Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Sellers & Ekland pic

WW, Can you deal with the tagging issue on this photo? When we go for FAC it'll be thrown out becuase one of the photos is tagged for deletion. If you could prove why it should not be deleted from WikiCommons and get it detagged I'd be much obliged. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's being discussed at the Commons. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the 2nd Warren photo should be fixed, unless he was on a boat in rough seas at the time. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Various RfCs

WW, You will probably have noticed that the Peer Review has now closed and this article has been submitted to FAC. Although it is not a requirement that RFCs are closed, it is likely that the reviewers will pick up on your comments and deal with the subjects as part of the review. Could you please therefore close the requests down to give this article the best possible chance of progressing? Thank you. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I second that. We think the article stands a great chance due to the PR and your co-operation in this would excell the articles chances further. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First ones closed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers's

Oh dear, someone has changed the genitive form from Sellers' to Sellers's - "Sellerziz", ugh. Please could someone energetic change it back. Rothorpe (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree - surely it should be written how it is said, and I'm not sure anyone would say "Sellerziz next film..."

Dr Blofield's additions are looking great by the way, but I personally miss the infobox. I see there has been debate about this already and I'm sorry to reopen a can of worms, but I really am in favour of one. It's a quick and easy way to get information, that many WP readers are used to, and looks smart as well. And almost all actor biographies have an infobox, it seems strange for Sellers not to. --Lobo (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask Tim riley to comment on the possessive apostrophe - he noted in the peer review that "I see you use the American form of the possessive in Sellers's name, which seems inappropriate for an Englishman". - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm that's strange. Here in GB I'm pretty sure I see s' used more often than s's, and I'm sure that's how I was taught at school. Some people I know (Brits) think using s's is sacrilege! I definitely thought it was more American... Either way, for me it makes sense that it be written the way it is said. --Lobo (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to let others fight it out - most apostrophes have been a blind spot of mine! - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The BBC seems to say either case is fine, and it generally depends on pronunciation: [1] This website also quotes from academic books, which seem to agree with that: [2] --Lobo (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Following the precepts of Fowler, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Independent, The Daily Express and The Guardian, I follow the usual English rendition of the possessive for people whose names end in s. Fowler writes that in previous centuries [hence, I imagine, the American usage – US English being in some respects closer to 17th century English than modern English English is] it used to be customary to use the apostrophe with no additional s, but "we now add the s & the syllable, Charles's Wain, St James's not St James' … Septimus's surplice, Pythagoras's doctrines." I was brought up on "Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary" of blessed memory. I'll add links to the newspaper examples if anyone wants to see the ipsissima verba. (All the newspaper examples refer specifically to "Sellers's...") – Tim riley (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that in a vast majority of cases I would add an extra syllable (ie Jess's, James's), but I personally wouldn't say Sellers's. And I wouldn't say Chambers's! But if that's how it's written I suppose I can't argue with that. And UK newspapers writing "Sellers's" in their reviews is a compelling argument. I must say though, I'm very surprised! --Lobo (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's most gracious, Lobo – thank you. For my part, I would say "sellerzes" but then I'm 4,000 years old; younger English Wikipedians no doubt have moved on (under, methinks, the influence of America, but heigh ho!). Be that as it may, I take my hat off to you for your accommodating and generous response. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I note Jess's and James's have one syllable 's, so that's the form I use (also Jones's, Keats's, Yeats's, Yates's, Marx's...), and Sellers's and Chambers's have 2 syllables 's, and those are forms I would never use, and I'm very surprised to find that anyone does, or did. That said, I do distinguish between William's of William and Williams's of Williams, perhaps because the latter is a more common surname than Sellers or Chambers and/or there is that distinction to be made. Rothorpe (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rothorpe is one of the Wikipedians I revere, and I am grateful for his forbearance, however sceptical, on this point. Tim riley (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just use the advanced search and replace tool to replace Sellers's to Sellers'. I'm not sure which is preferred, I believe I tend to write Sellers's. Anyway, that's a mior thing which can be fixed once I'm done on this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say "Sellerziz" in conversation and so prefer "Sellers's". The only time I use an apostrophe with no "s" is for plurals – so Sellers's but Schools', etc. — JonC^ॐ 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion

Woah. This article has grown by more than 3,000 words in the last 24 hours. It's now at a whopping 11,100 words - very large for someone who died age 52. I was supportive of Blofield adding some additional material about his films, but I fear it has become excessive...the article had a good level of detail before and felt smooth and succinct. I haven't looked closely but I'm worried that this may have been jeopardised a bit..? Too many quotes also feels unencyclopedic, I'm afraid. I understand a need to do it with more recent actors, since we aren't able to synthesise reviews and say "X received positive reviews" or whatever, but since Sellers has had biographies written about him (thus we can reference another author's synthesis) I think this should be done more often and we should avoid numerous long quotes. Does that make sense? --Lobo (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Although I like the general direction and level of detail, I too find the repeated use of quotations very unencyclopaedic (and, frankly, a little lazy). They should only be used in rare instances. For example, when succinct paraphrasing fails or as a tool to loosen up the narrative. Malljaja (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK so I'm lazy now? When I edit articles I usually do the "bulking" first and give it a read through and remove anything that seems excessive afterwards but the tone of the comments here have left a very nasty taste in my mouth. If you could replace some with more constructive book material go for it, I don't have access to the biographies. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Sellers career, like his personal life, was complex and his film output generated both rave reviews and critical observations. Peter Sellers the performer was not everybody's cup of tea and the expansion here, IMO, gives the reader a much needed overview of his career highs and lows. Dr.Blofeld has done a great job with this expansion and calling his additions "lazy" are neither true nor helpful. Are you suggesting there are too many quotes given? If so maybe this could be trimmed, but frankly it's all very much relevent IMO. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I've recovered from the "lazy" remark I'm happy to continue. I don't mind constructive criticism but its not nice to work hard on something and then somebody imply you're lazy. The point I think is that perhaps there is too much excessive direct quoting when in some circumstances it would be better to write it in prose. I've made some edits just now. I removed a few quotes and rewrote others. Just give me some time to edit and then read it. I would have to say though that scanning just now a lot of the quotes are constructive and in parts provide encyclopedic information about the nature of some of his films and performances. Its finding a delicate balance I think. Anyway, working on it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my tone sounded harsh, I didn't mean for it to. I guess I could've approached this a bit more gently. I appreciate what you've done, you spent ages working on the page, I just got worried about the length and didn't agree that so many review quotes should be added. It's only my opinion though and I suppose if the article's primary editors are happy with it then it should stay as it is. --Lobo (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tis OK. I know what you mean. I don't think length is a concern as of yet, but I agree we don't want to make it much longer. I have made some edits already in regards to your concerns. I think the main thing really is to rely a little less on direct quoting and rewrite it as prose so it reads as more encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I must've just missed your response before posting that - okay well thanks for going through it and trying to get a balance. I'll stop my interfering! --Lobo (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Like this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"very large for someone who died age 52". Its Peter Sellers though!!! Sellers is to comedy as Einstein is to Physics, Roger Federer is to tennis, and Michael Fish is to weather broadcasting LOL!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I dunno...he's an important actor, but I personally wouldn't expect him to have an article longer than about 8,000 words. It's now 12,500 - the same length as Richard Nixon. I won't raise any objection though, I don't want to be difficult. I'll just stay out of the FAC and hopefully other editors won't find it a problem. :) --Lobo (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my offhandish "lazy" remark, which seems to have tugged at some frayed nerves. It was not directed at one particular editor—this issue goes back years here. I'm also not knocking quotes—they do have their place—but they need to be used judiciously. Malljaja (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. A lot of the quotes have been removed or written as prose now. I gave the article a full read earlier and copyedit and I think it is highly encyclopedic actually and veyr informative. I suspect though you still think the quoting is excessive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Legacy?

The first paragraph of the "Legacy and influence" section includes a tabloid quote:

The Daily Mail describes Sellers as a "the greatest comic talent of his generation as well as a womanising drug-taker who married four times in a fruitless search for happiness, a "flawed genius" who once latching on to a comic idea, "loved nothing more than to carry it to extremes."

