Talk:John Le Mesurier/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latest edit and its issues

Please note:

• Cites are not needed in a lead.
• Where is your source which gives the extension to his middle names?
  • Please bear in mind when answering this point that his birth certificate, autobiography and main biography do not mention this name at all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unexplained deletion of information such as "that also starred Richard Crenna, Anne Heywood and Fred Astaire" and "a romantic fantasy musical"
• Paragraphs should not start with pronouns.
• It is good practice to keep paragraphs to equal length to the next.
• "Colleague Bill Pertwee" sounds terrible and would be better as a definitive article.
• This is a featured article and it would be appreciated by all who worked on it for persons not to come along and pin ugly {{cn}} tags on it. If something is questionable (which it's not as they are not required for lede sections). Then you can ask on the talk page and it can be discussed. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

a) Cites are needed in the lede when something is being disputed (such as birthname, birthdate, etc.)

I provided TWO reflinks to show the full birthname (here and here); so why was my re-edited version (not a wholesale revert) deleted AGAIN?? Quis separabit? 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You put a {{cn}} tag at the end of a para within the lede, that was my problem. Sure, you have a point about the name, however no one reliable source out ways the other and this should be discussed first. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If that was your problem why not simple remove the {{cn}} ? Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Because there were several issues to revert, not just that one. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

b) "Colleague Bill Pertwee" sounds terrible and would be better as a definitive article."

Sounds mighty subjective to me. But I didn't re-delete (yet), so we can discuss. Quis separabit? 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The definite article is always better from a prose point of view. Also, "colleague" is less preferred over other terms. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I get it but it is still a subjective MOS disagreement, which I probably would have conceded had we discussed it.

Nothing subjective about it: the lack of the definite article is fine in AmEng or journalese, not in quality prose. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I am American so maybe this is a culture clash. The problem was the overuse of the surname "LeMesurier", which I tried to cut down on, including paragraph beginnings when the preceding and succeeding paragraphs already indicate who we are discussing (the subject of the article). Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's proper English to use the surname for each new paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

c) "Unexplained deletion of information such as 'that also starred Richard Crenna, Anne Heywood and Fred Astaire'" and "'a romantic fantasy musical'"

That is because this is unnecessary; anyone who wants to know more about the movie can just hit on the wikilink and learn what the movie is about, who was in it, etc. Again, I didn't re-delete that (yet), so we can discuss. Quis separabit? 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Why force readers off our articles to find out information that can easily be given in the first place? This is harmless and, IMO necessary as it shows the kind of actors who JLM was appearing with at that time in his career. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, re "[forcing] readers off our articles to find out information that can easily be given in the first place", I just think it's a space wasting, often intentional name dropping, and therefore unnecessary. I may be wrong here but removing trivial text to make an article clearer and easier to get through seems preferable. Again, this would seem to be an editorial disagreement, not changes to the text or the meaning of the text. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an editorial dispute, but the status quo remains unless there is justification for changing: there is no justification here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

d) I hope SchroCat's wholly unjustified last deletion does not cause me to be seen as violating WP:3RR. Quis separabit? 18:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope you drink from the same cup then in that case and adopt your own advice. SchroCat had a reason to revert as you were seemingly ignoring your own advice to go to the talk page in the first place. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, as you made the wholesale revert, initiating this chain of events, then IMO you should have gone first to the talk page to explain this action, not leave a meaningless edit summary. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing unjustified about it at all. Your edit introduced errors and degraded the quality of the article. The revert was entirely justified on those grounds, let alone the fact you decided to ignore WP:BRD and try and force your version on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Unjustified. I did what all editors do from time to time, i.e. be BOLD. What errors???? I see MOS disagreements. Did you even check the links I added regarding the full name of birth? I bet not. Quis separabit? 18:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Entirely justified - and your second set of edits were not bold, they were edit warring, as you should have come to the talk page following Cassianto's rv of yesterday. Regarding the name, see my comment above, where the main biography, autobiography and birth certificate itself all trump whatever dubious sites you want to try and look at. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Did you even check the links I added regarding the full name of birth? I bet not." -- so I was right about that. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I did check, but as I know the superior sources poo-poo the extra name, it was a pointless move on my part, especially as neither of the sources are in any way, shape or form WP:RELIABLE. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems taking things to the talk page but as Cassianto made then wholesale revert, initiating this chain of events, then IMO heshould have gone first to the talk page to explain his actions. As far as "your second set of edits were not bold, they were edit warring...", I am not sure what you're referring to. The response to Cassianto was to revert his unexplained wholesale revert when SchroCat stepped in. The third time, I tried to address both your concerns, only updating certain parts and providing what I believe are valid reflinks, whcih you didn't even bother to check. Quis separabit? 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to look at WP:BRD: you made a Bold edit, which was Reverted: you should have Discussed, not re-reverted, or expected others to go to talk. I'll also add that, as I've clarified above, yes, I did check the source, but neither were reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The Pink Panther (1963 film)

The original Blake Edwards film, The Pink Panther, premiered in West Germany on 19 December 1963, Finland on 20 December 1963, and Sweden on 26 December 1963. Accordingly, references to the film in this article have been updated to reflect that. Please refer to the discussion at Talk:The Pink Panther (1963_film)#Release year. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrectly supported information about a BLP

I have removed information three times from an IP that concerns Joan Le Mesurier. As she is still alive, she falls under the WP:BLP policy, which means that citations have to be complete to support the information they claim. So far the IP has added details of three books, but not provided the page numbers on which the information is contained. I have asked the IP twice on their talk for details of the page numbers, but my requests have been deleted as "abuse".

