Talk:Close-up

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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Close-up. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

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

Maintenance templates
Go near the start per MOS:ORDER. User:Beyond My Ken "really is better where EDITORS will see it, but doesn;t annoy READERS". 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)