Talk:Peter Sellers

Template:Vital article

Only in Wikipedia...

... would one see a horse-feathers quote/opinion like this:

‘The critic Irv Slifkin remarked that the film was a reflection of the cynicism of Peter Sellers, describing the film as a "proto-Pythonesque adaption of Terry Southern's semi-free-form short novel"

So whothefreak is Irv Sifkin and whotheflick cares?

Wikioblivia seems just over the horizon when twaddle like this is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:D1F:DB42:DCD8:1ABA (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Irv Slifkin...here you go. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Gestapo?

‘When he was told he could come on as someone else, he appeared dressed as a member of the Gestapo.’

What?

What Sellers did on Parkinson was perform an excerpt portraying the oddball New York character who wrote the musical ‘Springtime For Hitler’ which was the production featured in The Producers (musical)

Collapsed infobox

I don't see why we should collapse this infobox. In fact, I think that this breaks the rule of MOS:COLLAPSE. Why does every biographical article have an infobox for everybody to see perfectly, but here it is hidden out of sight. One of the reasons the box should be exposed upon landing on the page is that some people come to this article for a quick info glimpse and the infobox is great for summarising information instead of reading paragraphs just to get a certain point of info.

Quoting directly from Wikipedia Guidelines, "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading", this collapsable infobox breaks this rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content). Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Seems like an infobox would be useful.JOJ ^Hutton 01:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If you read the entire guideline you cite, you will find that collapsing portions of infoboxes is specifically permitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, think an infobox would be groovy, let's open that baby back up — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I emphatically support uncollapsing the infobox. When pretty much all similar articles' infoboxes are uncollapsed, and therefore readable at first glance, it's jarring to the average reader to find out they need to do another click to find out how old Sellers was when he died. Let's open it up for everyone without forcing them to open it themselves. Songwaters (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

per WP:DONTHIDE A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. I fail to see how the whole infobox is extraneous or trivial enough to warrant being pre-collapsed—blindlynx (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice. I agree, there's nothing trivial about the infobox. I really can't see any reason to keep it collapsed. Humbledaisy (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I also believe that the infobox would be better uncollapsed. If not completely (but why not?), at least when and where he was born and died (standard for biographies) and why we have an article for him, Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record which surprisingly is not even there yet. I'll add it. I don't think it's fair to force handicapped readers to an extra click to see that, - we do have readers for whom hitting the little "show" button is a problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Adding my support as well. A similar discussion on Frank Sinatra yielded consensus to uncollapse. I think all the arguments there apply here, especially with respect to accessibility and reader expectations (the "collapsed infobox" is not a common pattern as far as I can tell). At the time of that discussion I was lead to believe these changes required some sort of global site consensus. I no longer see any reason that should be the case. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Arguments made at another article don't apply here; if they did, there are several points made there re: remaining collapsed that would seem relevant. But with regards to the accessibility concern, the uncollapse is tab-accessible for those who may have challenges with clicking. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a newbie so plz feel free to put me in my place but how does one open it up so that we may reach a new consensus on what to do with the page presently? PeterSelIers (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• I also agree that we need to uncollapse the infobox. There is no need for it, and in fact makes it worse for people who might be disabled and not able to click easily. 101.103.133.192 (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Peter Sellers Infobox RfC

