Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Goodness Gracious Me (BBC) TV Show

@Graham Beards I was not given the chance of a "right to reply" on the previous talk page before you archived it. Any removal of this inclusion will be tantamount to censorship. As other editors have pointed out, certain roles may come into question on this matter and how this article is managed. I will place my proposal here and do not wish to be involved in any further edits on this article, However, I strongly support the following inclusion:

For approval/consideration in the "Legacy” section:

Sellers’s wider impact can be seen with the British TV comedy/sketch series Goodness Gracious Me (BBC). The programme originated from the stage show "Peter Sellers is Dead”. The cast of south asian/indian descent challenged mainstream media depictions of their community by creating more representative versions. Sellers was associated with those mainstream depictions, in a time when white actors had “blacked up” for ethnic roles. 12

The above draft is for consideration. Not trivial or the slightest bit POV/Balham-ish. Cheers. MrBalham2 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I find the current Legacy section to be a somewhat random and eclectic collection of factoids about Sellers. Not sure why some of them are there. The above suggestion could perhaps be repackaged to highlight that out of many possible candidates he was chosen to represent a particular time in British entertainment, particularly by some who wanted to see something different in the future. It is definitely part of his legacy, and probably more important than what Lord Snowdon thought about a film about him. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Really poorly written, not entirely substantiated by the sources used, and utterly trivial. In what way is this part of Sellers's legacy? That a stage show used his name? I can't think of a more trivial piece of nonsense to include. – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I explained why it is part of Sellers' legacy in my post. They used his name, and not just by accident. Do I need to elaborate? HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the sources make a terribly strong claim on the use of the name – probably not strong enough for inclusion, especially when this is a rather trivial point that struggles to come up to the level of "legacy". I take your point about the Snowden quote: that was added relatively recently when someone complained that the article finished with the negative quote by Ekland, and this was a way to balance the viewpoint. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the posts of Hilo48 and MrBalhum. It is an interesting idea. It's not trivial and merits mention. I'd like to see more input from new editors on this. I would also like the disruption from Cassianto, Schrocat and Graham Beards to stop. Please focus on the proposed suggestion and remain civil. Thank you. Caden ^cool 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Disruption"? You think it's fine to insult others and ask people to remain civil? Can you not see how that comes across at all?

In terms of the content, an "interesting idea" just doesn't cut the mustard for featured content, especially on such slim sources. In terms of Sellers's career and its lasting impact, this really is a trivial piece of nothingness, and just looks like we've scraped the barrel to find something to throw onto the page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, disruption from you three. I'm not the one cussing up a storm, I'm not the one attacking others by calling them trolls. Yes i have defended myself when you and cass tell me to fuck off. But i have never crossed the line with filth as you two have. Furthermore I think its disgusting to see an admin like Graham calling all of us who disagree trolls on his talk page. Caden ^cool 23:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

But you are a troll. If the cap fits, wear it. Cassianto^talk 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to labour the point, as I'd hope we call all move away from the incivility, you have been just as culpable in turning the previous thread into the toxic mess it was, and you really can't claim any moral high ground here. I suggest all parties try to move on, without ever-more pointy comments, and without finger-pointing and insult throwing. Can you manage that Caden? - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

[left] This information should not be added as it is factodial nonsense. Cassianto^talk 23:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Sellers, but I have participated in the the PR and FAC stages, and it seems to me that the proposed additions are not a good thing. A keen eye for relevance is required for all articles, and most particularly for FAs, and I think the mildly interesting statements put forward for post-FAC incorporation belong elsewhere, if at all. Tim riley talk 23:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good editors of Wikipedia need to apply WP:editorial discretion to separate the wheat from the chaff, or fancruft. The proposed statement is trivial and does not add anything encyclopedic to Sellers' excellent biography. I agree with Schrocat. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the view that becoming a "good" or "featured" article should lock an article up forever. Not a healthy position to take. It's a poor argument, and when I see poor arguments against a proposal it makes me wonder what is really going on in peoples' minds. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. All should—and are—open to editing, but only if it is good, valid and suitable. This addition just isn't. It's not the writing either, it's the subject: as it stands, it's trivia. What a featured article means, in my opinion, is that we have to be sure that when we alter, or add to the article, it must improve the article, and be of an equally high standard as the extant text (both in terms of the standard of prose and the relevance of the content). I'm just not sure that's the case here. – SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It won't be long before Cassianto, Schrocat and Tim riley pass out more barnstars to Ssilvers again. When I asked for new editors to give some input I wasn't talking about all the buddies of Cass and Schrocat to come running to support their views. What we need here is some unbiased, neutral, fair, and honest feedback from editors who have no ties to the cass and schrocat good article club. I swear this club is beginning to smell very badly. Caden ^cool 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Caden, please try to retain AGF and remain civil. If you continue to comment on other editors in a depreciatory manner, this thread stands a good chance of going toxic once again, as people react to your unfounded slurs and comments. – SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Schrocat please practice what you preach instead of being such a hypocrite. Thank you. Caden ^cool 06:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to forget the behaviour of badly behaved editors that easily. Caden's comments are perfectly understandable given the recent history on this page. However, I'll acknowledge that you, at least, seem to be doing better this time round. So let's keep it that way.

Now, it's inevitable that some editors who worked hard to make a good article would like to think that it's close to perfect, but our work is never finished here. No article should ever remain frozen in time. Typically only a handful of editors work on an article at any given time. new ones will come along with different knowledge and perspectives. They should be welcomed. Not turned away with an attitude that everything is perfect now. The proposed addition here is an interesting perspective on Sellers' legacy. Perspectives change. His "blackface" work was OK for its time, but the view from later on sees it differently. His work was seen as important enough among all those who did blackface to be the name they chose, out of many possibilities, to represent that time. It IS part of HIS legacy, and not part of somebody else's legacy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes HiLo, Caden's input was one of the reasons the thread went toxic in the first place. As I've said above, I don't want to labour the point, but it would help is Caden moderated his approach, or people will react in a fitting manner.

