Talk:Fawlty Towers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fawlty Towers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 16, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

BBC (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British / Episode coverage / Fawlty Towers High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Fawlty Towers task force (assessed as High-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Nigger#British|niggers]] The anchor (#British) has been deleted by other users before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Link to ancient fansite in infobox

Does anyone know how to remove the link to that fossil of a fansite (though a surely worthy one in its time), fawltytowers.net, in the infobox? I can't find the source text in the editor. If anywhere, the page should be listed under External Links at the bottom of the article; a link to the show's BBC page would make more sense for the infobox. --Tserton (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for each episode

I think there is a strong argument for each episode to have its own article on Wikipedia. This is the case for Dad's Army and I think this should also be the case for each of the 12 Fawlty Towers episodes. Rillington (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can such material be reliably sourced? HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of each of the following articles has been replaced by the same editor with (poor) redirects, as far as I can see without any consensus for this action, and the deleted content should in my opinion be reinstated and improved:

while only The Germans and Waldorf Salad (Fawlty Towers) survived.

213.18.169.85 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several programmes about the series and likely plenty of articles on the internet and in books about each episode, more than enough to justify separate articles for each episode. Rillington (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To resuscitate the content of these articles you will need to add specific references for each episode to address WP:NTVEP. I think it is likely that each British Broadsheet will have carried a review for each episode the day after its first broadcast, but finding the references for these reviews may not be easy now. 213.18.169.85 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles seem to have independent references so this barrier has already been overcome. Rillington (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

If the reboot is definitely happening it will be a completely different show, so I think it should be a separate article, as was done for example with Porridge (1974 TV series) and Porridge (2016 TV series). Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the moment this is still a proposed remake, there are various people on board but lots of TV projects get to this stage and further but don't make it to the studio, let alone broadcast. There are no channels associated with the project and only two cast members announced.

I mean yes if and when it does get scheduled probably a separate article, but for now I think just a section here. Rankersbo (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleese has just done an interview where he says he and his daughter have been working on it for "about a week" and that they've "only just started to think about it" due to his various other ongoing projects. So I guess we shouldn't hold our breath. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the lines (of various news reports, all of which appear to have dropped the reboot story circa: mid 2024), it appears the whole idea simply died.

Probably a good idea. 2A00:23C6:70C2:801:7451:9C2C:C931:7679 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Section

Including at least some of the prominent people illustrates the show's influence in the wider public consciousness across time periods and can go beyond just direct inspiration to other comedy writing, but also film making/songwriting (John Lennon, Martin Scorsese) and at the highest level of government, Prince William. Those things are symbolic beyond just those people liking the show. Less sure about the Kate Bush reference, but at least those three I think would be relevant. And none of the references are close to being People Magazine. @Barry Wom newsjunkie (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit and I don't think it adds to the article. If Lennon's desire to appear in the series had progressed further than him saying this to an interviewer, or Scorsese had praised the direction or used a particular episode as specific inspiration for a film scene, that would add some meaningful depth to the text, but quotes of "greatest show I've seen in years" and "favourite episode" do not.

The public view of the series is already well demonstrated by the polls in Fawlty Towers#Retrospective, where 21st century audiences are shown to be still ranking it highly. Belbury (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I only added the Prince William one today, the other examples were longstanding there before. I think impact can go beyond just a being a direct inspiration though, but also just showing its widespread popularity - just those three examples are very different people and backgrounds, which is something that cannot be said for every show. Something being well known and respected by specific prominent people is not always the same thing just as being popular in audience rankings, and specific examples can illustrate that in a way a general poll description can't. newsjunkie (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]