Is this the kind of material, from a tabloid no less, considered part of one's "legacy?" The same quote ends the article's final paragraph of the lead. I always thought "legacy" had a different meaning, but my dictionary might be dated. Should I buy a new one? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree. Although it may act as a good summary of Sellers's life, I don't think it should be in the legacy section. I'll move it to somewhere more suitable. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the quote is a fantastic summary of him. Its appropriate somewhere at least... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is - I've moved it up a section or so. It should definitely remain in the article, but Legacy wasn't the right spot. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wonderfully done I might say...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things. The Seller's vs Sellers' issue needs to be addressed, I am not certain what the consensus is. I prefer Sellers's myself but either way it needs to be consistent. Another thing with quotes I have been accustomed to writing in American I think which features quote marks after full stop. But the article I think is written in British English. Feel free to change it to what I think it British before a full stop. I'm not sure exactly if I've got it right LOL but it should be consistent...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've sorted all to read "Sellers's", with the one exception in a quote. In terms of the full stop, there is a full stop inside the quote marks if the original passage had one. If it didn't, then it doesn't appear. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

PUF-File:Sellers in hospital.JPG

Had to list it here and thought you may want to remove it without it needing to be tagged. We hope (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry WW, I had to take this one out while the tag is still on it. If the issues can be sorted out then I hope it'll still be in time for the image review still to come. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor paragraph structure

While the overall chronology is clear, it seems to cause some paragraph structure problems, creating many paragraphs that are a hodge-podge of disconnected facts and factoids. A typical example:

On 20 January 1965 Sellers and Ekland announced the birth of a daughter, Victoria,[130] before Sellers recorded "A Hard Day's Night" in the style of a Shakespeare soliloquy by Sir Lawrence Olivier. The single reached 14 in the UK singles chart in December.[131] In May Sellers and Ekland moved to Rome to film After the Fox in which they were both to appear.[132] The film was directed by Vittorio De Sica, whose English Sellers struggled to understand.[133] As a result, the film shoot was a troubled one with Sellers attempting to have De Sica fired.[133] The problems with the film were compounded by Sellers being unhappy with his wife's performance, which put a strain on their relationship.[134] The couple argued on a number of occasions and during one fight Sellers threw a chair at Ekland.

The single paragraph co-mingles his personal life and career in a haphazard way: birth of daughter - recording hit single - new film After the Fox - hates director - unhappy with wife's performance - domestic arguments and throws chair. Sorry to say there are many such structure weaknesses that should be revised. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well people's lives are mingled together: they are not kept in separate boxes. Doubly so in this case, with husband and wife working on the same film set, which led to an increase in tensions in their domestic life. I've tweaked to move the recording to a different spot, but this provides a false chronology, which is also something to be avoided. The para now reads: personal life w birth of daughter - professional and personal life tensions combine on film set - leading to tensions in domestic life - Unconnected professional life. Technically speaking the recording should be a new para, but one-sentence paras are always attacked at GAC and above. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Chonological order within an article is paramount. There is nothing worse than reading something which tookplace in, for instance in 1943 then jumping forward twenty years just because it is aesthetically better. As SchroCat quite rightly points out, life is not put into sections. If the chronological running of Sellers is not correct it would be kicked out at any future FAC. Maybe we can extend a bit on what we are saying so the change of subject seems a little less abrupt. Would that be OK? -- Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Answered below.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Inverse padding structure accentuates negative over positive

One of the effects that seems apparent, at least to me, of co-mingling his personal life with his professional life, is that it continually pads the kernels of his career details within a shell of negative personality attributes. Most of the bios I've read for 20th century actors have their own "Personal life" sections, focusing the bio on their notability as an actor first, and keep the "Hollywood Babylon"-type personal life details mostly separate. However, some of the revised co-mingled paragraphs seem to accentuate the negative and treat career details as secondary aspects of the bio. Some paragraph examples having that structure, quoting the first sentence:

• "At the end of 1962 his marriage to Anne finally disintegrated . . ." followed by describing the films he worked on after that fact.

• "Towards the end of filming, in early February 1964, Sellers met Britt Ekland, a Swedish actress . . . ," followed by marriage and sex details, film work, Disneyland, and the 39-year-old Sellers' eight heart attacks in one night. The paragraph ends with another film description and an off-topic, gratuitous and outrageous director's quote, "you have to have a heart before you can have a heart attack", in effect describing Sellers' near death event as a mere triviality by WP's editors, only worthy of a snicker.

• WW, you really do spout the most ridiculous nonsense. "only worthy of a snicker"? The quote was a reflection by a well-known director of who worked with him. It is indicative of the way that many people felt about Sellers's behaviour on film sets. The paragraph is stuctured as it is to show that Sellers used drugs (although I have taken the substance abuse line out of the lead to balance it here) and as a contributory cause of his heart attack. If you can't see that private lives and professional lifes intertwine both chronologically and in terms of cause and effect then I really am at a loss. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

By "intertwine," I suppose you mean a paragraph that starts, "In 1960 Sellers portrayed an Indian doctor, Dr Ahmed el Kabir in Anthony Asquith's romantic comedy The Millionairess," which cuts to "Sellers also woke his son at night to ask "Do you think I should divorce your mummy?", and ends with "album released by the couple, Peter & Sophia, which reached number five in the UK Albums Chart."

Or another, "Shortly after Sellers left Casino Royale, he was appointed a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE). The day before the investiture at Buckingham Palace, Sellers and Ekland argued, with Ekland scratching his face in the process." Soon cutting to, "In the midst of filming The Bobo, Sellers's mother had a heart attack," cutting to, " Ekland served him with divorce papers shortly afterwards," with a grande finale to that paragraph, "Upon its release in September 1967, The Bobo was poorly received." What's obviously missing in all this is whether Sellers needed a band-aid after his apparently spunky spouse scratched him. Such missing details could undermine the hoped-for FA status, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean intertwine, in that professional and personal life impact on one another. When the subject of the article has mental issues that affect both those spheres of life simultaneously, with his wife also involved in his professional life, then I think the intertwining is entirely justified. Your first example covering the Millionairess, Sellers's infatuation with Loren and then the single: all intertwined. Not pidgeon-holed. Mixed. Not separate. Disparate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand. For instance, in this paragraph:

"Shortly after Sellers left Casino Royale, he was appointed a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE).[185] The day before the investiture at Buckingham Palace, Sellers and Ekland argued, with Ekland scratching his face in the process . . . . although the couple argued, Sellers never hit her."

What I think should be clarified however, is whether he was appointed Commander simply because he survived the scratching intact, or because he never hit her. In any case, I was not aware that those situations are awarded, so maybe some more explanation would help the non-British readers to make the intertwining cause-effect clearer. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WW, I see no point in prolonging what is becoming an increasingly ridiculous thread. We disagree, that much is obvious and I am not sure you are trying to string this out by accident or design. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Having repeatedly interacted with some individuals who can interpret texts only in the strictest literal sense, I can see where WW1 is perhaps coming from. The juxtaposition of the movie and the CBE honour is probably a little bit abrupt. However, most readers will probably possess enough mental flexibility to understand what is meant here. In any case, I've slightly expanded the section in question to make it clearer what Sellers had received the CBE. Malljaja (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• "On 20 January 1965 Sellers and Ekland announced the birth of a daughter . . ." followed mostly by film details, and ending with "Sellers threw a chair at Ekland."
• "Shortly after Sellers left Casino Royale, it was announced that he was to be made a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)," for his acting contribution, followed by "Sellers and Ekland fought again, with Ekland scratching his face in the process" and more such marriage trivia.
• "In 1970 There's a Girl in My Soup was released in which Sellers starred with Goldie Hawn." Paragraph ends noting his recent marriage and him asking his agent, "How do I get out of it?"
• "In March 1976 Sellers began dating actress Lynne Frederick whom he later married . . ." and ending by stressing his "truly quite terrifying aspects as manipulator and hysteric." However, the main body of the long paragraph was about his career and films.