But what you are writing here just isn't strongly enough reflected in the source. It's tenuously covered in the two sources, and there's a lot of OR involved in making the thread fit, just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And no Schrocat it was YOUR input that was one of the reasons the other thread went toxic in the first place. It would help if schrocat would stop with his vicious attacks on me. Caden ^cool 07:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

caden, there is nothing "vicious" in me asking you to remain civil. You, along with numerous others—including me—turned the previous thread toxic. It's not time to dwell on that, but to try and move in to be constructive. Can you do that please? - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can. Just please stop singling me out. Caden ^cool 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly tenuous. The creators of the series chose to use an obvious Sellers' quotation, rather than anyone else's. That's obvious. blue sky stuff. The articles explain why, using his name. There's little more that can be said. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not at BLUESKY level at all. On the basis of her information from those sources, to claim too much is either going into OR, or synthesis territory, I'm afraid. And it's not an "obvious Sellers quotation": I remember Dick Emery, Ronnie Barker, and the Indian character from Mind Your Language all using the same phrase – and two of those were white comedians also 'blacked up'. That's one of my issues here: it's not a Sellers legacy, it's the legacy of British comedy from the 1950s until the late 80s/early 90s. Milligan would also black up, as would a number of other comedians (let alone the 30 years of The Black and White Minstrel Show on British television! – SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But the articles and the creators of the show named Sellers, not those other performers. This is pretty clear stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's not just about Sellers. Both articles say something along the lines of "to signify the end of white actors 'blacking up' " (quote from Screenonline). So it's not just about Sellers, it's about comedians in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s in general. Sellers was presumably chosen because he was high-profile, although it could have been because he played Indian characters in films, or because he did it more than others, or better than others, or because he was dead and they couldn't libel him. All possible reasons, and no clarification from the source means we don't know and can't make it up. Essentially this boils down to Sellers's "legacy" being that a small stage show used his name in the 1990s (even though they could have used the name of numerous other actors), and that stage show changed it's name to something else when it hit television and people became aware of it. That's not exactly germane enough to include here, and if it had been in the article originally, it would have been ripped out at PR, let alone FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's badly written. For starters, "south asian/indian descent" isn't even capitalized where applicable. Ouch. And it's trivial. This seems more an attempt to give weight (undue at that) to a short-lived series in Sellers' biography. The sources mention the name "Sellers" only 3 times; and it is only to mention the title "Peter Sellers Is Dead". Therefore there are concerns of potential original research. I would not include this content here. Doc talk 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Bad writing" can be fixed. I often improve the prose of those adding valuable information to articles. You can too. I can see the value of this addition. It highlights how, to the creators of the series involved, Peter Sellers work, among all the people who did blackface, was the one whose they chose to use, not anybody else's. It IS part of his legacy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I detect a whiff of paranoia in Caden's comments? Imagining that some conspiracy exists between experienced editors who frequently contribute to peer review and FACs in similar areas certainly seems a touch delusional. Caden's imaginary coven comprises four editors who have jointly or severally steered more than fifty articles to FA, and have reviewed hundreds for PR and FAC. One keeps an eye on many FAs one has reviewed as well as those to which one has contributed. If a discussion such as this were about an astrophysicist or rugger player it would not have come to my attention. As to the substantive question, there is no consensus for the proposed addition and throwing slurs, accusations and sneers at the main authors is no way of achieving one. – Tim riley talk 07:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, this whole thing again?? The sooner Graham Beards locks this talk page too the better. The time wasted over this non entity of content is atrocious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Locking the talk page in order to prevent discussion of potential content? Yeah, that's not a good idea. Doc talk 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential? Hardly. I've not seen anybody turn up here with a constructive suggestion which will actually improve the article in a long time. The talk page causes far more trouble than it would be in stopping anybody wanting to comment on it in the rare chance they might have a point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Capping an unproductive and increasingly insulting thread. Let's all move back to the issue at hand. - SchroCat (talk)

::I make it 7 to 3 in favour of not adding the information. I think it will be a good idea to walk away and shun the trolls. Cassiantotalk 08:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I don't agree with the troll characterization at all. And edit-warring on this thread with edit summaries suggesting that one should go play in traffic: nasty low-grade bullying, really. Doc talk 08:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Fortunately, I couldn't give a fuck what you think really. Cassiantotalk 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The shit's being thrown again, by the self-appointed article owners. Sad. Wikipedia shouldn't work like this. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I'm out of here. Bad ownership. No point trying to make it work. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed Infobox

I was wondering why the Infobox is collapsed. I edited it because it seemed nonsensical, and upon wondering why it was that way in the first place, discovered that this was a long time issue, and submitted a blank edit with my two sense, only to be reverted; being cited with some mystical consensus that does not, has not, and will not exist on Wikipedia. Of course, I brought this up on my talk page, only to be verbally berated by SchroCat who thinks that I want to engage in an edit war. I wish to clarify for SchroCat: I gave the 72-hour deadline to prevent an edit war by allowing for discussion while at the same time avoiding being pocket vetoed. Then Cassianto comes in and starts attacking me on my talk page. I call for a formal discussion and debate to finally end this madness. My arguments are that if you're going to have an infobox serve the purpose which they are there for, which is, to act like an anchor for viewers, then it makes no sense to have the viewer click on something to obtain the information within. I would have to read 3,414 characters before even obtaining his age at the time of death. This is unacceptable. For some reason, 2-3 editors feel like they own this article simply because they have significantly contributed to it. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

1. You were not "verbally berated": you were told to use the article's talk page instead of edit warring, which you had needlessly threatened to do. You don't give deadlines "respond or I'll edit war": you use the article talk page. Please learn this quickly, as it's fundamental to the way Wikipedia works.

