Talk:Close-up

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Photography Mid‑importance

	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.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal 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 would 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.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

diversifying examples

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)[reply]

Merge discussion

Close-up photography → Close-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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610002654/http://www.askthecameraman.net:80/Camerawork/shot_sizes_the_extreme_close_up/ to http://www.askthecameraman.net/Camerawork/shot_sizes_the_extreme_close_up/

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance templates

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]