Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Peter Sellers/archive1
- Infobox issue
I took the liberty to remove the infobox but was reverted. I believe the article looks much better without the infobox and simply a portrait. I was informed that there was a consensus to have one, strange as I'm pretty sure the chief article editors and perhaps others commenting at this FAC would be happy to remove it. Can I get some indication here of who would support the removal of the infobox in favour for a simple portrait like in William Burges?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Dr. B, that was me. I also just sought to add the wives to the infobox but SchroCat reverted that basic information. Infoboxes are about a précis and about offering metadata, and there are millions of them, so editors removing them are going against site-wide consensus. SchroCat and Cass are quite zealous about their opposition to infoboxes. Theirs is simply an argument about preference, while the argument for them is about structure, service to casual readers, and proper page structure. Also, this page is not determinative of the issue ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure I don't need to record my comments here in relation to info boxes as they are pretty well-known. Dr. B, I agree completely with your deletion and support its deletion. However, I would reluctantly leave it in place for now. If we delete it, it will only be reverted by the infobox police and, frankly, I can't be bothered to edit warr as I really want this to get through FAC. I do not want to scupper this FAC over such a minor issue as warring. I do want it known though that having an infobox in place forms no part in this articles quality. The supports we have earnt so far I feel, would have still been given even without an infobox in place. -- CassiantoTalk 16:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the box. Infoboxes allow users to get a quick overview of info on the topic, summarizing and organizing it. They're pretty too. PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure I don't need to record my comments here in relation to info boxes as they are pretty well-known. Dr. B, I agree completely with your deletion and support its deletion. However, I would reluctantly leave it in place for now. If we delete it, it will only be reverted by the infobox police and, frankly, I can't be bothered to edit warr as I really want this to get through FAC. I do not want to scupper this FAC over such a minor issue as warring. I do want it known though that having an infobox in place forms no part in this articles quality. The supports we have earnt so far I feel, would have still been given even without an infobox in place. -- CassiantoTalk 16:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- There really is no need for this thread on here. The
WP:DISINFOBOXsorry...infobox is staying for now. Please don't hijack this candidacy with a for and against thread. Take to the talk page if you want, but there really is no need. -- CassiantoTalk 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- There really is no need for this thread on here. The
- Yes, I quite agree. This is isn't the place. Pretty though is certainly not a word I'd use to describe them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Couple of points
- Whether it is to stay or not, don't let the infobox issue overwhelm this FAC like it did Ian Fleming's.
- Since its nomination less than a week ago, the article has expanded by over 50% to a huge 135kB. Has it gotten possibly too detailed? A lot of the information certainly seems better suited for the film articles—long list of co-stars, for example, or quoting multiple reviews for a single performance of his. It's also wasteful to name every award he won for a single performance (Being There), and detail his relationships so—at 2.25am on 15 March, 1964 he typed a message, "I have a dreadful fear that you might leave me. I love you so desperately, and think you are so absolutely wonderful in every way, that I find it very difficult to understand why you married me. You who are just the most lovely thing in the whole world. What do you see in me? I'm not handsome. I'm not tall. I'm not special in any way."
- Subsequently the paragraphs haven't gotten too big to easily read, especially the Lolita one. I feel the pre-FAC version looks more elegant in this regard.—indopug (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
More elegant? I disagree. The article is much improved from an information viewpoint and I think some important things were overlooked. Have you even compared the leads? An FA should be as comprehensive as possible in my opinion. That quote is an excellent way of showing just how insecure Sellers was. "Wasteful" is not a word I'd use to describe mentioning all of the notable awards won by Sellers for a film which was the critical highlight of his career. Its a film biography so should have some information surrounding the films if it is notable to mention. Shooting films formed the bulk of his life so should receive a proportional amount of coverage.
The problem here as Mark says is that this was nominated before I had a chance to edit it. I usually bulk up articles and then condense to ensure they are as comprehensive as possible, Unfortunately you've caught it at a time where the bulking has been completed to ensure it is fully comprehensive but is yet to be condensed. Some people imply that the article takes a long time to load but it loads almost instantly on my computer, but then again its a powerful recent Acer model.. Anyway if you can bear with us I'm working on a major condensing in Schordinger's sandbox right now to hopefully get it down to a level which all are happy with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)