Before the recent edits, the general organization of the biography kept his "personal life" separate, like most actor bios, with his career highlights and films in sections. It also made the table of contents simpler and more intuitive to use for finding information about a subject. The new format, subdividing by decades for almost his entire career material, will mean little to most casual readers. But doing so also emphasizes his personality and private life and diminishes the main criteria of his notability, per guidelines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope! Not convinced I'm afraid. If we were to watch a biographical portrayal of Sellers on television or film, it would adopt a chronological format. So are you saying that during an arguement with Ekland, Sellers wasn't working? Or whilst receiving a CBE, Sellers and Frederick were not arguing? Of course they were. Adding to that, are you also suggesting that during his marriage breakdown to Anne, films played no part in his life. Come on WW, life goes on! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting point WW, but I've tried to keep an even balance throughout on this article. Sellers could be a deeply unpleasant individual at times and this article reflects that. This is a biography and deals with the totality of Sellers, not just a couple of films of which people have heard; in every print biography I've ever reader—and there have been a few—the subject is tackled chronologically and honestly. I presume you have one or more bios of Sellers? have a look through the table of contents, or flick though it. You'll see the subject is chronological. Read a few pages. You'll see episodes of Sellers acting as described in the article. This article is not a salacious look at all his vices, but to understand the complex individual capable of the breadth and depth of character that Sellers was, then you have to understand his character and how he behaved off-screen, as well as on. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer Ewan McGregor's take on your style of biography: [3]. As for holding up Lewis and Sikov's personal-style bios, focusing on the private person over their careers, as a template for this one and rationale for redesigning it, I think it's a serious mistake. A glance at some of your tabloidal trivia just today, here, is why I'd skip showing this to peer review, ie. tabloid trivia is unbecoming for an encyclopedia, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I'm sorry, but I refuse to construct an article that would somehow be classed as a hagiography—it's just dishonest to do anything but paint the portrait warts and all. What I have added today are comments from Sellers' children about their father. It gives an insight into the personality of the individual. The same individual that could be rather unpleasant to his friends, family and colleagues is also the comic genius who makes me very literally cry with laughter in some of his performances. I can live with this dichotomy and see no need to try and hide some aspects of his life. I could quote from a number of his friends, including Graham Stark, Spike Milligan, David Niven, Harry Secombe, Dennis Selinger (Sellers' agent) and members of Sellers' own family, all of whom knew that the man they loved could be very harmful to each and every one of them. As to Mcgregor's thoughts, I really do care very little about them: I don't live my life ensuring that I think the same way as anyone else, regardless of who they are. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are those heat of passion family disputes, quoting in detail the hurt feelings of his teenage kids, (including the daughter he bought a horse for,) more important than his friendship with the Royal Family, which you summarily erased to make room for such cherry-picked minutia?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You will probably tut and roll your eyes northwards, but I 100% agree with SchroCat. For what it's worth, we were introduced to the notion of talking about this by Doc. It may well be worthwhile asking him to elaborate on his thinking. I have come to learn that we can't all agree all of the time, but SchroCat and I both agree with Doc, which in my mind is the correct thing to do. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I am sorry that you removed information you did not care for and I've put back in the two anecdotes: they are sourced correctly and entirely appropriate to this article. As this article has entered Peer Review it will be open to the gaze of a number of people who will be able to take a view on whether the article is balanced or if it veers into prurient details too much. I suggest we leave it to the wider audience to decide. Please also note that the information was added after this discussion by Doc9871 (talk · contribs). WW, I should also add that after PR, this article will be going up for GA review and, hopefully, an FA review. Both processes that will look hard at the matter of balance in an article. That is three reviews it is facing where the wider community will be looking carefully at all aspects of this article, including the suitability of its content. I am happy to put an honest article in front of them and see what they say. I would not be happy to put in a dishonest hagiography that only puts in information that does not show the truth. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I read that original comment by Doc, wondering whether a "lousy father" section, or something similar should be created. I assumed he was joking, however, considering you had just removed over half of the article's important sections relating to his works and personal life. Was Doc actually serious? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The sections were removed, but most of the information was not: the pertinent details were moved into the chronology. (BTW, apologies, I edited my comment without realising you had posted again - bad wikiquette - I hope your comments still fit the new edit). - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While I've never stooped to claiming you've effectively exerted ownership of the article, since I usually like the collaborative benefits in improving bios, I can't say there has been any collaboration by you in your edits. At the outset, you unilaterally deleted the entire infobox. Subsequently, you have totally inverted the article from its original organization, more suitable for actor (non-book) bios. None of that was accomplished with any collaboration or initial discussion. Cassianto has supported you consistently, beginning after you and he first began editing, just 5 minutes apart. Hence you had a built-in consensus flag which you kept waving proudly. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I'm sorry you feel this way, and I would strongly refute any accusations of ownership, even if made by innudeno alone. After I wrote sections about the article others have come in and changed things considerably: that is a collaborative process in itself and I am sorry you do not feel the same way. The structure of the previous article was a mess and not suitable for anything, which is possibly why it was only ever a 'B' grade piece. I am confident that it is in a good enough shape to go through the three reviews I outlined earlier. I'll say again, those three reviews—Peer, GA and FA—open up the article to the critical view of the commnity as a whole and the suggestions and recommendations they make will be taken under consideration. Again, those reviews are based entirely around a collegiate approach to article development and the final product will be the basis of the consensus of the community as a whole. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I've also asked Doc to comment on this, a person who is broadly independent and was the one who mentioned Sellers' children in the first place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"What's all this, then?" No whitewashing, but fair, unbiased accounts from mainstream sources. Yes, he was reported to be a lousy father. Not my words, mind you. It needs to be covered in the article in some capacity, yes? Doc talk 08:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

.Agree with Doc. (I think it's been over 5 minutes since the last comment, so I should be OK). -- Cassianto^Talk 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The more we evolve as an encyclopedia, the more we'll see this. We didn't say he was a bad father, the reliable sources that we use say it. We have nothing else to go on except OR, really. And we must treat subjects with NPOV, meaning many sides of the story. Doc talk 10:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Strict chronological order and separating biography from article

As both SchroCat and Cassianto continue to reorganize the original order of topics by rearranging details into a strict chronology, the article continues to devolve into a further hodge podge of facts and verbose trivia. This, IMO, has made the article much more unusable to casual and interested readers. Their latest edits, moving sentences around without concern for order, is another of dozens of similar poor rearrangements within their created "1960s" section:

In 1961 Sellers made his directorial debut with Mr. Topaze, a film in which he also starred. The film, which was based on the Marcel Pagnol play Topaze, was met with an unenthusiastic response from its audiences, and Sellers rarely referred to it again. In 1961, after an interview with Sellers, film critic Kenneth Tynan noted that with Sellers, one of the main "motive forces" for his ambition as an actor was "his hatred of anti-Semitism."

It was also brought up earlier, and everyone who commented agreed, that the article's overall structure has been completely inverted from being a "biography" to a new concoction, with main sections including "Biography," "Career" and "Death and subsequent family issues," etc. all split apart. This has not been corrected, but essentially ignored, against consensus.

What's worse, by adding those "decade" subsections, readers interested in learning about some career fact or film, are out of luck, unless they know precisely what decade and exact year it took place. And even if they did, they would usually need to dig through the disorganized factoids, (see examples above in "Inverse padding structure.") Overall, I personally feel the article, which did need improvement like most articles, is in much worse shape now than before. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I am at a loss as to why you wish this article to remain a poor reflection of Sellers' life and a second rate article. Your entire approach to the re-write has been obstructive, based entirely on your personal opinions. The article you wish to see in place would be biased, dishonest, misleading and based on your own false point of view. I do not think that biasing an article in the way you have wanted to do throughout this editing process is either constructive, collegiate, consensus-driven or honest.

There are a number of points that you have failed to acknowledge or respond to which perhaps need to be expressed again:

• Real life runs chronologically. This means that what happens at work can affect your private life and vice versa, so to separate is not a natural course and would need a good justification. To date there has been no justification to do anything but follow the course of articles such as Dan Leno, Stanley Holloway, Judy Garland, Georg Solti and Cosima Wagner, to pick a few at random. Common ground between these? They are all rated as FA and I am unapologetic that the structure for this article is based on work that is "considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer".
• To say that edits have been "moving sentences around without concern for order" is nonsense. A lot of thought has gone into both the structure and content of this article. It may not be perfect yet, but it is further up that path than it was a few weeks ago.
• "verbose trivia". I will have to ask for examples, because I find this too laughable to comment on as a whole.
• You were right about the quoted paragraph and it was something that had not been properly finished off. The paragraph has been split into two, which is warranted.

