (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's no hot air, so drop the sarcasm, thanks. I've told you who changed the box and suggested you ask them why: that advice still stands, and I (again) suggest you direct the question directly to them. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• For the love of all that is holy, let's not mix a controversial merge discussion with an infobox discussion (I've never heard of a non-controversial infobox discussion). Let that sit for now and deal with one issue at a time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose to a misguided merge. The two pages have different focuses and cover different enough areas (as they do in other similar subjects). Just because this page is in a poor state does not in any circumstances mean that we should mix two pages of different subjects be mixed up together: it means that this page is of poor standard and needs work to bring it up to a decent standard, at which point the differences will be more apparent to even the most blinkered of bad faith editors. Although this may have been started in good faith by an editor, it is being dragged out by a bad faith editor to try and get his own way. Sadly this isn't the first time he's tried stirring like this, and sadly I doubt it'll be the last. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoah there! Do NOT accuse me of acting in bad faith. I genuinely believe that this franchise is best dealt with by a single article until such time as a split is warranted, and we are left with two decent articles. I consider the ripping the guts out of this article to create another one to be a misjudged move, leaving this with virtually no content, so I cannot see how the split was justified. I think that any blinkered view here is that of certain editors' obsessions with creating featured lists at the expense of articles. I assure you that there is no bad faith here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm being daft, but if the end result is "such time as a split is warranted, and we are left with two decent articles" is an end goal both parties can agree one, wouldn't improving this article with additional prose be much more efficient then trying to find a consensus to merge here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If this article were an involved and detailed history of the production of the entire series, then I could see the necessity for two articles. At the moment, anyone coming to this page finds next to nothing, leaving the other article as the de facto franchise article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There could be another article, a more detailed article called "Production of the Carry On series" or something that would explain the run up to how Rogers came up with the idea of the Carry On's", that's not a problem. Similar to the James Bond series would be how I would construct the series of articles that we have here. Cassianto^Talk 10:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'd have no problem with that. If we had the content to warrant it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But we don't need a third article when there isn't even enough content for two! The production can go here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is enough for two: you're just not looking at it the right way - or possibly not looking in the right places. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming around to the idea of two articles, but there's a lot of restructuring needed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose my views have not changed and I absolutely disagree with a merge. This list shows people what they want to see, the films, tv shows and stage plays. The other article contains crap about novelty key rings, t shirts, stamps and films that were rumoured to have been scripted but never made. This list is comprehensive and educational and the other article is of poor condition with barely enough to even be considered a stub let alone anything else. The other article holds non-important information and should have nothing to do with this FL. I find it a shame that Rob continues in his pursuit to ruin this article for the sake of having everything in one place. I hate the new "Carry On franchise" title as it is, what would be next rename this to that!? Cassianto^Talk 09:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But that's the problem. This article is in such a poor state because any decent content was ripped out to create the list article. And as for the title, per WP:NCF#Film franchise, it is correct and in the expected place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I created the "decent content", so I moved it where I thought best. Cassianto^Talk 10:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OWN: "It's my content, so I'll put it where I like". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like bollocks. I pointed out a fact. But hey, you carry on being a twat if you like. Cassianto^Talk 10:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Try looking at some of the other similar situations - Bond and Final Fantasy, for example - and base a reconstruction along similar lines. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't compare them. There is a wealth of information on those articles. What we have here is two articles when only one is needed (for the time being anyway). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

But merging a good article with one that can be good makes no sense at all, especially as there is a difference between the two topics. More sense to build this article up to a decent level and have two strong pages. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, taking a step back, a lot of the production information that should be used to flesh out this article is tied up in the notes section at the list article. If we were to keep two articles (and following the lead of the two Bond articles), should we not be using that information to improve this article as a production chronology (per James Bond in film), and leave the list article to deal with the plots (per List of James Bond films)? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to remove information from footnotes: we can duplicate some content from those footnotes into this article, as long as we are careful in what we are doing. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not footnotes, but the "notes" column in the table. If we're using the Bond model, then the list article should be for plot, not production information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat with Rob on that; production details (in a general sense) would be preferable here, rather than plot, particularly as there is no universal arc or interlocking stories. However, specific or unique details could also be at the list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure I dare show my face here since I seem to have partly ignited this heated dispute! I didn't know the full background to these articles beforehand, and I agree the split was premature: spinning out content is a tactic that is used to create two decent articles, and it shouldn't really leave the original article unfit for purpose, which is basically what has happened here. However, it went ahead and the second article has been reviewed and is now a featured list so let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not unusual across film franchise pages to have have an article detailing the background and production and a list detailing media, box office reception etc, so there is definitely the scope for a second article. If both pages were modelled on the james Bond articles then taking the production information out of the notes column and remerging that content back into the franchise article would at least make the franchise article serviceable again. To be fair, the notes column really blows up the rows at small screen resolutions (see IPad res), which was the main reason for taking the plot summaries out of the table at List of James Bond films. We don't have the production information in the Bond list so I don't really think we need it in the Carry On list either, and I think we can all agree that the franchise article needs to have something. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (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.

Structure

The above merge discussion was closed with no consensus, but I think we were reaching some kind of consensus regarding the structure of the articles and moving the production information here, and adding plot to the list article, although the conversation fizzled out. Should we look into this possibility further? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carry On (franchise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130527184026/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4417593.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4417593.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"...it is the longest continually running UK film series..."

Is there any evidence that this statement is not true of the James Bond series, which has been running "continually" for 53 years from first to last movie? Even if you count Casino Royale as a break - a tenuous claim given that continuity between films is sketchy at best and the Carry On series had no continuity whatsoever - it's still 40 years against Carry On's 34. And how is "longest continually running" defined? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. 45.72.244.163 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Depends what the definition of "Film series" is. One could argue that the Carry On films were produced by an ensemble cast and crew where as the Bond films have always been stand alone productions (executive producer notwithstanding!). 90.249.136.231 (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Poorly paid?"

I changed "poorly paid" to "modestly paid", although personally I would think they were well paid. If Kenneth Williams earnt £5000 for Carry On Behind (for example, one of the later films), that amount in 1975 is equivalent to about £40,000 to-day. For 6 weeks work. Or to put it another way, about an average Briton's annual salary in a month. Seems quite a lot to me. And the films helped them get loads of other well paid work, such as the associated stage shows and television specials, as well as advertising and sponsorship contracts, and other acting roles. So maybe "modestly" is correct compared to Bond stars, Alain Delon, Hollywood etc. But definitely not "poor". 66.130.207.107 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The "poorly paid" is cited to a source. If the source says poorly paid then that's what should be in the sentence. And the poorly paid is relative to other actors not the general workforce. If you check the source and it says something different, or is more nuanced then by all means change to match the source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)