Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. |
| Should "Sugar Mama (Led Zeppelin song)" be merged with "Sugar Mama (song)"?
"Sugar Mama" is a blues song that was recorded as early as 1934. Although he did not record it until 1937, the song is often attributed to or associated with Sonny Boy Williamson I (Herzhaft, Encyclopedia of the Blues[1]). It has been recorded by numerous artists, often with variations in the lyrics and music (Tampa Red, Tommy McClennan, John Lee Hooker, B.B. King, Howlin' Wolf, Taste, Fleetwood Mac, etc.) with credits to various songwriters. In 1969, during their recording sessions for Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin recorded a preliminary/demo "Sugar Mama" with somewhat different lyrics and arrangement. The song was included on the expanded edition of Coda in 2013. The album lists it as "Sugar Mama (Mix)" and is credited to "Page, Plant". Two reliable sources have identified Sonny Boy Williamson as the source of LZ's version:
A review of other Led Zeppelin biographies has not revealed that their song is a unique, original composition. Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs provides the following guidance:
Please preface comments with * Merge – or * Don't Merge –. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
| I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input, since the discussion below, this, this and the related discussion at Talk:Woman indicate that wider input is needed. My commentary below is the older commentary. The RfC concerns whether or not to expand the guideline that was formed via this discussion to cover all topics about large human populations. Some editors also wonder whether the guideline should only focus on lead images. I will alert the WP:Image use policy talk page and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Should the title of the article be "Smashing Pumpkins" or "The Smashing Pumpkins"? 22:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
| As the subtitle asks, should this article cover Exposing for the Highlights? Please read the above section before providing opinions. The IP editor appears to believe that any exposure in which the histogram reaches the right edge (without clipping) is a form of ETTR, even if the resultant image is underexposed. There are indeed (non-WP) articles online that make the same assertion, but they do not explain that underexposure negates the benefits of ETTR (in fact, having the opposite effects). Also, should the article explain that ETTR is not intended for high-DR scenes? Unfortunately I have not been able to provide good references for that, and even though it is self-evident with a little experimentation original research is not permitted on WP. nagualdesign 03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:List of best-selling music artists
| As far as what I am seeing here, that this page is having some of its own policies for content that are way different compared to rest of the wikipedia.
As discussed before,[4] one editor removed the source published by Wiley.com, a highly WP:RS,[5] because it is not a "news agencies, and/or music magazines such as Billboard, Rolling Stone", with relation to the 500 million sales figure about Beatles, while accepting[6] a totally non-expertised one liner about Elvis Presley having 500 million sales[7]. So we have two proposals here:-
or |
| I've gone ahead and turned this poll into a WP:RfC. The WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include regarding Lawrence's ties to the 2014 celebrity photo hack. For more information regarding the dispute, see the discussion above on the article talk page. I will alert the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this poll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Per MOS:SURNAME, a person should be referred to by her surname in subsequent mentions, and pseudonymous surnames should be used for people who are best known by pseudonyms. According to this guideline, referring to the singer as "XCX" in subsequent uses as a pseudonymous surname may be appropriate, although I can see an argument that "XCX" is not a proper surname. Looking at relevant articles, the styles used are very inconsistent. For example, this article uses "Charli XCX"; Boom Clap uses "XCX"; and Sucker (album) uses "Charli". It may be a good idea to standardize the style across different articles, but which style should be used? sst✈ 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens
| Alright. This has gone on waaaaay too long, with no apparent progress. I'm going to try my hardest to present a fair and neutral introduction to this. Additionally, GoneIn60 suggested above that any previous users in this discussion (myself included) should hold off on stating a position in this matter until some (hopefully) third party editors weigh in. With that out of the way, here we go.
The topic being discussed is "Should Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens appear as an alternate title in the lead in the following format: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (also known as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens) is a 2015 American..." Here is (to the best of my ability) the summaries of both positions, for not including, and including.
I believe that's it. Again, I did my very best to present both sides of the argument equally. If there is one side that does not have some of their points represented, let me know and I will adjust. I will also drop a neutral notices at the film project and some third party editors from the film project who I feel would provide some good comments to this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC) |
| (For those joined us from Wikipedia:Requests for comment, we are discussing about whether the Engrish term media mix deserves an own entry or not, when it is no different from 'Western' media franchise.) 07:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC) |
| The RfC tag was removed from the previous discussion due to the AfD discussion, which resulted as "kept". The title dispute shall be revisited now that the content issue is resolved. According to the closing rationale of the previous discussion, the title must not be implied as a successor to Cold War. As asked previously, does the title accurately reflect the content? If not, what alternative title do you propose? --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Should the title of this singer's page be capitalised? Btljs (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
User talk:FormelE1ns/sandbox/code5
|
||||||||||||||
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.
