Talk:Peter Sellers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:17, 29 November 2012 editCassianto (talk \| contribs)37,404 edits →Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?: re← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:49, 29 November 2012 edit undoLight show (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers30,726 edits →Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?: Clean upNext edit →
Line 70:		Line 70:

	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 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. --] (]) 02:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)		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 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. --] (]) 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. - ] (]) 06:34, 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. {{RPA}}. Brilliant. - ] (]) 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''' ] 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~~. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)		::As per SchroCat. Your views count for nothing here Wikiwatcher. {{RPA}} In short, I couldn't ignore it. May I remind you that Sellers received '''seven''' ] and '''one''' oppose (from you I might add), so the consensus has already been reached. {{RPA}} Sellers' FA is here to stay {{RPA}}. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:49, 29 November 2012

Peter Sellers is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 2, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
August 19, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Mid‑importance

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

James Bond (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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. (Personal attack removed). Brilliant. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As per SchroCat. Your views count for nothing here Wikiwatcher. (Personal attack removed) 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. (Personal attack removed) Sellers' FA is here to stay (Personal attack removed). -- Cassianto 08:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories: