Talk:Florence Pugh/Archive 1

Independent verification of “C. M.” in name?
I cannot find any references for this that aren’t ultimately pulling from Wikipedia. Can we get a citation here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.160.123 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The source people are gathering this from is the birth records compiled by familysearch.org (which only show the first middle name while leaving the other two as initials, as is the British way), which personally I think is inappropriate here and should only be used in extreme situations. ⌚️ (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Which of the two photos from the same event is more suitable?

KyleJoan talk 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The second, it's more flattering, but obviously I'm biased, since I'm the one who changed it in the first place - apologies for that! Should there be a new RfC, since this hasn't garnered much response? Sorry and thanks again.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to open an RfC if you'd like, . KyleJoan talk 08:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox photograph
Of the two images listed by above, which better suits the subject in question as primary mode of identification?--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The second gives a closer image of the subject's face. The first appears to be shot while talking, which is possibly sub-ideal. There's a good argument to be made for the superiority of a neutral-expression photo, but the article's second photo looks to fit that criteria -- I'd actually suggest the second photo in the article become the primary one, and whichever photo is taken here be put in its current place, but regardless. I'd vote for the second. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The second is more suitable for a lede image. ~ HAL  333  04:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)