2. I'm terribly sorry that you couldn't read the word "show" on the collapsed IB which would have provided you with the least important piece of trivial shit about Sellers, his work and his life. What a trauma it must have been for you to have to come to a text-based encyclopaedia and actually have to read something. How terrible for you, and how equally terrible that in that 3,414 characters of potted background, you may actually have learned something about the man. That really is unacceptable. I'm also so sorry that your maths is so parlous that you couldn't work out a rough age from his birth and death years in the opening line. What a terrible time you must have had in trying to remove all the knowledge from your memory, just so you could remember the most pointless "fact" about Sellers there is to know. - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Cassianto comes in and starts attacking me on my talk page" Are you sure about that K scheik? Cassianto^Talk 10:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The decision came after a very long discussion. And K scheik all of the main editors to this article would prefer not to have one, but due to concerns about it and tiring of the endless debate we compromised with a collapsible identibox. If there was real "ownership" we'd not have one at all. Please let's not get into another dispute and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While SchroCat and Cassianto's respective opinions are regrettable, I do agree with Blofield on some of his/her points. However, if Dr. Blofield feels that this is a unneeded inconvenience, he may feel free to excuse him/herself. This would be ultimately unfortunate as he seems apt to actually raise good points and speak with civility. As can be gleaned from these good faith edits: [1][2][3][4] some people do not agree with the current situation, prompting me to start this discussion. Do you agree that this is grounds for a discussion? — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 13:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully all I can see on my screen is a nice photograph without an infobox due to my suppression of them, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision to have an identibox was the result of a very prolonged discussion involving many editors, and I'm sure even Gerda would acknowledge that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with your opinion, it is extremely uncivil to discount it as "regrettable", and if you wish to be taken at all seriously, perhaps you culdadjust your attitude appropriately. Shall we also dismiss your opinion and your inability to click on the "show" button as "regrettable"? So far I have not seen you come up with any good reasons why we need to change the current format of the IB: perhaps you should concentrate on providing those reasons, rather than attempting to belittle others? - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

K scheik, this is WP:CANVASSING: it is inappropriate, unacceptable and will lead to censure if you try and do it again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not canvassing. That is me trying to broaden participation which is perfectly acceptable. When I called your opinion "regrettable" I was referring to you insulting my Math skills when you said it was "parlous" and for Cassianto, his pulling up of a completely random and unrelated edit on a talk that he was not even participating in. I have brought up some good reasons that you "culdadjust" your mystical consensus on the infobox. Expanding the infobox would not actually displace any words on the article, and would not make a difference anywhere, in fact, all it would do is just provide the viewer with extra information faster. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 14:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not you "broadening participation". That is you canvassing. If you wished to do the former, you could have opened up an RfC. Gerda is prohibited with certain things to do with info boxes, so it's a wasted post anyway. Cassianto^Talk 14:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No: CANVASSING is exactly what you were doing: you went to a single user who you knew thinks one way about IBs (as can be seen from your message). It's disingenuous to try and claim it is anything but canvassing.

In terms of the IB, you still have not come up with any single good reason why it should not be collapsed, with the exception that a viewer might see such rich detail as his age at death one second faster if they didn't have to click on the "show" button. That's not particularly good enough, really. My comments on your maths skills were germane, by the way: you can get an approximate date of death from the first line if you can subtract the year of birth from the year of death, even if you were unable to click on the show button. The information is all there, but not plastered across a large space. You are still not coming up with much in the way of good reason to overturn the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and even if it wasn't Gerda the way it was worded literally begging her for support is classic canvassing. If he'd asked a neutral editor "Any chance you could weigh in at the discussion" it would be different.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I did that, is because Gerda had thanked me for what might amount to almost every edit I have made related to this topic. I then went to her and asked if she wanted to weigh in on the discussion, since she seemed to have an opinion. It is simply inconvenient that any viewer should have to do a subtraction problem to glean the age of Mr. Sellers at his death. Provided that the viewer didn't want to do the math, it would take the average reader around two minutes (250 wpm avg.) to reach the sentence in which his age at death is given. There is no reason that this infobox should be collapsed as, if it was expanded it would not displace any text, nor would it cause any inconvenience. If it were such a "turd" as you claim, then it wouldn't be the status quo on Wikipedia. There have only been isloated incidences in which the community decided to not implement an infobox in an article related to a person. I should encourage you to keep civil, as this is a debate, not an argument. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 16:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that Gerda likes infoboxes. We all know what your motive was. Cassianto^Talk 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not for me? I had no idea who Gerda was. Please get back to the issue on hand, and remain civil. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You have still not given any good reasons for not having the collapsed IB. If you cannot read the lead, click "show" on the IB, which will give you pointless factoids if that's what you want. This will avoid having to do the very tricky maths of 80-25 from the opening sentence, and save you all the bother of reading words in this text-based encyclopaedia. I am at a loss as to understand why you are reticent to take that tiny, tiny step, apart from WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Please come up with good reasons for changing the status quo, or move on to something different. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're chatting bullshit; you must've known who Gerda was, and the fact she liked info boxes, as you would never have canvassed her for her support. Cassianto^Talk 17:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the very contradiction in "I didn't realize what i was stepping into." vs "There have only been isloated incidences in which the community decided to not implement an infobox in an article related to a person." If he was being honest he'd not have even known about the other cases or the result of them. Also how could you have known about those disputes and not have known who Gerda is, seriously..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but my internet has been if-y around here as of late. I will repeat myself again, Gerda was and continues to thank me for every edit I have made related to this topic, therefore I assumed that she had an opinion, and urged her to share. I had no certainty of what her opinion was, but assumed that she must have had some reason for thanking me for the edits, so I, wanting to improve the debate (not argument) urged her to share, as this is a debate and is only affected by the quality of arguments, not quantity. Now, tell me what the advantage of having the infobox collapsed is? Not having to look at an (arguable) eyesore, that many people look to for quick easily accessible information? The average attention span of a webpage viewer is something around 30 seconds, so having them read for 2 minutes plus is not a very good idea for information such as age at time of death. Especially in the case where he was remarkably young to die. Therefore it makes no sense to have something collapsed when if it was open, it would not affect anybody in the least bit, where as having it closed could potentially prevent a viewer from finding the information he/she wanted. When I first read the article, I automatically skimmed it for key info, and missed the rather small (show) button, which I didn't see until my third or fourth visit to the page, and even then I had to examine the well-written article just to find it. I would encourage some neutral editors to share their view here. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 19:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is still nothing to your argument except WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, which is an insufficient basis to change the consensus it seems, and certainly not for the least interesting piece of information about Sellers. (And no, 54 is not "remarkably young": 5 or 6 or 10 is remarkably young, not 54). - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion the collapsible infobox is perfectly acceptable. Personally I don't like infoboxes as I think they rather detract from the content and I don't put them on the articles I write. If it was up to me I would do away with them completely, but I think the collapsible one here is a great compromise. Jack1956 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'm using "remarkable" lightly when I refer to Mr. Sellers untimely death, due to a massive heart attack, the second he entered his hotel. Also, I have provided plenty of reasons other than "I don't like it." Your comments could be viewed by some as personal attacks, so I would advise you to keep a civil tone. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You may not be using it lightly, but you are using it incorrectly. You are also incorrect when you say he had a heart attack "the second he entered the hotel", but as you haven't bothered to read the article, I shouldn't be too surprised. For the record, my comments are entirely civil and not even remotely close to being a personal attack. Calling someone a prick is a personal attack. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As is insulting someone's math skills, making sarcastic comments, and asking them if they're "12 or 13?" Please get back to the issue on hand. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 16:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for saying that he died of a heart attack "the second he entered the hotel" instead of saying, "He collapsed shortly after he entered his hotel, and was taken to a hospital and died." I'm actually not sorry. It's not a huge deal and doesn't affect any of my arguments. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 16:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

