Talk:Close-up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 
WikiProject Photography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

diversifying examples[edit]

Close-up shot of a dog.

I moved the image of the dog here, since it illustrates the same thing as the photo of the person. I replaced it with a smaller image of a close-up on a feature of a coin, which illustrates a still subject. Badon (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Close-up photographyClose-up

They appear to relate to the same topic, and even if they don't, they should be included in the same article in different sections. -- Patchy1 09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Close-up. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance templates[edit]

Go near the start per MOS:ORDER. User:Beyond My Ken [1] "really is better where EDITORS will see it, but doesn;t annoy READERS" [2] . Except that's not what the consensus says WP:LEADORDER "Maintenance tags should be below the disambiguation links. These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article and should be presented to the user before the article itself." . I've seen editors consistently move them to the top when placed incorrectly at the bottom, which admittedly used to be more common than now. If you disagree with the consensus suggest you take it up either here, or more importantly at the MOS. Until then there's no consensus for putting at the bottom and I will undo, especially missing any discussion here (as yet). Widefox; talk 16:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline and advisory, not mandatory, and there is therefore no "correct" and "incorrect". When a guideline is followed blindly, it becomes a de facto policy. If you want MOS to be a policy, open an RfC. Until that happens, editorial judgment is allowed to be used. But, look, if it makes you happy to make the article look like shit, so be it. BMK (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Erm, we've both been here long enough to know all that, and of course they look bad at the top. Transparency for readers trumps aesthetics in my book, so I agree with MOS. To reply in kind: why polish a turd? Widefox; talk 17:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)