Should we uncollapse the infobox? Songwaters (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. When pretty much all similar articles' infoboxes are uncollapsed, and therefore readable at first glance, it's jarring to the average reader to find out they need to do another click to find out how old Sellers was when he died. It's an annoying hindrance to accessibility and reader experience, which are far more important than whether some editors think infoboxes are "ugly". Let's open it up for everyone without forcing them to open it themselves. Songwaters (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The problem with collapsed infoboxes or no infoboxes at all is that they make using Wikipedia more difficut and less useful for many readers. This is confirmed through dozens and dozens of requests at the few articles that are still missing infoboxes. Readers don't like using Wikipedia if it is going to be difficult to read or navagate, even if a small minority of active editors are still clinging to the outdated belief that infoboxes are unnecessary. Nobody starts an RFC or complains that an article has an infobox, only when one is missing.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, I hoped this stuff was mainly settled long ago. Absent a very strong reason not to do so, the article should have an infobox in standard, uncollapsed format. "I dislike infoboxes in general" does not constitute such a reason, and reading through prior discussions, that is the only thing that was advanced. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  no, the typical comment I see is not "I don't like them" but: "the editors of this featured article have decided ..." (see Ezra Pound and Cosima Wagner), sometimes described as a consensus, and I don't believe that we should let accessibility rest on the decisions of the authors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support Oh aye, right you are. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not while it contains useless information such as that London is in England, and per previous consensus. Johnbod (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - For usability. An infobox is less usable when collapsed. Also, to reply to Johnbod above, having the fact that London is in England would distinguish it from London, France, London, Ohio, London, Kentucky... the list actually goes on quite a bit[1]. There's LOTS of Londons in the world, and no reason why a birthplace or deathplace would necessarily be only the biggest one. So yes, if you say "London", adding "England" is a good idea. Fieari (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The communitity long ago decided otherwise - see MOS:OVERLINK, where it is specifically mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Are you simply objecting to it being wikilinked? Then unlink it and leave it as text. Why is this a problem? Fieari (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. If a parameter of information is useless that can be discussed. To distinguish Londons is a good idea, per above comment. JOJ, I fixed your signature, I don't know if an accident happened or if the end for font comes too late in your definition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The communitity long ago decided otherwise - see MOS:OVERLINK, where it is specifically mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - It baffles me that there's still so much opposition to infoboxes when it's clear than they are extremely useful to readers. Even more, having an infobox, but collapsing it by default seems like a compromise measure that doesn't really please anyone. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this subject is the only reason I made an account on here. I'm so glad you've opened this up for discussion, thank you! peter sellers is my best friend 12:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - even without the recent trimming (which doesn't really seem needed in my opinion), this infobox is ridiculously short and I see no good reason to keep it collapsed. Remagoxer ^(talk) 13:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is just better to see within a glance the info box, taking the time to click to view takes away from the experience. Tepkunset (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Infoboxes are useful and accessible for all. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Was done to be a compromise between those who wanted no infobox and those who wanted one, and no basic biographical details of Sellers have changed since then for me to justify removing this compromise solution.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per MOS:DONTHIDE. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The history shows (accurately) that I reverted your support BillMammal. It was not an intentional rollback. Big thumb. Sorry about that. Moriori (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DONTHIDE, I don't see a reason why this has a collapsed infobox, and is also not standard with other biographical articles in Wikipedia. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, it felt like such an obvious improvement that I did it myself before realizing there was a discussion ongoing and self-reverted. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the number of and arguments for support, and since it's been about a week since any opposition has been presented without any follow up arguments, I think we have a clear consensus to remove the collapsing features. I am going to go ahead and do so. As someone included in the discussion though, if anyone thinks this discussion is in some way ambiguous, we can continue the conversation and revert it back to status quo. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Cerebral726, given that you participated in the discussion, and particularly given that you were among those who did not put forward any substantive reasoning, it would be best to self-revert. There are still issues warranting discussion here, particularly the matter of MOS:DONTHIDE and whether extraneous detail ought to be included. Some comments above focus on whether there should be an infobox at all rather than what should actually be displayed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not feel the need to reiterate the arguments set forth. Simply restating the solid reasoning presented before me would not have made my arguments any more substantive. Given the overwhelming support for removing the collapsing feature, do you think consensus could be reached in the other direction for that aspect of the discussion? If not, then it should probably be left, and a separate discussion started on the content that should be included in the infobox. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since consensus is not a vote, there is room for more nuanced outcomes than simply yes/no. I don't see a reason to cut off that possibility. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is being cut off. The discussion can continue about what should be included in the infobox; one of the reasons I didn't formally close the discussion was to allow it to continue in this direction if necessary. However, I don't see a reason to revert the clear consensus to remove the collapsing feature unless you think that that particular aspect of the discussion (which was what the RfC was explicitly about) could be overturned with further discussion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have a question for you. Why are you trying so hard to keep the infobox collapsed, since 2014? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That's been the compromise position between those in favour of and those against an infobox here for years, even before 2014. Part of the issue at play is the inclusion of extraneous detail like the dates of divorce. With the collapse in place, it's not much of a problem; with it removed, we're giving that more prominence than is warranted, and obscuring details that are actually significant. Cerebral726, that is part of why this is such a problematic cutting off of discussion: it presumes that the only possible outcome to this RfC is either collapse or don't, whereas there is still room for a compromise position. The arguments put forward for not collapsing largely do not address what should appear in an uncollapsed template, but make more general points or none at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is an entirely sensible position. Am I the only one who finds the sudden influx of Peter Sellers fans a tad suspicious? Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod: Suspicious how? Are you making an accusation of canvassing? Because no one was pinged or emailed. Nikkimaria: Finding out whether or not to uncollapse the infobox is the whole point of this RfC. I did not ask what should appear in the infobox, only whether we should open it up so that readers can glance at it without having to give an extra click. That's what this is about. Songwaters (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the implication is here by Johnbod, but I'd like to keep the discussion on topic. Regardless of what is in the infobox, the unambiguous consensus has become to uncollapse the infobox, an action I have performed and is unlikely to be overturned by further discussion. I think the best way forward is to start a new thread discussing the contents of the infobox. This is a separate (albeit related) subject, and by refocusing the discussion on this topic people can choose to make arguments about what should appear in the newly decided state of the infobox (something not everybody did when the discussion was only on the option of it being collapsed or not, as you mentioned). I hope this help keep the discussion moving and you can unambiguously present your arguments. --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs! You are hardly uninvolved, and should not have jumped the gun. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I was careful to do just that before removing the collapsing feature. Particularly, reason 5 was relevant, stating "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." The overwhelming amount of support for the initial focus of the RFC was unambiguous, and no arguments had been made for about a week, so I took the action determined. --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What information should be included in the infobox?

Per the discussion above, I have started a new discussion on the state of the infobox. Pinging all previously involved parties: Songwaters Jojhutton Seraphimblade Gerda Arendt EnlightenmentNow1792 Johnbod Fieari PraiseVivec RemagoxerTepkunset Humbledaisy Spy-cicle BilledMammal Moriori Pyraminxsolver Nikkimaria

What information should be kept or removed from the infobox? --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep birth date and place, death date and place, image, and occupation. Revert the involved closure until the question of what exactly will be uncollapsed is addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Image, date of birth, place of birth, date of death, place of death, occupation, years active, spouses, and children. These are standard in entertainer infoboxes. Songwaters (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• What parameters to use is decided on a case-by-case basis; there is no "standard". And years active is particularly useless in this case since it's essentially lifespan. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep what Songwaters said. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Songwaters for consistency across articles and ease of access to useful information. The inclusion of years active, spouses, and children are informative, standard, and critical to the life of the subject. --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Per Songwaters, provided, of course, that the material in question is reliably sourced (if it is sourced within the article itself, the sourcing need not be duplicated in the infobox). If all of that information is verified by reliable sources, it should be present in the infobox. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• I support that the content when the infobox was collapsed (listed by Songwaters) should be retained, as having been stable for a long time. Only changes would need a discussion. I don't need "years active" (ever), raising the question active in which function, - too complex for a person who did many things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)