But you haven't actually given any arguments, apart from the fact you don't like it. The opinion so far is against you, and you have not given any reasons that we need to overturn the longstanding consensus of the collapsed box. I suggest this thread is now quietly closed and the rest of us can go back to being constructive elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(BTW, it wasn't even "shortly after he entered his hotel": it was the following day. I suspect your time would probably be better spent reading the article than prolonging this discussion). - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The "insult" of calling you 12 or 13 (if you want to call it that) came as a result of you calling SchroCat a "prick". Why don't you get on with answering all the points from the neutral editors who have taken the time to post since then? Better still, why don't you just disappear as you are becoming quite irritating. Cassianto^Talk 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

While you may want this discussion to be closed, or me to "disappear", I will not. This is because I firmly believe in my point of view, and am not one for capitulating. For the last time, my arguments are not "I don't like it" they're more along the lines of: Now, tell me what the advantage of having the infobox collapsed is? Not having to look at an (arguable) eyesore, that many people look to for quick easily accessible information? The average attention span of a web page viewer is something around 30 seconds (or 3 seconds depending on source), so having them read for 2 minutes plus is not a very good idea for information such as age at time of death. Especially in the case where he was remarkably young to die. Therefore it makes no sense to have something collapsed when if it was open, it would not affect anybody in the least bit, whereas having it closed could potentially prevent a viewer from finding the information he/she wanted. When I first read the article, I automatically skimmed it for key info, and missed the rather small (show) button, which I didn't see until my third or fourth visit to the page, and even then I had to examine the well-written article just to find it. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeating something isn't going to make anyone change their mind, I'm afraid. You have not come up with any good arguments for the status quo to be changed, and so far the consensus is against you. Keeping the thread open by repetition is just becoming disruptive. Time to be constructive elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Disinfobox: "Brief Summary"?

Gosh, this infobox is horrible, whether collapsed or not. It contains "information" that does not convey the important information about Sellers that is described so well in the LEAD section. It says, for instance, that Sellers is "Known for: Character acting and improvisation". You'd think that he was famous for Saturday Night Live, when in fact, he is best known as a comic film actor. Who cares about his spouses?. When collapsed, the box says "Brief Summary", but it does NOT contain a brief summary of Sellers' life and career -- the LEAD section does that. What the box contains is a bunch of factoids, some of which are misleading, and others of which emphasise unimportant material. I suggest deleting it. If it must be there, then collapsed is better, but can we please change "Brief Summary" to something more accurate like "Some stuff out of context that is more clearly and usefully stated elsewhere"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I'd rather the thing was removed in its entirety, but the last consensus (way back in Nov 2013) was to keep it. As a mid-choice between the two, I would take this option which wasn't given enough of an airing last time before the closing admin acted slightly precipitately in closing the entire thread before this was adequately discussed. – SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. But I detest identiboxes more than the full infobox myself. That said, if they're particularly long and bloated, like the Meryl Streep one I'd probably opt for one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese-Jewish descent

He's tagged in this category. The article states that his mother was related to Daniel Mendoza, but "related to" isn't the same thing as "descended from". I'm not questioning this claim, but just wondered if there is a source that actually demonstrates it. Shiresman (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfinished projects

According to a these biographies, Sellers was involved in a few projects at the time of his death, besides Romance of the Pink Panther, that were either cancelled or made without him. For example: one biography states that he was to appear in the remake of Unfaithfully Yours, a film titled Chandu the Magician and a Satyajit Ray film under the science fiction genre; another biography states that the Satyajit Ray film was to have been "about an interplanetary alien"; a Hal Ashby biography states that Sellers was to appear in Asbhy's film Grossing Out.

