Talk:Peter Sellers

message: Should we uncollapse the infobox? Songwaters (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The history shows (accurately) that I reverted your support BillMammal. It was not an  intentional rollback. Big thumb. Sorry about that. Moriori (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Cerebral726, given that you participated in the discussion, and particularly given that you were among those who did not put forward any substantive reasoning, it would be best to self-revert. There are still issues warranting discussion here, particularly the matter of MOS:DONTHIDE and whether extraneous detail ought to be included. Some comments above focus on whether there should be an infobox at all rather than what should actually be displayed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not feel the need to reiterate the arguments set forth. Simply restating the solid reasoning presented before me would not have made my arguments any more substantive. Given the overwhelming support for removing the collapsing feature, do you think consensus could be reached in the other direction for that aspect of the discussion? If not, then it should probably be left, and a separate discussion started on the content that should be included in the infobox. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Since consensus is not a vote, there is room for more nuanced outcomes than simply yes/no. I don't see a reason to cut off that possibility. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is being cut off. The discussion can continue about what should be included in the infobox; one of the reasons I didn't formally close the discussion was to allow it to continue in this direction if necessary. However, I don't see a reason to revert the clear consensus to remove the collapsing feature unless you think that that particular aspect of the discussion (which was what the RfC was explicitly about) could be overturned with further discussion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkimaria, I have a question for you. Why are you trying so hard to keep the infobox collapsed, since 2014? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been the compromise position between those in favour of and those against an infobox here for years, even before 2014. Part of the issue at play is the inclusion of extraneous detail like the dates of divorce. With the collapse in place, it's not much of a problem; with it removed, we're giving that more prominence than is warranted, and obscuring details that are actually significant. Cerebral726, that is part of why this is such a problematic cutting off of discussion: it presumes that the only possible outcome to this RfC is either collapse or don't, whereas there is still room for a compromise position. The arguments put forward for not collapsing largely do not address what should appear in an uncollapsed template, but make more general points or none at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is an entirely sensible position. Am I the only one who finds the sudden influx of Peter Sellers fans a tad suspicious? Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suspicious how? Are you making an accusation of canvassing? Because no one was pinged or emailed. : Finding out whether or not to uncollapse the infobox is the whole point of this RfC. I did not ask what should appear in the infobox, only whether we should open it up so that readers can glance at it without having to give an extra click. That's what this is about. Songwaters (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  can't speak on behalf of anyone else but I've been simply waiting until this discussion arose (because of course it would, anyone following the page will have seen the constant back & forth) so I could join in. Of course the kind of people who will interact on a Peter Sellers page will be fans of Peter Sellers. It's not suspicious at all, and besides, wanting an infobox is not malicious so there's no need to be defensive. I wish I knew what I was being accused of. peter sellers is my best friend 13:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

text:  I'm not really sure what the implication is here by , but I'd like to keep the discussion on topic. Regardless of what is in the infobox, the unambiguous consensus has become to uncollapse the infobox, an action I have performed and is unlikely to be overturned by further discussion. I think the best way forward is to start a new thread discussing the contents of the infobox. This is a separate (albeit related) subject, and by refocusing the discussion on this topic people can choose to make arguments about what should appear in the newly decided state of the infobox (something not everybody did when the discussion was only on the option of it being collapsed or not, as you mentioned). I hope this help keep the discussion moving and you can unambiguously present your arguments. --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs!  You are hardly uninvolved, and should not have jumped the gun. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was careful to do just that before removing the collapsing feature. Particularly, reason 5 was relevant, stating "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." The overwhelming amount of support for the initial focus of the RFC was unambiguous, and no arguments had been made for about a week, so I took the action determined. --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

text: You are VERY far from "pinging all previously involved parties" - you have just done those from the most recent discussions above. Typical. There are plenty more in the discussions from not so long ago in the archives. You should do them as well. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh. I was simply giving a courtesy ping to those that were immediately involved in the discussion directly above that this one was an evolution of, since they might not have been expecting this discussion to continue and would want to be involved. It would totally be fine to notify people who have been involved in a related discussion previously and I encourage you to do so, which you could've done without being so aggressive, with whatever "Typical" means. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

text: *I'd also be fine not include years active per  below, especially if it proves controversial, though my slight preference would be including it. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Sellers Infobox RfC 

message: Per the discussion above, I have started a new discussion on the state of the infobox. Pinging all previously involved parties:                
What information should be kept or removed from the infobox? --Cerebral726 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are VERY far from "pinging all previously involved parties" - you have just done those from the most recent discussions above. Typical. There are plenty more in the discussions from not so long ago in the archives. You should do them as well. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh. I was simply giving a courtesy ping to those that were immediately involved in the discussion directly above that this one was an evolution of, since they might not have been expecting this discussion to continue and would want to be involved. It would totally be fine to notify people who have been involved in a related discussion previously and I encourage you to do so, which you could've done without being so aggressive, with whatever "Typical" means. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

text: *I'd also be fine not include years active per  below, especially if it proves controversial, though my slight preference would be including it. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: What information should be included in the infobox?

message: Is there any particular reason why the 1968 Film - The Party - is missing from the Filmography section of the Article?
Has anyone complained about him playing an Indian Actor in body makeup? Steve s brook (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from the Filmography