As has been pointed out to you constantly over the last few days and as you have already referred to in the various postings below, this article is at Peer Review. It is hoped to take it through to GAC and then FAC. I cannot comprehend why you wish this article to remain second rate when people are striving to make it the best it possibly can be. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence above, "I am at a loss as to why you wish this article to remain a poor reflection of Sellers' life and a second rate article," aligns perfectly with the problems noted. In this, you literally took my last sentence and simply turned it around and inverted it to mean the very opposite of what I said. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So are you honestly telling me that you consider this version to be better than this? I'm staggerd and speechless.... - SchroCat

Yes, the first version's organized sections, all part of a unified "Biography," was a much more solid foundation to build on. By destroying the sections and putting every random bit of trivia into chronological order, the article, which used to be a "biography," is now a hodge podge of factoids sinking into quicksand. Details, both significant and irrelevant, are now equally buried. The article's usefulness to most readers has been reduced dramatically, IMO.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. You prefer a version that was, at best, rated B grade? One which did not cover Sellers' character, his early career, most of his films? An article with images with questionable FUR? One that misled readers about Sellers utterly? Thanks WW - you've made me laugh quite a lot hearing that! At least the current version reads like a proper biography. A real one - not a mishmash of boot-licking and misleading nonsense. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see merit in the assertion that breaking out Sellers' private life from his career may make the entry more readable. Sellers is a bit of a special case in that he had a lot of things going on in his (troubled) private life, and his foibles and habits do not stand out enough in the current chronological version. However, I do strongly salute the monumental efforts of the currently most active editors to revamp the entry, and I completely disagree with the notion that the version previous to this activity was better than what has been accomplished so far. I'm confident that the ensuing GA (and possibly FA) review can address the most salient points made. I'm unable to offer more than an opinion and perhaps the occasional copy edit, so I'll leave it like that. It's very good to see these improvements and that it attracts more eyes and hands to take the entry to the level it deserves. Malljaja (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you partly, but question your only recent edit, which seems to contradict older ones. You added a major one-word revision to the first paragraph of the lead, here. However, before I started adding some material to the article a few years ago, you, as the prime contributor to the article, had no issue with the previous lead description, which gave dramaticaly less less predominance to The Goon Show.

As we both also noted during the subsequent months of editing, that previous version had the ominous lead tag stating that "this article needs additional citations for verification. Please help. . . ". I agreed that the references then were fairly pathetic and could use some improvement. I added some better ones, mostly from biography books, and removed some of the tabloid and blog sources. That got rid of the lead tag at least and reorganized the sections by topics. We both worked to trim the tabloid material, and agreed more needed to be done.

As for my agreeing with your overall comments "partly," I do agree that the recent efforts have been "monumental." I just disagree they have been "improvements." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WW, but I cannot see anything "major" about changing the tense and omitting the somewhat weaselish "perhaps" in the lead. The "Goon Show" is just one example in a series to which "He is best known for" refers—I cannot see how it is made dramatically more predominant by this fairly minor change in words. Even though I once was a very active contributor to this article, I do not feel that the recent wave of editing has done any injustice to my work—if I wanted to be sure that my prose is not tempered with, I'd rather written a Sellers blog. And if you or anyone else feels that my recent edits were not up to snuff or introduced misrepresentations, feel free to revert them. I'm not going to get into squabbles about single words or phrases. Malljaja (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment There is no "proper" way to organise a biography on here - sometimes they are completely chronological (like the FAs on Michael Jackson and Mariah Carey), sometimes career and personal info are separated (like the FA on Brad Pitt and Paul McCartney). Both of these approaches have their benefits, and it completely depends on the individual for which is better. I think that maybe Sellers would have been better separated, since there isn't much overlap between his personal life and career, but it is absolutely fine as it is. Since so much work has now been put into the article, I don't think it's fair to ask for a massive reorganisation. But as a compromise, how about making more subsections and making them far more descriptive? Like in the MJ and Mariah examples I gave. This would help readers find key information, which seems to be WW's main objection to the current layout. I already just suggested that descriptive subheadings would be a good idea in the PR, and I think it would help resolve this issue too. --Lobo (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through this revised article and noting areas for improvement. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

wives in infobox; should have dates, too

• Diff of Peter Sellers

*Cough* Inappropriate removal of basic information from the infobox. This information is not available /anywhere/ in the article without mucking about over the whole thing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate. It's entirely appropriate. Your reversion was inappropriate - you should have come here beore reverting me, as per WP:BRD. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the forest for the tree ;) In your zeal to kill infoboxes you're doing disservice to readers and to the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the page for some time[4] and was none too pleased with the removal of the infobox on July 17 (as my objection was posted here). It used to have his signature, even. A truncated infobox is better than none at all, and we don't need "cause of death" and "place of burial". But I can't see the harm in keeping several of the other parameters that were removed, included the wives. Doc talk 08:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The signature was originally removed by me since the former image (the "dignified" one) had an inscribed autograph. A "cause of death" is probably useful for someone who died relatively young and still active in his career. It would also be very beneficial to add back his "noted works," primarily films, since they are the basis of his worldwide notability, without which there would be no article. Unfortunately, that would contradict the lead's current, mostly inaccurate description, of what "he is best known for." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Noted works"? - No, there's too many of them and they're all in the lead. Just because you may know him for the films does not mean that everyone does. The problem is that adding notable works and similar ephemera just means that the editor(s) who do so end up putting in their own WP:POV, which was the previous ridiculous situation. Otherwise the infobox ends up fat and bloated, which is utterly counter-productive: "less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". "Signature"? Pointless. It adds nothing and falls short of copyright requirements. As to the accusation of my "zeal to kill infoboxes". Nonsense. In a number of articles they are a good, even vital, addition to the page. As a summary of such a full life, no. They fall short of providing an adequate coverage apart from the information that is in there currently. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a list of his relatives, along with his wives and personal website, as you added to Ian Fleming? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware from the talk page not only was it not possible to remove the infobox (as per advice from FAC) but the subsequent knee-jerk driven pre-infoboxers turned up en masse to object to the removal of even a comma. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And as I typed that last message I see that the infoboc edit-war kicks off again without consensus... - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, it is bad-faith to assault the infobox line-by-line. Be reasonable about this. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And petersellers.com should be in there, too. I don't care about trivia such as sigs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am being reasonable: I haven't deleted something I disagree with. The fact that it also happens to be something under discussion in this very talk thread which has not reached a consensus to go in, is something I am acutely aware of. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And certainly not to PeterSellers.com. There is at least some justification in mentioning the Fleming website (they still hold various copy and licensing rights and the Fleming family are still deeply connected to the company) but that certainly isn't the case with petersellers.com. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding the sig would probably be enough for this article not to get FA. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not. You presume the need for kilobytes of discussion for each and every line of the infobox; a default of exclude. This is a disservice to readers and fundamentally uncollegial to other editors.

petersellers.com is already down in extrns, as the 'official' site; including it in the infobox is thus axiomatic as a convenience to readers. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"it is bad-faith to assault the infobox line-by-line" This is exactly what you are doing and I will not stand to have ANOTHER FAC nomination hijacked and trashed by bad faith edits on the infobox. Do not add any further information without gaining consensus to do so on the talk page. If you decide to add further details without going through the talk page there will be consequences to those actions. Furthermore, I am not being "uncollegial" to other editors. The fact that the infobox exists in some form or other is proof that the matter has been discussed and agreement reached - that is a collegiate approach. Raising tension by further edits and trying to add information and disrupt that consensus is neither colleegiate or consesus-led. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you are actively hostile to a wider site consensus to use infoboxes. You seek a requirement to obtain consensus for every bit of value-added to the infobox. And please don't make me laugh about "consequences" of my actions. I've been here eight years and have done it all. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am not and do not try to put words in my mouth which you know are untrue. I have said on a number of ocassions that in many circumstances infoboxes are vital additions to articles. Not all articles need them and the knee-jerk unthinking approch to "one size fits all" is not appropriate in many cases. - SchroCat (^ • @)

Should I start another post with "No"? You've said my additions are "bad faith". How so? I've been an advocate of infoboxes since they were coded in raw html. It is merely your opinion (and that of a few others) that not all articles warrant infoboxes. I'll actually concede that that is the case on small stubby things where little information is available ;) No applicable, here, though. And consider that "knee-jerk unthinking" is a personal attack and an expression of your bad faith. Do not doubt that I will raise this in the FAC discussion if you cut the wives. I will await further comment re the official site.

