Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment (Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media)
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga
| I discussed about this before in this talk page. I was thinking whether or not Terminology sections, like the ones at Shakugan no Shana and Puella Magi Madoka Magica violate any Wikipedia policy, such as WP:FICT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:INUNIVERSE. While spinning them off from the Setting section allows the Setting section to not be too long, most of the terminology may only be of interest to fans of the series. While terminology sections can be useful for people who are fans, they may not be of interest to most people, and may even be considered as trivia (but I don't consider them as such, especially if the terms are integral to the plot). Instead, what could be done is move important content to the Setting section, or make the Terminology section a sub-heading of the Setting section. While I am generally leaning towards their removal, I do believe that their inclusion may hurt those who want to learn about the subject (although they can always look at the series' respective wikis). In a sense, these sections are similar to trivia sections: they should be avoided, any information could be integrated into the main text, and if they exist, they should only be temporary, but there is a difference: trivia sections here should be sourced, while terminology sections usually aren't. So should they be kept or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
| there was discussion here before but not lots and now people are reverting on the page even though it was discussed. so we need outside opinions. should the list of 'artists who use drop c tuning' be in the article. if so should it only be ones with citations. Bouket (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
| I have removed fictional biography about this character; I don't treat this article as if it should be a mere biography. Rather per WP:NOT, I have added creation and development and reception. Why have intricate details been added back? Now my head is spinning due to possibility that no one wants to watch Frasier the series, and I won't know which is relevant or irrelevant in terms of real-world perspective. As for fictional elements, unless relevant under real-world coverage, any intricate detail must be removed, including even his marriage to Lilith. (prev rev: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frasier_Crane&oldid=476053274) --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Should the song "God Save the Queen" be included as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada? 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Template talk:Intellectual property activism
| Some users have suggested (e.g. in this merger TfD) that this template be cleaned up, but no one as yet has stated the specifics. So let's have a discussion. What should be kept here, what should be removed. 178.37.150.228 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
| This article was marked with a tag saying that the article doesn't meet quality standards, but there is no note on what needs to be changed. Any insights would be appreciated! |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas
| General notability guideline (GNG) is already mentioned, so I wonder if this Project could create its own Notability guideline based on commonly accepted guidelines, like GNG. If approved, should it mention real-world coverages, such as reception, analysis, and creative development? Would it affect such articles as Starr Manning and Aubrey Wentworth? I haven't created proposals yet, but, if many people disagree, then no proposals necessary, right? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
| This article is too messy for me to either remove or cite. Somehow, I believe in unsourced material because... I'm too inept to judge. --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Should the section of this article on the collapse of the original 7 World Trade Center be shortened to a summary given the material's inclusion in Collapse of the World Trade Center?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Merriweather Post Pavilion
| 173.48.120.161 (talk) removed content from the section. Thinking it was vandalism/test edit, i reverted it. He reverted me, then was reverted by Cluebot NG for doing so.
Discussion followed, started on my talk page by 173.48.120.161 and replied to on his. Being no expert on the subject, i would like to know whether or not the material in the "notable events" section should be removed (in all or part). Cheers, benzband (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
| How should season information be split at List of iCarly episodes and associated season articles. There is some belief that episodes with 2xx production codes should be split into seasons 2 & 3 based on a blog post by the creator, an interview with an actor and a press release announcing a DVD release,[1][2][3] but there seems to be no formal announcement from the network regarding when season 2 ended and when season 3 began. An April 2011 press release from the network announced that season 5 will begin airing in 2012.[4] However, the episode list already contains a season 5 listing with 4xx production codes and a season 4 listing with 3xx production codes. Reliable sources, such as TV Guide and the Futon Critic support the April 2011 press release by having the episodes aired to date split into four seasons.[5][6] This appears to be a contentious issue based on discussion above and at user talk pages, including mine.[7] --AussieLegend (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Star Wars: The Old Republic
| Should the list of advanced character classes be included or removed? Does including this information contribute to the reader's understanding of the article's subject?
If the list is kept, it will be reformatted. |
| ===Is the below acceptable?
As of January 1, 1996, the film had a copyright claimant in the United States;[1] however Peter Rodgers Organization, one of the largest independent film distributors in the United States, lists the film as being in the public domain.[2]. References
The above article explains two contradictions from Peter Rodgers Organization and a Notice of Intent and URAA from Copyright.gov. --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC) |
- This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.
|
|||||||||||
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.
