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 sourcedmust 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.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
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.
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business 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 BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
The image that is currently used File:Marilu Henner 2011.jpg is from 2011 and obviously looks like a professional head shot. A new image I tried to update the infobox with, File:Marilu Henner Oct 2014 (cropped).jpg, because it is from this month, making it updated. While infobox images don't need to be the most recent, they should if the person has changed and she has aged since 2011. The one from October 2014 is more natural and not a professionally done headshot that is probably photoshopped. @Brycehughes: you asked "according to whom?", according to WP:COMMONSENSE, it doesn't have to be a policy or guideline if it's just common sense that an infobox image should be updated if the person has changed, especially aged and yes, she has aged since 2011. LADY LOTUS • TALK11:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: The image you desire is simply a poorer image, and your edit reduces the quality of the article. The image is so poor, and the lighting so terrible, that it borderline misrepresents the subject. You need to be careful about WP:MUG. Also, what does it matter if an image is professionally taken or not? If we must always deviate from a "true" visual representation of a subject to some degree, shouldn't we aim to err towards the positive? Brycehughes (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the lighting terrible and the quality poor? Lighting is a spotlight that doesn't harshly define her in any way and you can see all the details of her. This doesn't misrepresent her at all, but in fact does the opposite. This is a natural image of her speaking at a convention, she looks fine. And why are you quoted WP:MUG? That's for police booking photographs and where the subject did not expect to be photographed. She's a speaker at a convention, pretty sure she knew she was going to have her picture taken. LADY LOTUS • TALK18:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: The image was taken in the dark, subject has camera flash in her eyes, odd angle (a chin shot?), a fuzzy obstacle in the foreground corner, a microphone in the middle of the shot, etc. It is an awful image. Read the first sentence of WP:MUG (don't get distracted by the "mug" part, I was simply providing a link to the section); you are very close to that. I understand that you would prefer a more recent image of the subject, but image recency is hardly the sole concern in a BLP article. Brycehughes (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And infobox images should be natural, that's why you don't see models during a photoshoot as their infobox image - it's not natural. Nor is that headshot of Henner, if you compare the two images, she looks fake in the one from 2011. She looks way younger than she is and it's misleading. The one from 2014 represents how she really looks. LADY LOTUS • TALK11:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: Right... I'm sure theseguys just stumbled into their shots. We don't have many professionally taken images on Wikipedia because it's hard to come by free ones, not because there is some unwritten rule about needing a sneak-a-pic. Perhaps we can compromise. Anything in here strike your fancy? Brycehughes (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You're comparing her to the presidents? That's different, political people have that kind of headshot on most of their articles. She's not political. She's an actress. I'm just saying that the picture should represent what she actually looks like and the one now from 2011 looks nothing like her. She looks way younger than what she is, has different hair color and has aged. Infobox image should be natural and represent the person accurately. If anything, use the this one File:MariluHennerSept2011.jpg, it's the same year but it looks way more like her than the original one. LADY LOTUS • TALK17:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
