Talk:The Intro and the Outro

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Deletion of the article

I undid the deletion of this article. Having seen any number of articles of questionable worth linger on for years while comments were made about whether or not they were noteworthy or of value or whatever I object to this one being axed, seemingly based on a single person's judgement and without any discussion, call for revision, etc. PurpleChez (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially "I don't like that my article was removed while shit ones weren't". I'll submit it to AfD and we'll see about it there. Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No...essentially I don't like that you set yourself up as the sole and final authority on the matter, that you proposed discussion of the matter only after your unilateral decision was questioned. And I see that you have taken this upon yourself numerous other times. Dang...the tone of your comment above is so incredibly petulent...sounds like a punk kid who didn't get his way..."We'll see about it there"...gimme a break. You do as you please and if anyone says "wait a minute" you mock them.... Nice double standard....PurpleChez (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's perfectly acceptable and conventional to nominate an article for AfD after PROD. Perhaps you should consider the sentence "You do as you please and if anyone says "wait a minute" you mock them.... Nice double standard...." when you accuse someone of petulance. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you DIDN'T nominate...you just deleted. You only nominated after I called you on it. "You do as you please" is not petulant...it's an apt description of how you handled this situation and, apparently, others. PurpleChez (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that this article was up for deletion! I've just searched for it and found it useful. Like the editor below, I have been corrected on 'Zebra Kid' too. I'm not convinced that putting the performers in two columns would help. It's a shame we don't have a source for the inspiration behind the idea or anything else of relevance to its creation. GlenUsk2 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel section

It's too long! I wikified it and removed anyone who didn't have an instrument/wasn't a famous person. It's funny to have Dan Druff in the song but I don't think we need to make his presence known in an encyclopaedia entry. If anyone knows how to format the list so it's the two columns that would be perfect and then I think we could leave it as is but at the moment it still looks a little shoddy. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will come to this article specifically to understand who these people were. If there are missing entries then their reasonable needs will not be met. I also do not understand why the links to the instruments have been removed in this version. There seems to be no countervailing benefit for truncation of this section and so I shall revert.

As an example, I have long misheard the song as announcing "Horace Batchelor and Zebra Kitten". I had supposed that the latter was some starlet but, on my last visit here learnt that this person was, in fact, The Zebra Kid. I feel much better for knowing this and so wish that we should likewise help our readership go away feeling enlightened and contented.

Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Man of Borneo

I have added a piped link to Oofty Goofty, but other interpretations are possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do any sources favour Dayak people, Oofty Goofty or band member Fred Munt? Currently all three are linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rawlinsons

I can't pretend to know the intimate details of the evolution of Vivian Stanshall's private universe but, while it seems almost certain that some line can be drawn between his mention of "The Rawlinsons" in this song and later works including a Bonzo Dog Band track, BBC radio sessions, 2 LPs and a film, the mention here clearly can't be referencing the radio sessions (not programmes), of which the earliest, according to Wikipedia's own article on Rawlinson End, was a one-off in March 1971 (about 4 years after this track was recorded) that was developed into the Bonzos track later that year, followed 4 years later by the first of the ongoing series of radio sessions. The mention here therefore implies clairvoyance on Stanshall's part about his future work - his use of Rawlinson here may signify nothing more than that he liked the sound of the name, just as he also evidently found the name Maynard funny, used it in a Bonzos track and later worked it into Rawlinson End. So I'm going to remove this mention because the connection, although there undoubtedly is one, can't be a "reference to 'Rawlinson’s End', a radio programme created by Stanshall" whose first iteration was 4 years later and is therefore far too tenuous and speculative to be worthy of mention here - and unreferenced. The linking of "The Rawlinsons" to the article on Stanshall is also spurious - if the mention were to be left in, it should surely be linked to the article on Rawlinson End. I'm minded to also remove the subsequent mentions of "Wild Man of Borneo" (again speculative, and unreferenced) and "a sessions gorilla on vox humana".Freewheeling frankie (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you sign your post above please? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]