I had explained to the IP that they should hold off for a couple of hours while I searched for the page numbers, but this seemingly reasonable request does not seem sufficient for them. I have also intended to re-write the somewhat clumsy prose (retaining the relevant information), and to ensure that the citations used were in a format consistent with the rest of the article. Again, this seemingly reasonable request has been rejected by the IP, who has accused me of "vandalism" in trying to sort out their edit.

IP, I will ask you for the THIRD time: do you have the page numbers for the sources you claim? - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Quote template

The Quote box template is no longer recommended, and on mobile platforms creates an awkward presentation, so I have replaced them with the Quote template. Matuko 07:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dropping the quotes directly into text without context is not ideal, so I've put them back. I will look for another solution, but on my mobile there seems to be no awkwardness (although mileage may differ on other phones) - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there any reason why we cannot introduce an infobox? GiantSnowman 12:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why bother? There's no pressing need, and it's not overly helpful, given the fullness of the lead. There is no requirement to have one, and the consensus was not to include one here. SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I just find them extremely useful. GiantSnowman 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why, at best they're only likely to summarise "extremely" basic facts or trivia. You can't beat reading an actual lede or article, have you ever tried doing that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Useful in repeating what can be found by shifting your eyes a little to the left? I've heard others say they find them hugely distracting, so it's really not possible to please all the people all the time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we need to introduce an infobox? -- Cassianto^Talk 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah so I just restored the infobox without reading this... Silly me. But in reality we can argue all day long without accomplishing anything, so lets not. I personally think it adds to the article and helps keep a uniform style with Wikipedia. I also object to you using vandalism rollback to remove the infobox, without an edit summary. Read WP:ROLLBACK for guidelines on using rollback please. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well then It's a shame you didn't self revert once you had read this EoRdE6. Is there a reason why you didn't? Oh, and when I want your advice about how and when to use my tools, I'll ask for it. Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should include an info-box here, I don't see any harm done by doing so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rollback Abuse by Cassianto sparked by this thread. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's big a brave of you EoRdE6. Cassianto^Talk 08:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw it as I am following my own thread there. Sorry but I would rather not get involved, I just wanted to comment on the infobox here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh good lord, this old chestnut again? Knowledgekid, this is another example of why you should be banned from commenting on talk pages, you're particularly irritating and hold a bunch of grudges against people who disagree with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here he is again, right on cue. Haven't you been warned numerous times about this before KK? Cassianto^Talk 08:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The infobox is article content, I have no interest in the case against you over at ANI. Anyways, I find info-boxes helpful here as they provide a good summary of the article just my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do you really, that's nice to know. Cassianto^Talk 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• To be honest, I had never seen a FA class article without an infobox. The problem here is that there are no rules that say you have to include them or rules that say you need to exclude them. It pretty much is a I like/don't like it argument. That said, do you think there should be some kind of an RfC to put this issue to rest? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Really?? Wow, you should open your eyes a bit more...here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, not to mention the many more listed at WP:FA. Cassianto^Talk 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• You should place a FAQ at the top of the page then for editors not in the loop, btw consensus can always change as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Knowledgekid87, you can't have looked very hard then. Of the first 10 articles at WP:FA, three don't have infoboxes, and I'm confident that wherever in the list you take your dip-sample you'll find the 30-40% without boxes rate is fairly constant. Do you actually do anything other than wander around Wikipedia trying to pick fights on topics you haven't bothered to research first? – iridescent 18:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have prepared an Infobox for this page. I believe this is a welcome standard on Wikipedia, allowing for a quick access to essential details. The article on Le Mesurier in particular is long winded and badly written. Details are either missing or difficult to find. I shall endeavour to edit the article later surfingus (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@surfingus, @GiantSnowman, @EoRdE6, @Knowledgekid87 — I would support an infobox addition. At the time of the end of the original discussion, the vote was, as I count it, four-to-three against, where it was only the final respondent that broke the three-all tie. With the appearance of the last comment, the tally is now even at four-all, and with my voice—yes, per Jimbo Wales, even non-logging voices count—the tally now moves to five-to-four in favor. Please, if we reinvigorate this discussion, let's be civil. My own perspective is that of a non-specialist in cinema/media (though SME in other areas), coming to this article in search of a quick clarification on a matter. I found that a thorough summary of facts was not completely to be found in the lead. In coming to the page seeking a synopsis of simple factual matters, I would have been helped by an infobox. Despite the very pointed arguing by what is now the minority, the absence of an infobox is, I believe, though a stylistic choice, something that is a disservice to general readers unfamiliar with the actor. Despite the pointed arguing, finding the facts typically summarised by an infobox was not convenient, or as simple as "shifting your eyes a little to the left". (signed, an educator) 2601:246:C700:F5:318F:64D:A1FA:E163 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the original discussion, but I would support the addition of an info box. Given the previous discussion was 7 years ago I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be re-visited. Obscurasky (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed @Obscurasky: just came here to see why there wasn't one; not surprised to see it's an active topic on the talk page :) Since the original discussion, general adoption has increased. Here's a potential instance below for editing (mostly from the page history). – SJ + 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

potential infobox

John Le Mesurier
Born	John Elton Le Mesurier Halliley (1912-04-05)5 April 1912 Bedford, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom
Died	15 November 1983(1983-11-15) (aged 71) Ramsgate, Kent, United Kingdom
Resting place	Saint George's Church, Ramsgate, Kent
Nationality	English
Occupation	Actor
Years active	1934 – 1983
Spouse(s)	June Melville (1940–1949) Hattie Jacques (1949–1963) Joan Malin (1966–1983, his death)
Children	Robin Le Mesurier, Kim Le Mesurier

Revisiting the original discussion: I find infoboxes useful and something like this would work here in the layout. Thoughts? – SJ + 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Awful, pointless and doesn't explain to readers anything about JLM. Oh, and it breaches the MOS in numerous places. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What MOS violations? – SJ + 20:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)