I am not after a junk filled infobox that drops down through 17 sections. The sig is inappropriate and not just for image licensing reasons (they're trivia). I will insist on core information, though. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And I will insist that you do not destroy this FAC as you have done previously. I will resist any attempts to bloat the pointless information in the infobox. You are free to take "knee-jerk unthinking" how you want, but it is neither a personal attack nor an expression of bad faith and it is disingenuous to try and pretend otherwise. Please feel free to raise this at FAC rather than sabotage yet another FAC nomination. Try also looking properly at the sellers website with a critical eye, who is behind it and try to find any reliable third party sources that state it is a reliable and official site. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"destroy this FAC as [I] have done previously"? That's serious bad faith on your part, as is "sabotage". And, as I said re Fleming, you and Cassio have only yourselves to blame for scuppering that one. If you've concerns about the petersellers.com site (which I've only looked at the main page of), *why* is it in the external links? I didn't put it there. My view is that if it's in externs, offer it as a convenience in the infobox. If you make the case that it is a poor site, then remove the current link. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the link. It was not one that came up in any of the biographies or other sources I've looked at (as opposed to the Fleming one, which is not contentious. You can take my comments how you wish them, but it is disingenuous to think of them as bad faith. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it was the official website that was removed, at least from a legal standpoint of who can claim to be the "official" website. CMG Worldwide has won lawsuits against Warner Brothers... well, you read it.[5] It's safe to assume they have the official Sellers website. Doc talk 09:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Doc earlier, "Out of the current 41 FA Media biographies (where this would go if it were to make it), all but two make use of the infobox". In other words, the wider community consensus uses infoboxes, many with personal websites.

And per WP:Consensus, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The community consensus is not in individual infoboxes but MOS:INFOBOX: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". Your edits—the vandalism that goes against the lack of consensus here—is a deeply cynical move and comes at an entirely inappropriate time. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My only edit was many hours ago to try to remove tabloid trivia. I haven't changed the infobox. But whether an infobox is required or not is irrelevant. The WP biography community, 20 to 1, wants them. That's consensus. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No WW, the community-wide consensus is not in individual infoboxes but MOS:INFOBOX which does not require an infobox. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You do protest too much, methinks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the core idea of the MOS. It is supposed to descriptive of actual practise, not prescriptive. There are millions of infoboxes, i.e. they're *standard*. What often goes on at the MOS pages is that rule-mongers obstruct having the pages reflect the reality of what practise is. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

1) I protest against what I believe is wrong, not too much, but firmly in the face of intransigence; and 2) The MOS is a consensus of approach and if it says that articles don't have to have infoboxes, then that is the status quo. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(Butting in): I have a personal aversion to infoboxes; a properly written summary lead ought to provide all the headline information that a casual reader needs and should at the same time provide an incentive to read on. An infobox, in my view, promotes the factoid approach. A little knowledge.... etc

However, infoboxes are part of the WP project, and not everyone shares my views about them. I know that MOS leaves the question of their use open, and Schrodinger is right to point this out. However, I think the best approach is to respect what might be called the local consensus. For example, there is an established local consensus in classical music biographies not to employ infoboxes, and I always follow this. However, when I am writing non-musical biographies (Evelyn Waugh, Cosmo Gordon Lang, Reginald Heber etc), I include infoboxes because that is the local consensus for general biographies. In the case of Sellers, I would follow the consensus for media biographies. I would keep it short and confined to "core" information; overlong infoboxes are not justifiable anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See Joseph Merrick for an example of where two opposite infobox opinions collided - and compromised. The main editor of the article (a very reasonable fellow, I might add) wanted no infobox whatsoever, and did not appreciate my attempt to include one on an article that was already GA. We negotiated, and found the best solution would be to have one, but with only certain core information. It's still there 18 months later. Now, this case is a bit different: there was already an infobox here for the majority of the article's existence, and only recently has there been an effort to eradicate it. Trying to hinge this article's ability to pass FAC based on infobox existence/content is not very realistic.
I feel compelled to remind Schro of WP:NOTVAND. I've seen a couple of "vandalism" accusations being levied, but none of the edits mentioned are actually vandalism (or "tantamount" to vandalism). Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to Oppose at FAC, Br'er Rabbit, if the wives are removed from the info box. I fear your voice will be drowned out by those shouting Support currently. Also, how sweet of you to suggest SchroCat and I ruined Fleming at FAC. It was Schrocat who withdrew it based on his own personal decision. An FAC delegate has already said such discussions have no sway on either a promotion or non promotion at FAC. Try reading before typing and certainly don't assume anything! -- Cassianto^Talk 13:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I say I'd oppose? I believe I said discuss. Calmly, without shouting. You should avoid mischaracterising Graham's comments; he didn't say "no sway", he said he doesn't "consider this issue to be central to the promotion or archiving of this FAC". nb: amused that you think I should read his comments before making my own when he made them most of an hour after the post I made. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I understood Graham's comment perfectly thanks. "no sway on either a promotion or non promotion at FAC" - isn't that just another way of saying "central"; neither one way (promotion) or the other (non promotion) meaning it remains...er...central? -- Cassianto^[Talk] 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. There's no question that infoboxes are a factoid approach. That's a service to the casual reader. "Local consensus" is a poor concept. It's covered by wp:LOCALCONSENSUS. It is inappropriate for localities of The Project to seek secession from wider project norms. That simply sows chaos and inconsistency, and promotes insipid disputes such as this one. Seen this "kick in the head"? Follow along a bit and you may find mw:Wikimedia Foundation Design/Suggested Redesigns which is about standardising the design of infoboxes. It accepts as a given that they appear in the rightmost column of wikipedia pages. That's the work of the WMF's Senior Designer. My take on the overall 'kick in the head' is that it's long overdue. The obstruction the consensus model abets has done a lot to retard progress in many areas. The whole op-ed is well worth reading. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Local consensus is an excellent and rational concept, whereby those who know most and give most in a topic area decide (within the overall policy framework of Wikipedia) how articles within the scope of the project are best presented. While you do a lot of useful work around the project, I'd say it is the insensitivity and disdain for the views of others that you sometimes manifest, and your determination to push your POV, which "has done a lot to retard progress in many areas". Including the loss of editors who can't be bothered with the hassle you help to create. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Details for Infobox

Ian Fleming's would be a reasonable template for basic details, excluding the list of relatives, IMO. His place of birth and death are very important; his marriages need dates, since some, like me, will simply assume he had a harem; Having his personal website link seems essential as it at least covers his key biography without the tabloid-quality trivia mixed in. It even called him an "impressionist," a term that SchroCat and Cass found utterly improper; and any of the 50 images of Sellers included are 95% better than the (undignified) one Schro and Cass insist on. I say only 95%, so they know I'm flexible. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to agree with Doc's earlier compromise and go with Joseph Merrick. Just to clarify and remind you of your ever-so-faulty memory, I objected most strongly to the uneducated addition of "Known for: Impressionism". Sellers was hardly involved in the C 19th art movement in any way, shape or form and with additions like that it is hardly surprising the article languished in the doldrums of mediocrity. As to the current high quality featured picture we have, I find it a much more realistic portrait than the stuffy formal and unnatural pose of the previous one. You opened an RfC on the image that got nowhere, so trying again to stick it back not long after there was no common ground on it seems a little silly. Aside from that, its status at Commons has been questioned (along with a number of you other uploads, I note). Are you suggesting that we steal non-free picture from another site to put in here, as opposed to the high quality one already in place? Seems an odd way to go... - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The impressionism label removal (actor type), was not disputed by me. Although it's probably closer to his notability than "singer." As for your other comments, we obviously use different thesauruses. Mine doesn't have "argumentation" and "disputatious" as synonyms for "collaboration." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly think singer is wrong for Sellers as he had a number of top 20 songs and albums. It is certainly closer the C19th artist! I'm not sure what dictionary you use to define "collaboration", WW. I've seen absolutely nothing from you but obstructive behaviour and a desire to have an incomplete, inaccurate and dishonest article here. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't have taken much creativity to have simply called him an impressionist actor. Thanks for the added synonyms, "obstructive," "incomplete," "inaccurate" and "dishonest". My book must be way out of date. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for input on infobox issues at WT:FAC#Infoboxes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth and possible misuse of BRD

Schro/Cass may be misusing the BRD explanation for imposing their matched edits. Per BRD:

• Ignored: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
• Ignored: BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.
• Ignored: BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas.
• Ignored: Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus.