There are similar sections found in the John Candy and Chris Farley articles. After all, not only were Candy and Farley comedians like Sellers, they also died young and unexpected. So, I thought an "Unfinished projects" section, or just a mention of them be found in the Sellers article.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would we want to incude factoidial information about films in which he didn't appear? The article is long enough in my opinion and this requested addition tells us nothing more about the actor that we don't already know. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said in my edit summary when I reverted initially, this is a very full biography in which several of the films in which Sellers actually appeared are not listed. Information on those films he did not make is somewhat superfluous, given that. (Additionally, Candy and Farley are B-grade and poorly constructed articles; this is an FA and needs no more fluff attached to it. – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Peter Sellers at home in Belgravia, London, 1973.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Peter Sellers at home in Belgravia, London, 1973.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 8, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-09-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Peter Sellers (1925–1980) was a British film actor, comedian and singer. He performed in the BBC Radio comedy series The Goon Show, featured on a number of hit comic songs and became known to a world-wide audience through his many film characterisations, among them Chief Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther series of films. Sellers's versatility enabled him to portray a wide range of comic characters using different accents and guises, and he would often assume multiple roles within the same film, frequently with contrasting temperaments and styles, as in Dr. Strangelove. Satire and black humour were major features of many of his works, and his performances had a strong influence on a number of later comedians.Photograph: Allan Warren; edit: Keraunoscopia

Peter Sellers's Infobox

On the right, is the Peter Sellers infobox. This infobox is collapsed, which makes no sense to me. As I stated on Schrocat's talk page: "Infoboxes do not dumb down a subject, as K scheik pointed out, the average attention span of a web user is now only 45 seconds. This statistic may be a little conservative as a quick search reveals it to be closer to 6-8 seconds. [5][6] However, my point is, the vast majority of people who go on wikipedia are looking for a single fact, not to read the entire article. I personally enjoy reading interesting articles, but these simple, basic, arguably essential factoids should be readily available, without the user having to click on anything."
I propose that this infobox be expanded, as in "not collapsed", permanently. Jhogins (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not this old claptrap again! The collapsed box appeases both those who want an infobox and those who don't. It's that simple. Please refer back to the laborious discussion in 2013 to elaborate further, should you need to. Also, I'd be interested to know who you are a sock of, seeing as you know how to link, format, and because you have openly admitted to creating this account in order to comment on this one, particular subject. This subject has been flogged to death and quite often results in a disruptive and heated discussion. My worry is that you are a sock and are only here to upset the apple cart. Cassianto^Talk 05:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. This has been flogged to death, as I've already pointed out to this user on my talk page. The consensus exists and you are bringing no new arguments to change that consensus. Why should your opinion overturn something longstanding? The thread above suggested removal: perhaps that would be the course to go instead. Oh no, wait, there's a consensus that everyone is respecting, regardless of our personal opinions. – SchroCat (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was the compromise which was agreed upon. I'd rather simply a photo myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so much consensus as three people shouting everyone else down over a period of several years. I think I've just had a massive revelation about how the world works. This explains everything. -Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Try looking in the talk page archives, and try counting properly - way more than three in the discussion two threads above and of the last four reverts to re-collapse the box, two were done by entirely independent editors (Betty Logan and Nikkimaria), so lets not start throwing inaccurate "facts" around like weapons, shall we? - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Two points: A collapsed infobox is not the same as an "identibox", which has one function only: to enable a clear and instant identification of the article's subject by means of a bolded heading above the lead image, and minimal identifying information, e.g. birth and death dates, below it. I can't pretend that the concept, which I originally floated a couple of years ago as a compromise in the infobox wars, has been a glorious success (mostly derided as neither fish nor fowl), but it has been adopted here and there. Secondly, as a (former) educationist I find it hilarious/sad that we are being asked to tailor our encyclopaedia-building efforts to the supposed 6–8 second average attention span of the typical "web user". I thought we had a mission to educate and inform – silly me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we should re-design articles to accommodate lower attention spans, but most people who come on a wikipedia article, are going to want to see these basic facts front and center. I would like to thank Cassianto and Schrocat for their unnecessary hostility and manipulation. Schrocat's borderline laughable attempts to make it seem like I was attacking him were all very quickly disproved by me. I would very much appreciate if these users would stop telling me that my arguments have no merit, when in fact, they are very valid points. I propose that we compromise yet again, adding a significantly reduced, yet expanded Infobox, which can be found to the right. If any other editors find this discussion tiring, then I ask them to excuse themselves. Jhogins (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• How about we retain the consensus that has stood on this article for a couple of years and you stop trying to provoke others with unnecessarily WP:POINTy and personal comments? There has been no hostility or manipulation, despite your uncivil claims to the contrary. Do you have anything new to add to the argument that was not covered in the thread two above this one? If not, then this isn't going to go very far. Just to clarify, the "basic facts" are all in the lead, which is there for everyone to read in this text-based encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, we both know that there has been plenty of hostility. It seems to me that in K scheik's thread, he/she came at this way to agressivley, and used hostility to convey his/her point. This detracted from the message and led to the entire thread being shutdown, probably for the best. The Basic Facts are found in the lead, but at what point? The age at death is found at the very end of the lead, almost certainly an inconvenience. Jhogins (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an "inconvenience" to read text in a text-based encyclopaedia? Most of the key pieces of information people need are in the lead, which provides a brief summary of his life, and in context too. There has been no hostility on my part, although I am surprised that as a brand new user you have learnt your way around extremely quickly, as well as speedily learning how to format everything properly. Do you have any new arguments that do not appear in the thread two above this, or in the previous ones that have asked the question on this? If it is the collapsed nature of the IB that ails you so much, perhaps we should just get rid of it altogether? - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

God bless and save us! Not this anally-retentive nonsense yet again? Is this new editor an old "friend" in new guise? Leave the page alone, laddie/lassie and get on with some useful editing! Tim riley talk 15:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this Infobox is helpful at all. It does not contain the most important facts about Sellers and his career, and instead it contains such trivia as a list of his wives. If it must be there at all, the collapsed version is much better. We should let our visitors read the informative and well-organised LEAD section of the article without making them first encounter this important-looking, but actually time-wasting, box full of random factoids. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are and should remain optional. If the main editors of an article have chosen not to include an infobox, their choice should be the deciding factor. In some cases it's useful but not so in others. Some of these non-infoboxed Featured Articles formerly contained hidden text saying that the lack of an infobox was intentional and to please discuss the matter on the talk page before adding one. However, there were people who viewed the text as threatening and wanted the hidden text removed.

There's been a lot of time spent on just this article alone by both sides of the issue. We have almost 2 million stub articles, some with infoboxes and perhaps a sentence or two regarding the subject. Any reader who comes here hoping for more information on any given topic is certainly disappointed to arrive at the particular page only to find a small amount of text and an infobox. Time needs to be put into writing good content--not in continually being brought into yet another discussion about infoboxes. We hope (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hear hear! Very well put indeed. Tim riley talk 16:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Jhogins, can you tell me why you are using your user page as a an advertisement for this discussion? It's behaviour like this which makes me think you are after a bit of drama. Cassianto^Talk 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jhogins, would you mind if I did a checkuser on you? You do realise that WP:Sockpuppet is a problem here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Jhogins opened this user account on 1 July. He/she has made 15 edits to date, all connected with the Sellers infobox issue. A pretty obvious case, I think, of an experienced user attempting to make trouble anonymously. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The compromise works. It's a choice between no infobox, a "full" infobox, and what we currently have on the article. There is really no need to expand the infobox further considering the strong opposition to having one to begin with. Doc talk 06:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a dumb discussion. Every proper biographical article has an infobox. It is a neat and efficient organization of information, and is necessary in a biography. I can think of no quality biography page (beyond a stub) that doesn't have an infobox. In any event, collapsing the infobox defeats the purpose; an infobox serves the purpose of organizing information for the reader. It is for the reader's benefit, and they come to expect it from other biographies. By collapsing it to satisfy pointless editors' arguments you detract from its purpose and efficacy.   Spartan7W §   14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not true that every proper biographical article has an infobox. If you think that then you have no place editing here. You're missing the point that often infoboxes actually contian next to no information and are rendered virtually useless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's time for fresh dialogue on this topic. I would not say any editor has no place editing here, so let's play nice. I would easily say the majority of biographical pages on Wikipedia have an infobox, ESPECIALLY one with FA status. Instead of reverting to what was decided 3 three years ago I'm asking for a fresh dialogue on this matter. Also, it seems to me that most edits on this page now encompass people wanting to remove the collapsible infobox in place of a normal infobox - all the more reason to open this discussion again instead of reverting people to a stale discussion. The comments above do worry me, they seem to fallback on the ol' WP:OWN - please don't bite the newcomers, they are only trying to help. Garchy (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your statement is based on a false premise (there are a good proportion of FAs that don't have IBs), and I really don't think there is any need for yet another discussion on this matter. Sure, we could do away with the collapsable idiotbox, but the best way to do it would be to remove the damned thing entirely, in line with several other biographies. The bottom line is that the collapsible box is a good working compromise which has been around for a while and that very few people think is wort getting all het up over. As to your comment about playing nice, I'm not sure how that happily sits with your accusations of ownership: the two don't go together, so try not to re-open a potentially contentious thread by insulting other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The "play nice" comment was because an editor early attacked another editor saying there was no place for them to edit here, that is behavior we shouldn't have on Wikipedia. As for opening the dialogue, I think it's a good idea. The whole point of a discussion is to avoid contentiousness, and as it is written above the last true in-depth (friendly) discussion on this happened over 3 years ago, so chances are the results are stale. I'm worried that the behavior and wording here is bordering on ownership of the page, hence why I included the literature on that above - WP:OWN. Those that are contentious and insulting other editors have no place in the discussion, but assuming that the next discussion will end up contentious will only block any real progress on this discussion. Garchy (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no ownership here, and you insulting others with the accusation is only going to ensure the conversation goes one way. As you are the one insulting editors in this manner, I strongly suggest you desist with the slur. As to the rest, there is along-standing consensus to retain the collapsed IB, and that issue really doesn't need to be gone into again. If you wish to do so, then we will have a discussion about the complete removal of the thing at the same time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are, unfortunately, misinterpreting my intentions. Opening the dialogue to all options is exactly what I'm trying to do, so your idea does not phase me. Warning ALL editors of avoiding ownership is not an insult, I'm sorry you see it that way and must remain on the defense. Yes, I vote to open this dialogue again, there is certainly no reason not to. Garchy (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your initial comment "The comments above do worry me, they seem to fallback on the ol' WP:OWN" is not "warning all editors of avoiding ownership", but a snide attack on others. I am glad, however, that you have at least tried to avoid the smear this time. This is a tiresome subject that raises its head every so often: the result over the last few discussions is no consensus for change, but a lot of utterly wasted time and people getting unnecessarily annoyed in the process. There are a million and one much better things to do on Wikipedia, and trying to open yet another disruptive thread on a contentious issue just because you don't like the status quo is not ideal. Open the conversation if you wish, but it'll be another fucking tiresome waste of time and effort for many and will, in all probability, end up exactly where we are now, but with people pissed off with you having it pointlessly raked up once again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Garchy, I might've taken your argument seriously, but you blew it with the WP:OWN accusation. Here's one for you: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Read into that WP:OWN comment all you'd like, but just remember that WE are all here to make Wikipedia a better place, we all have the same mission. If my call for a new discussion leads nowhere than so be it - but let's maintain a line of civility here, and also not try to discourage editors from suggesting change. Garchy (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I will read the comment as it was made: as an attack on other editors. If you wish to open a disruptive thread, then do so, but little benefit will come of the resulting pointless exercise, and you will simply be wasting everyone's time over a minor detail you are challenging for no good reason. Making WP a better place is a worthy goal, but this seems an odd place to do it, and insulting others is a,piss poor way to start. – SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe where we disagree is whether WP:OWN is an insult or not. It was not intended as so, and has become a distraction to the main point. If others want to chime in I will let them, otherwise I will let it be. Garchy (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"The World of Henry Orient" 1964

There is no mention of the movie released in 1964, "The World of Henry Orient". Please update the main page. Thank you. Kylesd2008 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no mention of a lot of Sellers's work, but that is entirely by design. Instead of including everything he did (which would have given a massive article most would not have read through, there is a separate page that lists everything. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Murder By Death

Perhaps some mention of Sellers' role as Sidney Wang in Murder By Death (1976) is warranted. It is a popular movie that he made during his "period of indifference". While making the movie Sellers played practical jokes (which were not received well). Also, convinced it would bomb, Sellers had the producers buy back his percentage share. It went on to be a hit. UnnamedHarald (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no mention of a lot of Sellers's work, but that is entirely by design. Instead of including everything he did (which would have given a massive article most would not have read through, there is a separate page that lists everything. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Appearance as Nazi Character on Michael Parkinson's Show, 1974, [Section 1.8]

I hesitate to edit the article at this time, because, chiefly, so many of my previous and in good faith corrections in other articles have been reverted by editors with higher authority than me, and secondly, because I do not have all the source materials at my fingertips.

