I think telling the OP what settings to use for a specific shot would be counter productive; I believe it would be much better for him to learn the basic principles of photography, not take a crash course on how to become a 'one trick pony'.
Lol!
Many decades ago, after university and a few years of bad-beer and even badder bands in the SU bar, learning all the stuff I was told would pay the bills... I signed up for an evening-class in this faux-tog-raffy lark.... to learn something that wouldn't! Entering the classroom, I met an eclectic ensemble of folk, of whom about two-thirds were women.... which is an interesting phenomena.... and a bit of ''real men', don't ask directions' 'lore', worth mentioning.....
The ladies in the room, were, by and large, middle aged women, 'asking directions', whilst hubby insisted that 'he' didn't 'need' go to school to learn about photography... and significantly they had signed up for the course, because after a decade or more carrying a little 110 Instamatic around in their hand-bag and getting lots of photo's, pretty much by serendipity of the kids darting about, and a lot of blank shots where the flash hadn't gone off.... they had gone to a camera shop to get a 'better' camera, they 'believed' was key to taking 'better' pictures.... 'cos hubby had always told them that it was 'far' too 'complicated'....
Which begs another aside, actually.... One lady actually remarked on Her hubby, bamboozling her with all the technical terms, like Hyper-Focus, and Exposure-Value and all the 'maths' of using a 'slide-rule' exposure calculator, and added, "
I can follow the instructions in a cook-book to make a near perfect souffle.... but apparently I'm too 'stooopid' to take a photo!"... which is a very good analogy actually.... what's more important.... what 'settings' you use on the cooker..... or the proof of the pudding, in the eating?
Anyway... among this ensemble was a middle aged chap, clutching a Bronica ETRS, 'professional' medium-format camera, being rather aloof... and we all 'assumed' must be the teacher! In fact, he was 'A Pro'... but..... He was 'A Pro', because for thirty years he had made a living from taking photo's, and, that, earning a wage from the deal, was, as he said, pretty much ALL that made him 'A Pro'! Didn't mean he was a good photographer! A-N-D... so after 30 years, and taking over the 'studio' he'd started at, I think just after National-Service, as a lab-tech come assistant, he'd signed up for night-school, with the rest of us, to 'learn' photography, but significantly ALL the photography he hadn't as a 'pro' for over quarter of a century!
For most of that career, he joked, that he'd take all these photo's, mostly of the happy-couple, shortly before they became very unhappy, or the proud student getting their diploma, or whatever, then get back off holiday, and his wife's happy-snaps were 'so' much better than his own efforts.. mostly, he quipped, probably because she just pulled the 110 Instamatic out of her hand-bag and got on with it, whilst he faffed around with a light-meter and slide-rule exposure calculator! (And there's more than a little 'lesson' in that!)
But as far as 'one-trick-pony's go, that was absolutely his point.
For thirty years, he had turned up, mostly to snap weddings, and as I suspect Phil will undoubtedly concur, 99% of the job had little or nothing to do with cameras, and was an exercise in advanced cat-herding, trying to get the appropriate people to stand in-front of the camera, at the same time, and not make silly faces and the like, long enough to press the shutter. The actual camera 'settings' were pretty much the same every-time, he had, I think it was five basic 'set-ups' and after taking a reflected light meter reading of his 'scene' making an adjustment maybe a stop or so either way, and then back-to getting the cats to stand still and say 'cheese'....
And in his words, after 30 years in the game, making a living wage from the gig.... "
I don't really know much about photography, you know"
Which is both an argument in support as well as against this idea of a one-trick, one set-up suggestion..... As said, he had perhaps five basic set-ups; which were mostly permutations on the 'scene', one in-door, one out-door, one full-length, one head-and-shoulders, one that got the church in the back-ground.... and the basic 'exposure settings' and the 'staging' of the shot, were pretty much those he was told to use by his boss, quarter century earlier.... and they WORKED!... at least as long as he was taking a photo of a soon to be unhappy couple out-side the registry office, in Brum...... those same 'settings' sort of worked, with a little adjustment for his wife and kids outside the Alhambra palace in on holiday in Southern-Spain.... but... when it came to his kids chucking a ball about the beach, or capturing the vista from a vineyard in the mountains? He was pretty much working in the dark... little side joke.... it was just nice for that dark to be in warm sunlight for a change.... (Other big bit of his 'business' was making up the 7x5" 'prints', in the dark-room for the customers to put on the mantle-piece ready to throw at each other in a few years time! lol... & y-e-s if it hasn't already been presumed, I am divorced!)
There's a few 'lessons' in there, and number one, has to be that this "reverence of the professional" can be direly misplaced. They don't always have all the answers; what makes them a 'pro' is merely that they make a wage from it.
Next up; As far as 'settings' are concerned, they can be pretty irrelevant, and it matters little who or what chooses them for you.... some random chap on the internet suggesting them, might be as good as some random chap in Homatsu, programming the camera's electrikery tro do like-wise, and is little or no different to this chaps Boss telling him what aperture and shutter speed and focus distance to set, half a century ago.
As a starting place? what the heck... they are as good as any. And they will probably 'work' and work OK nine times out of ten.... its where they don't that it starts to bite..... and working out why they didn't work, and more, where anything else might work 'better'. Like the chap trying to take an action photo of his kids playing volley-ball on the beach, or capture a sunset over the mountains, where the 'settings' more likely to 'work' aren't those you would pick to take a dreamy romantic picture of a couple in their tux and chince outside the church on a gloomy British afternoon!
If you take the 'advice' of a camera's built in electrickery..... shoot 'auto', well, it has far more than one starting suggestion on settings, it is likely programmed with a whole table of millions of the things, derived from asking the question of countless experts, and the electrickery can finesse the 'suggestion' from the table, based not just on how high or low the light meter reading, but what the focus distance is on the lens, and what 'clues' you have given the electrickery picking an exposure 'mode' like sports or 'landscape' or 'portrait' to help the electrickery decide whether a fast shutter-speed or a small aperture is more of less, likely important to you.....
Its like posting a picture of the 'scene' on the net and asking every-one and any-one what 'settings' they think would be more or less suitable... and picking from them, not just taking one suggested 'setting' combination as a one-size-fits-all panacea for every situation.
And that brings us back.... end of the day, the settings are only concerned with 'exposure', and THAT is very much a question of taste, not of scientific accuracy, 'any-way'.... So who would like to try herding some cats?
Whats 'in' the camera is still but tiny tiny fraction of the job, what's in-front of the camera, still by far and away the larger bit of it! Look THROUGH, not AT the camera!