In addition, the repeated deletions against previous Talk page discussions have received no consensus, quite the opposite. Both local and community wide. Manifest ownership, not BRD, may be the problem. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider your two edits to have been in good faith, neither do I consider BR's last edit (only the one) to have been in good faith. There is a discussion here that is ongoing and there was no need for that status quo to be interrupted without good reason. You both sought to make changes, despite a lack of consensus and despite the request to come to the talk page and I therefore consider them to have been in bad faith. I also think that your continual accusations of WP:OWNership to be an WP:uncivil, unnecessary ad hominem attack without basis or merit and (for the umpeeth time) I ask you to stop throwing them out whenever you happen to disagree with something. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comments as they are more than one syllable, along with apparent Civil POV pushing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the once per SchroCat's comments. I am sure you'll appreciate, the infobox debate is a sensitive one and SchroCat and I have agreed to keep it. However, information within it is now up for debate as a lot of it is redundent and unimportant. If we can agree on a few things, we are willing to meet you half way. But please don't just go ahead and add stuff before discussing it with us first. We are currently in an FAC and really don't want all this friction. Also, your additions may go against comments listed at FAC, thus voiding the articles reviews. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does not require people to "meet halfway". Indeed, that's usually a recipe for a sub-optimal outcome, if not a tool for people to engineer incremental creep towards their desired extreme. Since an infobox is is intended to give quick access to information already present in an article, the suggestion that some of it is "redundant" is irrelevant. Which leaves only "unimportant". His birthplace. Unimportant. FFS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was added in good faith by Connormah The rest is all disruptive ownership and I've noted the article's instability in the FAC discussion. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, please just drop this infobox dispute at least while the FAC is going on. I've put a lot of work into this and you are jeopardising the article from passing FA based on the "is it stable" requirement. It simply does not matter. There are more important issues in the world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that in reality, now is the best time to discuss what is included or excluded. After a FA declaration such details become more engraved in stone, and much more difficult to change. Even an obvious repair to defects in the article could easily be blocked later under the pretext that the higher-ups at the FAC have supported its present state. The apparent haste to push for a FA status after only some weeks of revisions, thereby leaving ongoing questions and disputes by many editors ignored, is worrisome. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A simple example might be the use of a tabloid quote by Daily Mail as a summary for the lead. It was noted weeks ago that such unreliable sources from Tabloid journalism did not belong. Not only was the issue ignored, but the quote was simply copied to the lead. FA quality improvements? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this silly dispute is putting the FA at risk, and I know Dr.B has put a lot of effort into it. I hold SchroCat and Cassianto responsible for inflaming this. They fight tooth-and-nail anything to do with the infobox. This last bit was kicked off by an uninvolved editor making a good faith (and appropriate) addition. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to let you blame Schrocat and I for your incivility and WP:OWN issues. It is you who is seeking to change this article when there is no such consensus in place for your actions. How many more times do we have to explain this to you. An infobox is not a god given rule. No guideline states an infobox MUST be in place. This is a crazy rule being administered in a disruptive manner by two drive-by editors. We are both open to discussion as to WHAT goes in on the talk page. We have agreed to have one in place, not because we like it, but because we cant be bothered to argue during this FAC. We have even left the useless wives information in. Please, discuss any additions on the talk page. That is all we ask. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact BR, go ahead and add what ever you like. I don't want this ruined by you yet again. Maybe then you can goway and haunt someone else! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Until Schor/Cass dived in and started editing simultaneously, like Olympic medley swimming, the two primary editors were not disruptive. Nor have they, unlike the newbie editors to the article, been given any gratitude, unlike the gushing declarations of "heroism" and "monumental efforts" the newbies have. Quite the opposite: "drive by". I am at a loss as to why both Schro and Cass, along with the FAC, have not shown embarrassment at your repeated attacks against good faith editors and your strange rush to FA judgment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And a grand job you made of Sellers' C class status :-/. SchroCat and Dr.B took it from there and, as a result, we have what will hopefully become one of WP's finest articles. Whats your beef ? -- Cassianto^Talk 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The beef is witnessing an imperfect bio of a frail but celebrated British actor that was human, to a bio revised and now better expressed by this. Don't ask me to explain. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, Wikiwatcher was an earlier contributor and feels we have stolen his thunder. Wikiwatcher your contributions as anybody's are much appreciated but you are kidding yourself if you think the article has declined since it was C class.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

C class is great, but FA is a whole load better ;-) -- Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not helpful imo to compare past and anticipated ratings. I agree that a GA or FA is a coveted status, but to compare them to the ratings below them is an empty exercise. The main object should be to improve the content (and structure). By highlighting this presumed difference in quality—as has now happened repeatedly—you're essentially trashing previous editors' work and thereby end up alienating them. This is a short-sighted strategy, and perhaps one reason why you're now encountering stiff opposition by some of these editors and lacking the endorsement of others. I too feel that my few suggestions and concerns were not heard. I have not lost sleep over this, but I feel not exactly motivated to support an effort whose all-out focus seems to be to get that elusive "star". Malljaja (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"By highlighting this presumed difference in quality—as has now happened repeatedly—you're essentially trashing previous editors' work and thereby end up alienating them." Absolute tosh, sorry. Nobody is trashing anybody's work. Anybody who put content into this article which now appears in the article is warmly appreciated. my goal with this article was to make it the best possible article, the most comprehensive. To say that none of us care about that and are simply glory seeking is just wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have hit a nerve here — my most parsimonious interpretation of your uncivil comment is that your recent work was indeed primarily motivated by your "glory seeking" (your words, not mine). I've just reviewed the editing history of the entry, and noticed that aside from a single edit in 2007, you only began flooding this article with haphazardly mined quotes and clips after it was nominated at FAC. Honi soit qui mal y pense... Are there any grown ups here who care to comment? Malljaja (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BR, stop edit warring - it's damned tedious and annoying FFS. I can't believe that once again you are trying to sink another FAC through edit warring over the infobox. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is you two who are edit warring over every little thing. Note Cassianto's comment above: "In fact BR, go ahead and add what ever you like." Now you call it edit warring. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

WW1, I don't know why you insist on continuing with your juvenile and pointless bad faith edits and edit warring. I'm fairly sure that you are trying to get this article to fail at FAC and are now resorting to the most pointless tactics available to do just that. I hope that when we make a start on the much needed overhaul of Roman Polanski that you manage to contain your pettiness to allow for proper article development. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto that. Your petulant and disruptive editing became boring long ago. Why must you insist on ruining this article for us, the WP community and all of its outside readers? Please see this guidline as you seem to be blinkered in the fact that info boxes are the norm. They are not. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was originally going to stay out of this, but I hardly see how just adding places of birth and death to the infobox is "ruining the article" for everyone - it's just places of birth and death for god's sake and I fail to see why you two are so stubborn to add them and are creating a huge, unnecessary fuss over something as inconsequential as this. My original edit was totally in good faith; I was browsing FAC and, being a frequent surfer of biographies on WP, noticed that those two fields, which usually accompany the places of birth and death, were missing. I really don't see the huge issue over the addition of these - the dates are there so why not the places? This definitely belongs at WP:LAME... – Connormah (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one has said your original edit was anything other than in good faith, Connormah: it was the subsequent edits which were not. Your question can also be flipped, however: why are people so subbornly intent on adding a superfluous detail? I really don't see the huge issue over it not being there - the dates are there so why do you need the places? You're right: such a position could be argued to belong at WP:LAME... - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's actually much worse than lame, Connormah. Schro, who rewrote Ian Fleming, has no problem with dignifying his article with a detailed infobox, including dates and places, his official website, and even a list of relatives. Yeah, relatives! For Sellers, Schro/Cass has tried to first delete the infobox, then remove meaningful details from it, such as place of birth and death, the dates of his marriages (finally restored), and keeping his official website off. The icing on the cake was adding a pathetic snapshot of Sellers in place of a dignified one, which they removed. It's more than lame, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WW, you really do need to try and get a little perspective on this—and try to avoid the inflammatory language too.

1. "problem with dignifying his article" His? It's not my article at all. The Fleming article, like all others is open source. Yes, I have done a lot of work, but do not keep trying to press OWNership accusations on everyone who does something you don't like.
2. I wanted to get rid of the Fleming infobox, but this led to a bitter, petty and rancorous talk page war which did no-one any good whatsoever; it also led to me having to withdraw Fleming from FAC, something I refuse to do because of your obstructive stance on every aspect of this article's development.
3. The image you had in the infobox has issues that were raised at Peer Review. I asked you to deal with those issues on a number of occasions. You didn't and the same issues were flagged at FAC. Your history of uploads to WikiCommons is highly questionable and it is better to err on the side of safety. Is it any wonder that we have an excellent featured picture in place?

Do try and play nicely in future or we're not going to have any fun at all when Polanski comes up for his re-write. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You consider PAs, edit wars and threats a form of sport? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone has threatened you and I suggest you withdraw that comment forthwith. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FFS, SchroCat and Cassianto are well into disruptive territory over this. LAME indeed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you two are petty enough to edit war again over this. You are both guilty of bad faith edits in the extreme and I find your behaviour and approach over this to be despicable. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The lot of you: stop whinging. Figure it out amicably or it will be sorted for you. Doc talk 08:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt; you two are being hugely disruptive. You two are just full of bad faith about this. It's an old bit of wisdom that those shouting about good/bad faith the most usually have little of teh gf. You should simply drop your stick and focus on the rest of the article. Note Cassianto's comment above: "In fact BR, go ahead and add what ever you like." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's because I can't be bothered to argue with you, not because I agree with you! Your bad faith and disruptive editing will make sure of that. I just want this to get through FAC. After that...who knows what will happen? -- Cassianto^Talk 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Peter Sellers - Goldie Hawn - Theres s Girl In my Soup - 1970.jpg

Hi, guys. Sorry, but I've nominated this image for deletion review on Commons. Given that the film is British, I believe we need verification of publication in the U.S. for the copyright status asserted. I am uncertain about some of the other images uploaded in the last several days of this British actor that are also claimed as free as US publications, but have not yet decided if I intend to nominate them for review. I will not be watching this page; if you have questions, please feel free to address them at my talk page or at the deletion review at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Sellers - Goldie Hawn - Theres s Girl In my Soup - 1970.jpg --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Moonriddengirl. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. Thanks for taking the time to warn us. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Image now removed, as per tagging issue and FAC advice. To be returned only if the Commons process deems the image "clean". - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead details

The lead could probably be trimmed of excess details for most of the paragraphs. It would read better as a summary as the later sections are titled for those wanting the finer facts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this advice somewhat confusing bearing in mind it was you who added 257 words to it yesterday. Also, please refrain from big edits whilst at FAC without prior consultation with SchroCat and I. We are the nominators and the article has had many reviews. Any additions could void the comments made by the reviewers thus bringing the article into disrepute. I also much prefer the Allan Warren image from before. -- Cassianto^Talk 06:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll chime in again to say that I prefer the Warren image also - it's high quality, color and shows him in a relaxed atmosphere. – Connormah (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Connormah; that was also the consideration of an RfC above too—and I'm not entirely sure why the consensus was ignored. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was only 17 words I added, not 257. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't need trimming and is not excessively detailed at all, it summarises the article well. You're picking all these holes in the article when Brian and Mark have supported.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I find this phrasing awkward -

"His artistic range included films, such as I'm All Right Jack (1959), Stanley Kubrick's Lolita (1962) and Dr. Strangelove (1964), What's New, Pussycat? (1965), Casino Royale (1967), The Party (1968), The Great McGonagall (1974), Being There (1979) and the five films of the Pink Panther series, filmed between 1963 and 1978." The comma after films, leads one to expect something like ' his artistic range encompassed work in films,....theatre,...novellas...' anything. i just find it a bit awkward. and the list goes on and on a bit - aren't they all comedic roles anyhow - so how do they further the point about his range going beyond aspects of the comedic? Nit-picking and I'll probably get slaughtered for this - i just think this section could be worded better. or just get rid of that distracting comma - "Notable films demonstrating his artistic range include Im all right Jack ..[the other films mentioned] ...between 1963 and 1978". Sayerslle (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the comma, although it is technically correct: I've tweaked to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all Sayerslle. Offer constructive criticism and we'll respect you rather than "slaughter you". It could be reworded slightly, I agree; Schrod has done it quite effectively now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Musical works

As I just heard Peter Seller's single "Any old iron" from August 1957 on Richard Todd's "Classic Retro Countdown Show" I wonder why no section has been made on Peter Seller's recorded works. 83.87.140.201 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It is: reference is made within the text when he recorded his various albums. See also Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record‎ for a full listing of all his work. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

New image

WW, please don't take my reversion personally, but I remember there being some issues with it. How do we know this was taken in the States? What is its PD status in Europe? -- Cassianto^Talk 09:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is the 'Personal' section?

Adding it. Expand it if you want.--24.31.250.6 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add a separate section. The consensus on this page is that there is no need for one. The information about Sellers's personal life are in the main body of the text, running chronologically through, alongside his career details. As his career affected his personal life greatly (and vice versa), it was considered that this was the best approach at the time. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the harm. Every other article has one. This seems like slight censorship.--24.31.250.6 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it slight censorship, since everyone who has tried to even remotely change the structure of the article to do things like group personal things together, tighten up narrative flow, etc., has had their changes unilaterally reverted. But, if the only way this article can reach consensus is by forcing this hodge-podge grouping of personal details within career notes, I would suggest just leaving it alone and letting the status quo reign. Scarletsmith (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Same old people saying the same old things. The wider community expressed its opinion through a number of channels already mentioned below and this is ground that has been gone over before. The consensus was to retain the chronological flow through the article as with Sellers his personal and private lives affected each other greatly - and that is what is reflected in this FA level article. I'll also add that your previous edits did not improve the article, they worsened it. You and WW are probably the only editors who consider this to be an improvement, which speaks volumes in itself. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's late in the evening, but that's still no excuse for making a completely fabricated statement and ridiculous opinion about what we consider an improvement. We didn't write that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're entirely right WW, there is no excuse for childishly accusing people of censorship. (There is nothing fabricated in what I wrote, btw, but you are right that it was an opinion and no, I didn't think either of you wrote it) - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It used to be here, but was dissolved into the career section by a unanimous consensus of 2 new editors over 1.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And those who commented at Peer Review, and those who commented at FAC and a number of others too. So glad you've let go of this tiresome issue so gracefully. - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see others share my view that this article 'needs' a personal section. Wikipedia isn't a biography nor a resume --24.31.250.6 (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

One other person shares your view. The wider view of the community was that the article as it is currently constituted is such that a personal section is not needed, with all the information already in the article in two locations. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat, having a personal life section here leaves the article disjointed. Please leave it as it is and do not add a personal life section. Please bear in mind that any major structural changes to this article could void its FA status. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only does an article about a famous actor need a "personal life" section, the large majority of actor bios has one. In fact, Schrocat suggested it remain before he and Cassianto unilaterally chose to eliminate it, which was observed later, created a "hodge-podge" paragraph structure.

However, once some editors decide to play Caesar, "Veni, vidi, vici," revised to "eliminare" instead of "vici", that's that. Yet as the top box of this talk page states, "even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need one: that's only your opinion, and it wasn't supported by the peer review, FAC or the 101 RfCs you opened. It didn't create a "hodge-podge" paragraph structure, again that was your opinion only and not supported by the PR, FAC, or 101 RfCs and your dredging up old, stale and tiresome arguments which were not supported first time round just seems a little odd. I really don't know why you feel the need to impress your own POV on the structure of this article, particularly when the consensus says otherwise, but your lack of ability to work in a consensual or collegiate way is probably why this article languished in such a poor state before its re-write: it's now an FA, not the B-grade you so happily championed, so I suggest you get over it and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here! Here! -- Cassianto^Talk 02:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?

According to dozens of readers who took the time to rate this revised article, they consider it both "incomprehensible" and "heavily biased," not a great opinion for a "featured article." However, the previous version from June had a rating of around 3.5, as I recall. In any case, to avoid embarrassing WP, maybe a review of the current and previous version, although not great, would be worthwhile for comparison. A new consensus as to whether we keep the current version or revert and improve the earlier one, despite the recent peer review, seems logical. My opinion is implied. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What an excellent suggestion: take a featured article and revert it to a useless B-grade piece of hagiography which missed most of the key information, was poorly written, with infringing images, that was confusing, poorly referenced and that relied overly on your POV to whitewash anything negative. Brilliant. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As per SchroCat. Your views count for nothing here Wikiwatcher. I deliberated for an hour over whether I should post a response to your outrageously rude and distorted comment. In short, I couldn't ignore it. May I remind you that Sellers received seven supports at FAC and one oppose (from you I might add), so the consensus has already been reached. Your obvious contempt for this article is shared by no one I'm afraid and your constant berating of this article had become boring long ago. Get a grip on reality; Sellers' FA is here to stay and if you don't like it then go troll somewhere else. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WW, I am absolutely disgusted with your last edit. How dare you needlessly censor other editor's comments, especially when it means you utterly misrepresent what other people have to say. To then disingenuously call your edit "Clean up" is compounding your offence. I'm utterly staggered you undertook such a despicable and shameful action. Do not ever, ever do that again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You can add comments to the ANI about this. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Observation about ratings: After my post was made yesterday, the ratings of at least two of the categories went from 1 (lowest) to 3. Since 39 people had given a category an average rating of "1" ("incomprehensible",) it is now shown as 40 voters, and the rating is "3," which I believe would be impossible under normal mathematics. The same sudden change was noted for the "Objective" category. This might be a possible coding error. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it only counted your 39 'one' votes once, so when another voter came along and gave it a 5 it averaged out to 3? Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has been approved for FA by esteemed individuals like Tim riley and Brian. If you are questioning their judgement as a featured article then you have no business commenting on FAs. That a few dozen out of thousands upon thousands of visitors don't like the articles says absolutely nothing about the condition of the article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the current version and some past versions, and I find this to be an eminently readable article that we can be proud of. These allegations, besides ridiculously untrue, are disruptive and I believe they are made in bad faith, a result of sour grapes. I would urge you, Wikiwatcher, to refrain from commenting here if you have nothing better to do than making such allegations. Schrodinger's cat person, I'm not sure if we've met before, but you did a very nice job here. Do try to refrain from calling other editors trolls: bite your tongue if you have to. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, it was me who called WW a troll not Schrocat. Until he can display a friendier, more civil and appreciative attitude then I stand by what I said. If the cap fits... -- Cassianto^Talk 02:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: let the record be set straight. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What "allegations" are you referring to? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to gain from furthering this discussion. If Wikiwatcher wishes he can take this to review, but given its recent passing, the chances of its being delisted are practically zero. Just drop it WW and move onto something more constructive please.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Trail of the Pink Panther: outtakes from how many films?

