Talk:Lorene Scafaria

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorene Scafaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126170634/http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/19/lorene-scafaria-interview-nick-and-norahs-infinite-playlist-toronto-2008/ to http://blog.spout.com/2008/09/19/lorene-scafaria-interview-nick-and-norahs-infinite-playlist-toronto-2008/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this the right photo choice?

The photo is out of focus and blurry. Is there really no other options?

Edit: This photo does not fufill WP: Manual of Style/Images . It has been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KieranStanley (talk • contribs) 06:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on chosen photo

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is clear that the file File:Lorene_Scafaria_Short_Black_Dress_(48749032523)_(cropped).jpg SHOULD NOT be used as a chosen photo due to heavy bluriness. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the below photo be use as the head image for the article?

Lorene Scafaria Short Black Dress (48749032523) (cropped)

KieranStanley (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree: The photo is out of focus and blurry. It does not fulfill WP: Manual of Style/Images. KieranStanley (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• No Too blurry, so doesn't really add to the article. Some1 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• No Bad quality photo Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• No, it is too blurry at this zoom level.Nyx86 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• No A good picture with better quality should be used.Sea Ane (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• No, the photo is definitely blurry, as pointed by editors above. Idealigic (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• No Blurry, out of focus, inelegantly cropped. Honestly, I'm usually a strong supporter of adding images to articles, but in this case having no photo is better than having this photo. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• No, and suggest WP:SNOW close. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes or File:Lorene Scafaria Close-up (48749032293).jpg if they're the best we've got. The photo is obviously of low quality but sufficient for identification and does not disparage the subject. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC) modified – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes until someone proposes a better one. A biography should have a photo. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 below, or none. It is good enough in its small form, and an image lets readers know they have the correct article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Notice that Option 2 wasn't available until after all of the "no" !votes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• No to Option 1, Yes to Option 2 Option 1 is too blurry per my stricken !vote above; Option 2 is definitely an improvement over option 1 (a bit less blurry, cropped better, and definitely less unflattering). Some1 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• No - Very poor image, which diminishes the quality of the article as a whole. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Should we add this alternative option to the survey?

Collapsed larger version of Option 2
Preview in article Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed Collapsed above photo to reduce bloat. See the smaller version below, and the preview with smaller version. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Some1, Guitarjunkie22, Nyx86, Sea Ane, Idealigic, PraiseVivec, Volteer1, and Giraffedata: please consider option 2 below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No Sorry, but Option 2 is even blurrier. At least in the first option you could kind of distinguish her features, the second one doesn't even go that far. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

My thought is that because it's zoomed out the blurriness less noticeable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, but it's still not a very good photo. PraiseVivec (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No This picture is blurry too. Agree with PraiseVivec, she is even less recognizable Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New RfC?

KieranStanley, should we redo the RfC with my image suggestion? Perhaps if the image were small it would look less blurry in the article.

option 2

Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to do one yourself but this image is also blurry. Images are only useful if they're clear. It might not be worth having an image at all. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. KieranStanley (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I BOLDly added it to start.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's blurry. Spudlace (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@KieranStanley: you should not have closed the RfC. RfCs usually run for 30 days and as the initiator and a commenter you are not uninvolved so you can't be the closer. Besides, comments advocating for the inclusion of the image were starting to appear and given that you are of the opposite opinion you can't be a neutral closer. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@finnusertop Fair point. I was unaware that I was not allowed to close it but am unsure how to reopen it. I believed that consensus had been reached and other users had suggested closing it. KieranStanley (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@KieranStanley: I've re-opened the RfC by removing the close templates. It still has the RfC template so it's correctly listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. You should not worry about closing or if editors want it to be closed. Someone uninvolved will step in when the time has expired. I agree that right now consensus is heavily in against the image, but RfC is a particular kind of consensus-building method that allows a long discussion so that many opinions are heard. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut and Spudlace: see my comment above. You can comment on the new photo in the original RfC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

New photo?

Is there seriously no other choice for her than blurry pictures? You'd think she'd at least be able to get a good one now that Succession has boosted her profile so much. 16:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Winditaround (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)