Talk:Peter Sellers

Separation of personal life and career events, please?

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

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

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

Birth and death places

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biographical data

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

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

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

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

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

Extensive use of deprecated source

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

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

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