However, I know I'm correct in what I'm about to say, and I urge some editor with more authority than I to make the correction and amplification.

In his appearance on Michael Parkinson's show in 1974, Sellers is described as agreeing to come on the show because he could appear as a character, in this case a Nazi, "as a member of the Gestapo". It was much more than that.

In fact, he was riffing on Kenneth Mars' role of Franz Liebkind in Mel Brooks' film, "The Producers", i.e., playing a defeated German Army veteran-turned United States immigrant-turned failed playwright, trying to restore Hitler's stolen honor.

The joke is the same, although Sellers flubbed the punchline a little. Franz Liebkind, the playwright, speaks wistfully in the kitchen of his rundown Greenwich Village 6th floor flat, to Max Bialystok & Leo Bloom, the producers who need to sign his play. Liebkind is embittered that Winston Churchill has gotten all the postwar glory, and Hitler has wound up in the ash bin of history:

"Now, Hitler--THERE was a painter!.... He could paint a whole apartment, [in] one afternoon! Two Coats!"

We, the audience, and Bialystock & Bloom, get the joke, but Liebkind is in the dark, i.e., Hitler wanted to be an Artistic painter, but Liebkind mistakenly envisions him as a housepainter. And the ultimate punchline (which Sellers should have said last) is that the housepainter mistake is amplified by the incorrect corroboration that he could paint "two coats" in an afternoon!

Just a small point, I know, but perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article. And I don't know where the mistake--or at least, where the incomplete description, came from. I don't have Michael Parkinson's autobiography to find the answer. It may be that Parkinson himself described Sellers coming on his show in the character of a member of the "Gestapo", but if that is the case, it leaves a whole lot of context and homage by Sellers to Mel Brooks out of the story.

I would be delighted if some editor with the proper credentials could update the article to reflect this deeper meaning.

Alpine Joy (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Alpine Joy (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Sellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021033958/http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/77583/after_the_fox.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/77583/after_the_fox.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912143237/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1979 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1979

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Peter Sellers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120722081234/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1964 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1964
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2003860794_day31.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414205751/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1975 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1975
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414215627/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1976 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1976
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414203800/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1979 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1979

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

birthname SELLER, not Sellers

Easily verifiable in original 1925 birth indexes (scans available via FreeBMD). Father William also married under the name SELLER in 1923. RodCrosby (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you, then, please link to the scan. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell, no, for technical reasons. The FreeBMD site only facilitates downloads of the scans, not direct links. However to say he was born Sellers is a glaring error, which is why I corrected it. I'm certain I've seen the correct name quoted in books and TV shows at least two decades ago, but can't cite off the top of my head. Nonetheless, the original register showing Richard Henry SELLER born in 1925 AND his father's marriage as William SELLER in 1923 (to Agnes Marks) is dispositive RodCrosby (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If he was really born Seller then I'd expect us to be able to find it in biographies rather than having to rely on primary sources -- can you point it out in any bios? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure.... RodCrosby (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

.... and RodCrosby (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

.... try "Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 8 October 2017. RodCrosby (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a short while so you can all reach an agreement here. FWIW, this Washington Post article, citing Sikov's biography, also asserts no "s". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:Today's featured article

Let's start here: I don't have a position on infoboxes, and I'm not going to ping anyone until we can agree on who to ping. There was a discussion in June about running this article at TFA, but the vote was 4-0 or 5-0 against, mainly over the infobox (for some background, see Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 5). Ealdgyth has indicated that she'd like to run this article at TFA on November 25. Is there anyone watchlisting this who is not willing to leave the collapsed infobox, and the discussion, alone, at least for the month of November, so that we can get this through TFA? Are there issues apart from the infobox that look like stoppers to anyone? If the people who were discussing this infobox (mainly in 2016) would consider a reasonable moratorium, then maybe we can get people who see it at TFA to observe the moratorium, too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, nothing so far, let's try this: Garchy, you're the only one who's argued for the infobox on this talk page (it was years ago) who's edited this year at all. Would you be okay with my proposed one-month moratorium? - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I had dropped the infobox idea back in 2016, as it didn’t seem to be a constructive discussion. Proceed as you wish, I don’t have an opinion either way! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much. Okay, pinging everyone who weighed in in June: @SchroCat, Cassianto, Ian Rose, and Dr. Blofeld: ... Ealdgyth wants to run this, and the people who had strong opinions before aren't editing any more. Does anyone see any stoppers? - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• As before, I don't think this is a good choice for TFA and I'd rather it didn't run, but it's not "my" article, or my decision, so don't take any notice of my comments. (Personally I think that if this went to FAR as it stands, it would not be guaranteed to remain an FA, but that's just my take on it). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I always take notice of your comments. I've been involved here because Ealdgyth was tied up, but I think she's back ... Ealdgyth, anyone, thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I only pulled it out as a possible because the blurb was already written - it's fine to not run, I can find something else. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks. I think it was useful to figure out that the infobox isn't a stopper, for now ... hopefully the quality issues will get dealt with at some point. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Birth and death places

It's redundant and unnecessary to include both England and UK in the birth and death places. As apparently using solely England is not acceptable, I've swapped it to just UK. If you disagree, please present your rationale so we can discuss the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: "England is a country" is literally the opening of our article on England. Not only that, but the template documentation you cite specifically allows for the constituent countries of the UK to be used in these parameters. Please stop edit-warring and seek consensus for your proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, England is not a sovereign state, which is what is typically meant by country here. I just reverted to what you wrote before. Are you now edit-warring with your own edits? To be clear, the template doesn't actually allow for it as much as notes that this is how it is used in practice. If you look at the talk archives, there is discussion of explicitly using "USA" and "UK" and if anything, consensus is in favor of that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: No, you didn't. The template documentation doesn't say "sovereign state", it says "country", and it says "the constituent countries of the UK are sometimes used instead"; "sovereign state" and "doesn't actually allow for it" is your own interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, And saying that the documentation "specifically allows" for it is interpretation as well. The documentation just says what happens sometimes (why sometimes? When?) not what to do. I'm so tired of the "But the UK is different" special pleading. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

So go start a central discussion somewhere - this isn't the place to wage that particular battle. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Separation of personal life and career events, please?

