Talk:Peggy Mount

Real personality?

You say that her real personality was far removed from her popular comic roles. What was her real character and personality like? 86.144.67.80 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This aspect is now covered in the Personal life section. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reclassifying

C class is generous. Tim riley talk 21:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, how demeaning! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is on the Riley to-do list. She was wonderful and deserves a good article, Tim riley talk 22:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And now done. All polishing of my efforts will be gratefully received. I'm hoping the page is now a proper B class, but that ain't for me to say. Tim riley talk 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You have done a terrific job, Tim, regardless of what these classes are supposed to mean. A huge improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. From our earlier encounters I value your opinion very highly. I saw PM in a few things, but I shall always cherish the recollection of her as the Headmistress in the RSC's revival of The Happiest Days of Your Life, in which I thought she was even better than Margaret Rutherford. Sadly the actor playing the Alastair Sim role was admirable but lacking in that theatrical oomph that Sim, Rutherford and Mount all had in bucketloads. I saw the Chichester production of Uncle Vanya at the NT but I'm ashamed to say I don't remember her in it. Tim riley talk 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You lucky chap. There are a few clips of her available on YouTube, but also a full upload of the film version of Sailor Beware!. Did you realise that the 1958 The Adventures of Mr. Pastry, featured Buster Keaton!? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Otiose I-B

An editor keeps adding an unnecessary info-box. When we overhauled the article we put the relevant info in the lead, and repeating in an i-box is useless to the reader and makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Views, please on removing it again. Tim riley talk 12:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it's just "one editor"? I like boxes, so I'm biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with bias! Let's see if a consensus develops. I'll pipe down if it is agin me. Tim riley talk 12:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Two editors, in fact (plus Martin makes three). I also think infoboxes are generally a good idea - articles look amateurish and unfinished without them. (Looking unfinished can in some circumstances be a very good idea - looking amateurish cannot.) In this case, it added information not in the opening paragraphs and presented it in an accessible way. I say keep it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Peronally I say to get rid of it - it looks amateurish with it. IBs are fine in some circumstances, but they add little to may biographies, especially those wth good leads, which is what there is here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The status quo ante is that the article had an infobox until eight days ago. In these circumstances, the onus is on the person removing it to justify that action. So far, they have failed to convince me or others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• How tiresome. I suspect your opinion is firmly set with no chance of changing, and that you will continue to edit war to retain the IB, wikilawyering along the same lines to ensure your opinion is the primary one, regardless of how amateurish the inclusion of s such a dumbed-down idiotbox looks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was "swept away" as part of a big improvement. So perhaps that's why folks didn't notice. But that was the status quo. So I hardly think it's "edit warring" to replace it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC) phew! and I thought I was "biased"...

Just to clarify Martin, as you accuse some here (possibly including me) of being an "anti-box big hitter". I am not "anti-box" at all. I am a big fan of them, and I think of all the articles I've created most have one. Most of those I've helped take through GA have one, and a good percentage of those I've taken through FA have one, but certainly not all by a long stretch. What I don't like to see is the knee-jerk "this must have a box", or the wiki-lawyering "it's had one previously, so it can continue to have one", which I think too lazy to bother with. If someone thinks there is a real true benefit to an article, say what it is, not just wiki-lawyer and hide behind empty comments like "it's always had one". - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I had thought linking to "box cutter" would see me safely to AN/I. I don't see mention of status quo as an "empty comment". But great to see a sudden upsurge of interest in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I came here a few days ago at the request of Tim to look over the recent improvements (and made a tweak or two at the time). One of the best improvements was to get rid of the dumbed-down IB which provides little of benefit beyond the improved lead. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If only Peggy had had a few more husbands and children. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. Ghmyrtle, where was the consensus to add an infobox in the first place? Cassianto^Talk 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Much better without it, sorry Ghmyrtle.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose info box - all the relevant information can easily be accessed in the concise lead section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Retain pre-existing infobox which existed harmlessly, without discussion, in this article from September 2007 until September 2015. Eight years. There was no consensus to remove it - it was done unilaterally, without discussion. I'm aware that some people dislike infoboxes (for reasons which to me are incomprehensible - they exist to help readers gain an overview). But that's not the point. It was the removal of the infobox that required discussion and a consensus for change, not its retention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC) PS: By the way, to avoid any doubt on the matter, the current version of this article is in my view, overall, a big improvement on the article that existed a few weeks ago. Good work. There is clearly more work to be done. But, the idea that infoboxes "dumb down" good quality articles is, in my view, somewhat arrogant. Readers come here to get information, and they often need an easy ("dumb") way in. Infoboxes that supplement and complement well-written introductions help do that - they (should) provide a consistent summary of basic information, and help give articles a more finished and well-worked appearance. There's no reason why this article should lack an infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again Ghmyrtle, maybe you could point us in the direction of the consensus which caused the article to have an infobox in the first place? This is now the second time of asking. Cassianto^Talk 07:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should check all articles with infoboxes to check there is some consensus expressed on the Talk Page? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe you could explain why we need a consensus to remove one, but not to add? Cassianto^Talk 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto - As you know, there wasn't. Before the infobox was added, the article looked like this. We can all agree, I hope, that adding an infobox at that time was an improvement to the article - at least, no-one questioned it. But that was eight years ago. The article has developed, and many more editors have made contributions. We have moved on. We now need a consensus to remove the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, an improvement would've been to do what Tim has done and to expand the article. Adding an infobox is not an improvement on an article like this. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a platform for bulleted factoids within a box. We don't need a consensus to remove it if one didn't exist for its addition per WP:BRD. Cassianto^Talk 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD says: "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)". That isn't being done here. Was the addition of an infobox in 2007 contentious? No, it wasn't. The removal of the infobox in 2015 is what is contentious. No-one is suggesting that a new infobox should be added here - the suggestion is that the existing infobox should be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Retain much loved grand old dame of Wiki infoboxes - as info boxes go, she was a real trouper, gawd bless her. Bring her back, I say! *wipes tear from eye* Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Retain infobox As the editor who stumbled on the article yesterday and inadvertently started 'the war beneath the mount', I would clearly vote to retain. I have long been under the impression that infoboxes if not mandatory are preferred; otherwise there would not be a list of tens of thousands of articles that do not have them. This is particularly so now that persondata has been deprecated and is in the process of being removed. Infoboxes provide a form of machine readable metadata as persondata did. It is my personal preference for an article to have an infobox, the eye is quickly drawn to them at the top right of the page and often readers just want to find out a person's age or DoD. I agree with Ghmyrtle that an article looks a bit incomplete without one & also that the somewhat pejorative terms used by some opponents are a bit disdainful. Eagleash (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes you're right, it's far to much effort to flick the eyeballs to the left where all this information already exists. Cassianto^Talk 07:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's one of those things "that research has shown" :P ...the eye tends to go to the top right of documents for some reason. All my bank/credit card statements etc. have the 'precised' information in that same position. Eagleash (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's no good trying to flash your bank cards at Cashianto. He only takes Paypal Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can do that; on-line or PayPal card! Anyway I though Cashianto was Spanish for PayPal. Eagleash (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Remind me - where in the opening paragraphs does it give her places of birth and death, or her years of activity? Do you think that information should be in the opening paragraphs? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need such trivial information in the lead? Most FA's give the location of birth at the start of the second paragraph, while the death, sometimes, is given at the end para. Cassianto^Talk 07:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's why we need an infobox, to set out such "trivial" information without polluting the deathless prose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

But in most featured articles the information is given in both the IB and the prose. That is repetitive nonsense. Cassianto^Talk 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Some people take information in through well-constructed prose. Others take it in through bullet points. There is absolutely no good reason not to have both in an article. It's analogous to having a photograph of a scene as well as an Impressionist painting. Both have their merits. One person's preferences should not be used here to force other people to see the world the same way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Retain infobox as per Ghmyrtle and Eagleash. I also agree that the rather attacking approach taken in at least one comment here is not pleasant to witness. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quite right. Ghmyrtle Shouldn't have bandied the word "amateurish" around in the first place, which would have avoided repetition. – SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Quite right. No-one deserved to have been accused of "edit warring", "wikilawyering", or have it claimed that their "opinion is firmly set with no chance of changing". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Considering you were edit warring, that isn't attacking or aggressive. Ditto wikilawyering: rather than discussing the merits or flaws of the IB, you wikilawered to justify your warring. If you don't like being pulled up on that, maybe you should think twice before reverting next time. – SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that the concept of "stable version" is a wikilayering device that's wholly fallacious and without merit? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the sort Martin, so please don't misquote me. – SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. You're implying that the concept of "stable version" is a wikilayering device that's wholly fallacious and without merit? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not implying that either. What I have said is that rather than discussing the merits or flaws of the IB, wikilawering to justify your one's warring isn't helpful in coming to sensible conclusion. – SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you mean "one's warring". I don't see reference to "stable version" as wikilayering. I think the merits and flaws have also been discussed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "one's" warring - sorry. At the time I made that comment, no, Ghmyrtle had made no comment on the merits of flaws, just hidden behind the procedural devices, without any discussion of the issue in hand. – SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realise that commenting on the process by referring to guidelines was necessarily "wikilayering" [sic - shouldn't it be "wikilawyering"?], but there you go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll all glad he's now corrected that. So, does "stable version" count for nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• And, personally, I don't like Cassianto's use of "flick". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

At least it's not written in cursive. See also Clint Eastwood. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dirty Peggy? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Date of father's death

A search for deaths at FreeBMD for any "Alfred Mount", between March 1925 and Dec 1931, reveals only this one. So, regardless of what she may have said on BBC Radio Desert Island Discs in 1996, Peggy would probably have been aged 14, not 11? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It would have been illegal to leave school aged 11 after the 1918 Education Act, and one can't imagine any sane employer defying the law by recruiting an 11-year-old to full-time employment. A lapse of memory or a slip of the tongue on the interviewee's part, evidently. Tim riley talk 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah bless. These luvvies can get carried away, can't they. Poor Peggy on her Yorkshire desert island - 'appen times were 'ard. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:COI prevents me from commenting on Sunk Island, as I am the retired librarian of the Crown Estate. As to "luvvies", I'd be cautious if I were you. Have you heard Peggy as Madame Arcati? She may come and get you from the other side. (Get hold of the BBC recording if you ever can - superb!) Tim riley talk 19:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! A visitation from the spirit world. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Ooh, the Crown Estate... how very Regal, dearie! You'll be warning me next about getting even blunter approaches from the other side.