A potential edit war has begun so I'd like to address this issue here. MrEquator appears to have done original research in order to contest SchroCat's statement that outtakes from the three previous films were used in Trail. MrEquator's edit summary further claims that "There are scenes from all the movies as flashbacks." I had always believed that Edwards could not use the outtakes from Return (1974) because Sir Lew Grade held the rights to that film's outtakes. (Apparently a scene or scenes from the film itself does/do appear during Trail's credits.) Return's outtakes featured Milton Reid as a Japanese restaurant owner; Edwards' own wife Julie Andrews removing an unconscious Clouseau from Claudine's room; Jeremy Hawk as a jealous escort; and allegedly more scenes with Monty Python bit player Carol Cleveland. Although my memory isn't sufficient to satisfy wikipedia standards, we must ask why those scenes didn't appear in the threadbare Trail. I'll look further into this and post my comments here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't worry, I wont get this into an edit war. But I could tell you where each of Sellers' scenes would fit as per the scripts of both Strikes Again and Trail.

1. Quasimodo digsuise shop. This scene came from the beginning of Strikes Again and it shows, as Clouseau later wears the disguise in the released Strikes Again itself.

2. Clouseau sets fire to his office I. This scene came from Strikes Again, and the piece of paper Clouseau sets on fire originally was about Fassbender and his daughter being kidnapped.

3. Clouseau sets fire to his office II. This scene is, obviously, from Strikes Again, as a bit of footage shot for this scene is in the released Strikes Again. The line about the Pink Panther robbery was dubbed, as it was originally about the Credit Bank robbery.

4. The dancing in the rice scene is very obviously from Strikes Again, as it's just an extended version of a scene right after the credits from Strikes.

5. Clouseau and the pop-out lighter. This scene was originally from the beginning of Strikes Again. Clouseau was on his way to visit Dreyfus. André Maranne dubbed 'Does Sir Charles know you're coming' into the scene and the background was replaced, plus they shot a new explosion. A bit of the original car explosion is in the original Strikes Again trailer.

6. The airplane scene, bits of this are in the original Strikes Again trailer and it was supposed to be shown before Clouseau investigates the Fassbender staff.

7. The massage scene. This was supposed to be before Clouseau arrives to the club to find Jarvis dead. Instead of Dreyfus calling him, it was Drummond. Plus, though irrelevant to the discussion, someone (supposedly Rich Little) dubbed a few lines of Clouseau at the end.

If you're not convinced I will let it be, as I have no intention of starting an edit war.

MrEquator (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi MrEquator. I'm not doubting you. In retrospect I wish I'd said in my edit summary that I was reverting your edit because it was "OR" (original research). In fact I'm hard-pressed to think of any genuine outtake (and not merely a scene such as one taken from A Shot in the Dark) in Trail that isn't from Strikes Again. Unfortunately we need a "reliable source" to change the article. This won't be the first time that a wikipedia article has relied on a faulty "reliable source". The James Bond articles in particular experience this problem too often. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to back it up then feel free to change it, but as it stands the material is supported by a reliable source (Ed Sikov) who wrote "Edwards then compiled a selection of out-takes from previous Pink Panther films, released it as The Trail of the Pink Panther ...". If you can find a good source that questions that then I'll be happy to se it go in. - SchroCat (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh you'll be happy to see it go in then? Well, even Sikov makes mistakes along the way, like his mention of Sellers and Edwards teaming up to do The Ferret before Sellers died, to which there's no truth at all. Besides, I actually have a source more reliable than a biography, the Strikes Again and Trail shooting scripts, but I'm afraid I'm not allowed to put them on the internet. But of course, you're the boss on this article and you know best, so I'm dreadfully sorry. Let's forget all about this. - MrEquator (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you lose the attitude just a little bit? You're trying to replace a sourced and supported statement with your own OR: I'm just giving my opinion on that and I'm not claiming to be the boss of anything, or to know best. If I thought I knew best then I wouldn't bother to put in supporting citations, I'd just try and add OR wherever I felt like it. Guess what, I don't put my personal opinions into anything: I let the WP:RELIABLE sources do the work, so try and find something reliable and credible to use and we'll all be happy. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

MrEquator, you can't just add information, despite its 100% reliability, based on the fact that you "have it indoors". If that was the case, you would be adding this <ref>I have it in doors, honest!</ref> which just wouldn't do would it. If information is being added to any article it needs to be cited in the correct manner. You say: "I'm afraid I'm not allowed to put them on the internet". Firstly, why? Secondly, you shouldn't be adding information direct from your scripts, unless they are quotes. That would be close paraphrasing, something which is not allowed on WP. See this and this for further guidence. Many thanks. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to reply to any of this anymore, so consider this one my last reply as I have no intention of making my lifework out of this. First of all, I thought this was common knowledge and looking over to other sites like imdb, which admittely also contain userbased information, but nevertheless, it's over there as well. As for your question why I'm not allowed to upload the scripts, well, it's not legal. There's copyright on it, for one, and many sites hosting official scripts have been suspended for doing so, so there's your answer. It took me years to actually change something completely different on another wiki when some old article confirmed my knowledge but I have no intention of spending years on this one. Thanks for the help anyways. This is it for me on this one. Good luck. MrEquator (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sellers and Starr image

I am no image guru, but how can you prove the image was published between those years? You give the source as "eBay", but all images to do with this website will have some element of copyright to it. The source will need to be from a U.S based company who released the image into the public domain between the dates given within the licence. If you can't provide that then it's status is questionable I'm afraid. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, an image with a clear date and no copyright notice for the stated date of 1970 is PD according to Commons. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a UK copyright issue, with the film being released in the UK prior to the US. I presume this is the reason the file has been tagged for deletion at Commons. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear date. There is an assumed date of 1970 as per the films release date. That was not my question. Can you differentiate this image from the copyrighted British version? Where is your source to suggest this is American? -- Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A few points, with some in your favor. The original uploaded image shows the front and back of the image, along with a stamp of the date being 1970. But nowhere does it say if the image is from the UK. After doing some checking on the copyright rules for the UK, it might fit under this one: "Prior to 1 January 1996, the UK's general copyright term was the life of the author plus 50 years." Unless someone can prove that, whoever the photographer was, they died soon after the photo was taken, it would still be protected until 2020. And without such proof, there's no way to show that they couldn't live to be 100, with this photo being protected by copyright until around year 2102. So both of you, and We Hope, can breath a sigh of relief. However, I'm marking my calendar. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You say: "The original uploaded image shows the front and back of the image, along with a stamp of the date being 1970." That's fine, but all that shows was that the photo was taken in 1970. That is not the issue; the issue is the source. Ebay is not a good source as the site is copyrighted. If we can prove that the image was released into the public domain in America before 1973 then great; whether it be a magazine, newspaper, etc. I maybe completely wrong, but that is my understanding of it. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The image could also be retagged and used as non-free "fair use" to help illustrate the existing commentary about their acting together in the film. Added details about their roles, already included with the original image, would tie it together more: "Ringo Starr appears as a vagrant adopted by the richest man in the world, Peter Sellers." It's an interesting plot and the image supports it.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)