Talk:Lorene Scafaria

A fact from Lorene Scafaria appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 898 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 2008 teen comedy film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist was Lorene Scafaria's ninth screenplay but first novel adaptation?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/October.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Screenwriters Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics 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.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

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)[reply]

Is this the right photo choice?[edit]

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)[reply]

RfC on chosen photo[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
~~No Too blurry, so doesn't really add to the article. Some1 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
No Bad quality photo Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is too blurry at this zoom level.Nyx86 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No A good picture with better quality should be used.Sea Ane (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the photo is definitely blurry, as pointed by editors above. Idealigic (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, and suggest WP:SNOW close. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes until someone proposes a better one. A biography should have a photo. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Notice that Option 2 wasn't available until after all of the "no" !votes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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?[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

New photo?[edit]

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)[reply]