Talk:Emilia Clarke

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emilia Clarke article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 180 days

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Emilia Clarke has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 5, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 3, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 17, 2020.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Emilia Clarke performed the funky chicken and robot dances at her Game of Thrones audition?

Current status: Good article

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.

Berkshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire 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.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	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 (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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 in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Infobox image

Which image is more suitable for the infobox?

A
B

-- Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the new one you propose she isn't facing forward so you don't get a clear picture of her whole face, still prefer the older one. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have traditionally preferred the forward facing picture, if her features were clearly visible in it. She looks much more like herself in B, even though it's a slightly side profile. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards the first one as well. The issue I have with the current image is that there are some bad face shadows. I'm looking through Commons to see if there are any better images suitable for the infobox. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also lean toward the first one, but I'm not strongly opposed to the one Krimuk2.0 has proposed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that the current one obscures her features a bit, especially her eyes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A
B

B
C

I found a few other images on Commons that seem to be an improvement of the current image in terms of lighting and shadows. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A, she seems to far away, no good for info box, B, doesn't quite look quite right, C, Not her natural hair colour, so that's a no. Govvy (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the latest B proposal. Wasn't it the lead image at one point? Or at least someone tried to make it the lead image? Like the current image, it's from 2013; so one can't use an "it's not new enough" argument against it. But she does somehow seem younger in that image than in the current one. As for the newest one, newer is not always better. If it's how she currently looks, an argument can be made for using it because of that. It's low quality, though. And like Govvy stated, it's not her natural hair color. It not being her natural hair color isn't the issue; it's that it's not her usual hair color (although, yeah, she's known as a blonde in Game of Thrones and has noted that she's not readily recognized without her blond wig). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is B not the infobox picture anyway? It’s more clear and she’s actually looking at the camera. Current one is awkward looking and cropped all to hell. Rusted AutoParts 16:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would either this or this be more suitable? If so, I'll make them available for Commons. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her face seems a little crunched up in those, not sure I am seeing her in her best light. I still prefer the current one on the article, I think it's much better than anything offered here. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her features are barely visible in the current one. As for her being "crunched up", that's just how she looks when she smiles. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lighting is a little poor maybe, but the photo quality is far better, I see her features just fine. I don't know what screen you are using, but on my MacBook, I don't have a problem with it. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also using a MacBook, and I don't think that a picture in which one can barely make out her eyes is "far better". But hey, a difference of opinion is common, so I'll wait for what others have to say. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to either of the ones you linked Krimuk2.0, I'm leaning towards the second one but I'm open to using either one. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use either of those for the lead image. There are a lot of images of her where she smiles without her face being scrunched up or scrunched up to the degree seen here (and that includes the current lead image); it's just that we don't have access to all of those. I think Govvy wants a more relaxed expression as the lead image; I agree with that as well. Clarke makes such expressive faces, but it's best to go with a lead image where her face is more relaxed (which doesn't mean that she won't be smiling in the image). Out of the alternatives so far, I prefer the latest B proposal. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is dark I still prefer the current image, over the current alternatives. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is split between the latter B proposal and the current image. Would anybody be opposed to a RFC regarding this? -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC would be the best idea IMO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for an RfC at this point. Also, the current photo is actually slightly more new the the other one you like. Also, the colour correction on File:Emilia Clarke 2013 (Straighten Colors 2).jpg kinda concerns me a little. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dug a little deeper into the B choice and I'm seeing a potential copyright violation. I emailed OTRS and it looks like a case of licence laundering. The file has been nominated for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emilia Clarke 2013 (Straighten Colors 2).jpg. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is being brought up again I think is the best one available for the lead.

But my original preference has always been for the Vogue photo which is admittedly maybe too "sexy" to some. ⌚️ (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Mertex I changed the image to File:Emilia Clarke Dior Rose des Vents.jpg. This seems fine. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And reverted by Govvy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't added to the discussion for the change, at first I thought it was copyvio, but it seems not, but I don't mind that one from the Dior shoot. The image is cleaner, clearer, bright. I don't mind adding the Dior Rose des vents image back. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is just my eyes but is that image out of focus? -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was having another look, now I come to think of it, it's not as good visually as the one already there, probably because it's a screen grab. Govvy (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I tracked down CC content of Emilia without checking the talk page, stumbled upon the same Dior shoot mentioned above, and screencapped it. Then I corrected and uploaded it to Commons... Finally I went to the talk page to propose it, but I found out someone else had the same thought process as me. I'm a bit of an idiot. Anyway, here's the image:

Achtungpanzer44 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to replace the current 2013 picture with this new Dior Rose des Vents image? Its more recent (2015), and seems to be a good representation of what she looks like.Leewills (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the resolution was better, I would support that. The small display here on this talk page looks a little blurry/foggy. Clicking on it, it looks clearer. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added it to the Personal life section. We'll see if anyone objects to that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Can the 2018 infobox photo be the one at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival, please? 2A02:1210:6C61:6E00:AD62:63A1:1243:23AE (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the infobox picture.

CLOSED

This discussion was a masterclass in sock/meatpuppetry. There could be genuine discussions about the infobox image in the future, but it should be done in good faith and it shouldn't be tainted by this farce of a discussion. Nemov (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's high time we changed her picture to something recent and more flattering, like this one: Emilia Clarke at the 2023 Harper's Bazaar Women of the Year Awards.jpg. DemisLittleWarrior (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, the one there currently is pretty old now and there are more recent pictures to choose from. Haeskai (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the current one is not only outdated but also low quality. Birdiepeets (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, her face is on the side, and not facing forward, it's not a good image. Govvy (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start your own discussion then. Doesn't matter if it's from the side, the one currently in use is old and unflattering. DemisLittleWarrior (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus among Wikipedia editors is that it preferred that a celebrity’s infobox image be front-facing… Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I totally agree. Drneksi (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, she looks really pretty on the Harper's Bazaar one! Bluesooclarke (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone said it! Please change it. HypAbaddon (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the photo is that it's low resolution and very blurry. Surely we can agree on that fact? Trade (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Apparently it was screen snapped from someone's video. Nevertheless, she is looking off angle, the lighting is quite strong and takes away the colour balance. It really isn't the best photo. Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agree with Govvy here. This image strikes me as a poor choice for an infobox (or any Wikipedia use, really). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2024 (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.

Reappearing death section

Moderators and admins, might it be time to lock down this wiki page to keep erroneous reports of her death from reappearing? 2601:601:200:FCC0:F2D6:2B18:5EEC:A0AC (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]