This article is pretty hard to read because, unlike the Wikipedia articles about other performers, this mixes up events in his personal life (marriages, relationships with children, health problems, etc.) with things going on in his career. I don't feel personally qualified to address this, but could someone please attempt to separate these things? It would make it far more readable to have a "personal life" section separate from the items about his work. Thanks. 12.31.187.178 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand but Sellers' so-called private life and his career and public persona seem so inextricably linked that keeping them together in the narrative makes sense to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm dismissing the above comment for the following reason: a wikipedia article about a person is either better handled by division into subjects, or a chronological tale (which begs a narrative, something I would worry is going to be POV-laden) -- so which is it? Why do we separate actors into those whose lives are too interwoven with their careers, and those whose *aren't?* seems disingenuous to me -sorry i never sign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.224.249 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Extensive use of deprecated source

The Mail on Sunday is deprecated, but this article leans on it substantially. A featured article can't rely on the opposite of reliable sources. Can the content from the MoS be replaced, rather than just removed? Who knows this story deeply? - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody? OK, removing. The stuff from Michael is tabloid-style "colour" and not load-bearing. The stuff about Snowdon, surely there are RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Further content removed as per the above, and agreeing with the rationale by @David Gerard: Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Biographical data

Why is there a collapsed box for the infobox? Lettler^hello 02:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

it appears to be because of some sort of compromise between pro and anit infobx editors a couple years ago Talk:Peter_Sellers/Archive_5#Collapsed_Infobox but it is a bit strange blindlynx (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing the infobox violates MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. ~ HAL333 01:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, meet HAL333. HAL333 doesn't do compromise. HAL333 likes to manipulate the truth, as you can see here with his incorrect reference to PRECOLLAPSE. HAL333 does this in the hope that those reading his link to policy will take him at face value. It also helps him to try and legitimise in his own head that his constant, disruptive behaviour surrounding infoboxes, egged on by Gerd...sorry, other editors, is justified. It should also be pointed out that over the past few months/days, HAL333 has systematically been pushing for infoboxes on what he knows to be hugely controversial subjects, in terms of infoboxes, including Cary Grant, Mary Shelley, Frank Sinatra, Ian Fleming and Stanley Kubrick. In fact, HAL333 has violated so many IB restrictions, as per the discretionary sanctions authorised by ArbCom three years ago, that if he printed out all of the DS alerts he should've been issued, he could probably re-paper his entire house. No DS alerts have been given, which is rather predictable, as they were nothing more than a red herring anyway, designed by an incompetent committee so as not to give the impression that the "Civility in infobox discussions" was not all about one editor (which it was). This turning a blind eye approach has allowed HAL333 to scuttle from page to page, starting infobox "discussions" where it suits, without the fear of any kind of scrutiny whatsoever. This is HAL333. This is Wikipedia in 2021. I'm glad I'm no longer a part of it. 2A02:C7F:76D6:600:3088:C295:1C46:A4E6 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ever the conspiracy theorist I see. ~ HAL333 04:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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[7]. 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)
• Support per WP:DONTHIDE—blindlynx 21:28, 20 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)

can't speak on behalf of anyone else but I've been simply waiting until this discussion arose (because of course it would, anyone following the page will have seen the constant back & forth) so I could join in. Of course the kind of people who will interact on a Peter Sellers page will be fans of Peter Sellers. It's not suspicious at all, and besides, wanting an infobox is not malicious so there's no need to be defensive. I wish I knew what I was being accused of. peter sellers is my best friend 13:27, 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 Remagoxer Tepkunset 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)

You are VERY far from "pinging all previously involved parties" - you have just done those from the most recent discussions above. Typical. There are plenty more in the discussions from not so long ago in the archives. You should do them as well. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh. I was simply giving a courtesy ping to those that were immediately involved in the discussion directly above that this one was an evolution of, since they might not have been expecting this discussion to continue and would want to be involved. It would totally be fine to notify people who have been involved in a related discussion previously and I encourage you to do so, which you could've done without being so aggressive, with whatever "Typical" means. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:25, 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)

• I'd also be fine not include years active per Gerda Arendt below, especially if it proves controversial, though my slight preference would be including it. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:20, 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)
• Agree with Songwaters - none of this is excessive but a lot of it is very useful to have at a quick glance. Remagoxer ^(talk) 10:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with Songwaters - common sense selection as far as I can tell. I personally also like a "notable works" section, but I know not everybody agrees with me on that so it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  We could easily add his works: |work=Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record (even Beethoven has that) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  That article is currently used for his occupation. I think the "occupation" parameter is more critical, so it might be best to stick with how it currently is in that regard. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm still a newbie here and will take any guidance, but something I've always wanted to add was his signature, my friend and I collect a lot and I could probably make a really nice transparent scan for it, the only thing stopping me is I don't want to clog up the edit history which is mainly reserved for people collapsing and uncollapsing the infobox these days. Though maybe for his page specifically, a signature isn't worthwhile. But I do think his family is incredibly relevant, I did see that get reverted a while ago even though it's the kind of information I check this website for :) peter sellers is my best friend 13:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Songwaters + Signature - The signature, if available, is widely used on other biographical articles, and is a very good fit for an infobox. If peter sellers is my best friend can get us a good scan, great! Throw that in! I think I'd recommend against "his works" simply because the occupation already links to that article, so it'd be redundant. Fieari (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.