Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should VDARE be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Should WorldNetDaily be deprecated as a source in the same way as the Daily Mail (RfC), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use WorldNetDaily as a reference? — Newslinger talk 16:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Blackwater railway station (Isle of Wight)
| A certain editor objects to this image caption:
He thinks it is too long. My opinion is that the caption is of reasonable length and contains reasonable relevant information needed to understand the picture. Please comment. Mypix (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Should this article mention the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center made an announcement about BTS? The news was reported in the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Independent, NME News, Sputnik News, New York Daily News, Japan Times and more. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
| Background: There are no official reporting agencies for budget or gross figures in Indian cinema. News outlets must rely on their proprietary methods for estimating these values, and sometimes outlets' values conflict.
Some reliable sources, including Times of India[1] have estimated this film's budget at ₹543 crore (₹5.43 billion). Another source generally considered reliable, Bollywood Hungama, has cast doubts on the high figures being reported, presenting a budget estimate of ₹400 crore (₹4 billion).[2] Should we:
Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox television episode
Should the code in data1 be changed from {{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season {{{season|}}}<br />}}{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}
{{#if:{{{season|}}}|Season {{{season|}}}<br />|{{#if:{{{series_no|}}}|{{nowrap|Series {{{series_no|}}}}}<br />}}}}
|
| There has been much debate about this image (of a lotus seed pod) at the Trypophobia article. So far, the debate has produced a 2013 RfC, a 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, a 2015 RfC here at this talk page, and now this one. The first RfC closed as no consensus to remove the image, the second discussion did not have an official close, but more editors leaned toward excluding the image (and other phobia images in phobia articles), and the final RfC closed as consensus for including the image. The discussions have concerned whether or not including the image is beneficial to readers, and whether or not it causes unnecessary harm to our readers. One view has been that the image is educational because demonstrating what induces trypophobia is not easy since a simple explanation of "a fear of holes" or "irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps" does not suffice. People with trypophobia can look at holes or irregular patterns and not have a reaction. Rather, the condition is about certain patterns, and in particular images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies. Lotus seed pod imagery is commonly noted as imagery that induces trypophobia and is used by researchers to test for trypophobia. Another view is that the image is irrelevant, decorative, or not needed, and that, even if it is educational, it causes unnecessary harm to our readers; this is seen, for example, here and here. WP:NOTCENSORED has been cited in past discussions. Some have felt that removing the image based on the possibility that it might harm readers, especially if the condition is not real or an actual phobia, is censoring. Others have stated that this is not a matter of WP:NOTCENSORED; it's a matter of whether we really need the image for the topic and whether we want to risk causing our readers harm. The imagery won't harm those without trypophobia, but it will harm those with it (they are the ones most likely to visit this article) and, with more research on the topic having been done since past discussions, researchers are are clear that it exists and does induce negative psychological or autonomic nervous system responses.
As a compromise, editors have suggested collapsing the image (although collapsing it has been noted as something that would cause accessibility issues), or moving the image far down the page. So should we remove the image? Retain the image in the lead, but collapse it? Or move it lower? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Requesting comment please so that the article can be edited if needed to be in a place that people agree the close connection disclaimer currently at the top can be removed. My impression is that User:JJMC89 wants it to be reviewed for neutrality. Thanks! Pianolover1979 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC) |
| 1. Should this article contain a section about the contemporary artists which it currently mentions?
2. Should "hip house" be used as a genre for contemporary artists making music combining hip hop and electronic dance music? (examples which currently do: Forever (Wolfgang Gartner and will.i.am song), Party Rock Anthem, Like a G6) RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should a lengthy plot section written in colloquial language be added to the article [3] or should the article be left in a bare-bones version with a short plot summary [4] until a more encyclopedic, policy-compliant plot summary can be added? Amisom (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the (alleged) recurring themes be included in the article or does this content fall under WP:NOR? Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the (alleged) recurring characters be listed in the article or does this content fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Amisom (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Health and appearance of Michael Jackson
| There is disagreement on whether Category:American people with disabilities, Category:Artists with disabilities, Category:Disability media and Category:Disability articles needing expert attention should be retained in this article. One view is that the categories should be retained because Jackson had vitiligo. The other view is that per WP:EGRS, "which requires that categories about disability (and other personal features) only be applied when the subject has reliably and with some consistently been described as disabled and that the disability is in some way relevant to the person's notability," the categories don't belong. Also, Category:Musicians with physical disabilities has been proposed as a replacement for the aforementioned categories. And, additionally, it has been noted that these categories are not in the Michael Jackson article, which is the main biography article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Background: The most recent infobox RfC on this talk page concluded with 70% support for some kind of infobox, but with 17% in favour of only a default-collapsed infobox, it was ultimately closed as no consensus. The closer suggested a future RfC on the inclusion of a collapsible infobox as a possible next step. This option has recently been brought up again by Willydrach in the section above where it was decided that an RfC was the next step. Let's try and have a civil RfC on this so we can establish the consensus on whether a collapsible infobox can serve as a compromise.
Question: Should a collapsible infobox be added to this page? Regards, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should Leo Tolstoy's pronunciation of his own name ("Lyov" per Lectures on Russian Literature by Vladimir Nabokov) be included in the article in the lead or as a footnote? It's a very uncommon transliteration of the Russian name Lev, especially in connection to Tolstoy who has been widely known by the names Lev and Leo in Russia and worldwide, with few sources referring to him as "Lyov" as I showed on the talk page. The user who brought it up insists it should go in the lead even before the Lev name, while I agree to leave it as a footnote like in the Russian version of the article, without additional changes to his birth/native name and further clarifications. AveTory (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |