Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| It's been three years since the last discussion was held in regards to the infobox image. As I believed so back then, the current image (which was reached by consensus albeit) is unflattering and as one user noted above, it's a bit creepy. I created a cropped close up so you can see what I'm talking about. Her eyes are half-open, quality isn't the best and if this is truly the 'best' picture that captures what she's known for (as stated in the last discussion three years ago in terms of her outfits), then perhaps it's best to asses an infobox image based on quality over what she's 'known' for. If this is the best picture that shows her during her 'comeback' (as stated in last discussion), then once again, I must emphasize the quality of the picture (awkward lighting, unflattering eye pose, not the best in quality). These are the current images at commons that are best suited for an infobox image. As noted in other talk page discussions, when the subject of an article passes away, their infobox image is also replaced with a black and white picture or of one that captures them in their 'prime' so to speak. Although (as of now) Marcos is still alive, I feel that Option B is in better quality than the current picture, shows her as her time as First Lady (much like other first lady articles) and will depict her in her prime when she passes away (not a huge factor now, but worth thinking about). Pinging previous contributors to the discussion three years ago for good measure: @Chieharumachi:, @Crisantom:, @Object404:, @Unilimited247:, @Lochglasgowstrathyre: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC) |
.jpg){kind=link}
Talk:Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song)
| Should the article contain a composition/lyrics section, include content about Ben Shapiro's relationship to the song, and background information giving context to the song's release? Flabshoe1 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of sitcoms known for negative reception
| Should animated sitcoms be listed in this article or in List of television shows notable for negative reception#Animated shows, or both? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
Has Game Science's sexism controversy added controversy around Black Myth: Wukong's launch, and should this information be appended to the first sentence of the paragraph that starts with "In 2023, IGN released a report"? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
| When referring to Grande in the article, should her credited name or common name, i.e. should "Ariana Grande-Butera" or "Ariana Grande", be used? Happily888 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
|
| Should the following revision/expansion be accepted or rejected?
It concerns the paragraph introducing the quoted excerpt in the section currently titled "Excerpt of Ibn Zamrak's poem on the basin" (about an inscription carved into the courtyard's fountain). It currently reads as:
The proposed expansion would read as:
If accepted, further copy-edits or suggestions about wording are also welcome. If relevant for context, the reasons for starting this RfC are this edit and this revert, along with the discussion above. R Prazeres (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands
| Which, if any, subsections of List of tallest buildings and structures in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area, West Midlands#Approved, proposed and emergent should be deleted? Should buildings in these sections with and without Wikipedia articles be treated differently? In favor of deletion is an interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL which says uncertain future events like building construction are out of scope for Wikipedia, especially for emergent proposals, which have not yet sought planning approval and it's unclear have a 50% probability of actually happening due to government rejection or financial difficulties. Against deletion is the argument that it's useful for research purposes to document the proposals and even though the proposals might not get built, they are referenced to reliable sources; approved designs are specific and more likely to get built. After this RFC is complete, the article may be split due to size, depending on what is kept. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the article on Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov include the following infobox? |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is Indie Vision Music - Contact/staff - Contact/staff from 2006-2020 a generally reliable source for music-related journalism?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ a b Irwin 2004, p. 52.
- ^ a b López 2011, p. 134.
- ^ a b c Puerta Vílchez 2015, p. 169.
- ^ a b Puerta Vílchez 2015, p. 168.