Talk:Emilia Clarke

British vs. English

It looks like there have been a few reverts, especially today, regarding her nationality in the opening sentence. According to MOS:OPENPARABIO, it states that the opening paragraph should include Context (location or nationality). I think British is best to use in the lead however I would like to get other editor's opinions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Great Britain is the Sovereign nation, the country she was born in is England, which makes her both British and English, however, due to there being, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, you should really avoid the lead to the Sovereign state and point to the country of origin. Govvy (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So it was to my knowledge that British should be used unless the subject strongly identifies with a specific country then we would use that demonym. I have not seen any sources that have stated her preferences so I would be fine using English. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

English is equally correct, but more specifically accurate ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather sad problem with classifying people from the UK as exclusively British when they're from England and exclusively Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish/Irish when they're from these regions. Standard term for all people from the UK should just be British (which is the official, non-controversial descriptor of their nationality) unless it is blatantly clear they do not identify with a British nationality/identity and exclusively identify as some other regional identity. This is really a ridiculous issue. And what's even more ridiculous is people going back in time and attributing a 'Scottish' identity to people like David Hume or a Welsh identity to Henry Morgan Stanley. It's an insidious rewriting of history and it's impressing an identity on people they almost certainly had no attachment to, and in many cases (such as Hume) they were probably actively hostile to and against.

If you're just labelling anyone from what we NOW consider to be Wales or Scotland (because historically Scotland only applied to lands north of the Forth and Clyde until the late Middle Ages, and I'm not sure Welsh lands were ever clearly defined historically beyond being fluctuating areas where people spoke Welsh) as Welsh or Scottish then it's nothing other than a regional descriptor, and you may as well list them as British (from the British Isles) or European or Eurasian or as being from Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Bit of a non-subject this really. She was born in England to English parents. As most UK celebrities are listed as their country of origin rather than as ‘British’, we would be changing every biography’s lead if this is such a massive issue Scf1985 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

We must not confuse the issue by trying to cover other articles here, only Ms Clarke. Saying "English" is more specific is silly as WP policy never demands specificity - only verifiable content. I think British is most logical. 86.8.200.103 (talk) 15:20,10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, by that logic, you’ll be changing the lead from ‘English’ to ‘British’ on around 98% well-known English-born actors’ biographies then. If someone was petty enough to change her to British, she’d only be changed back to English within a few days anyway, as I’ve seen with other actors bios. Good luck Scf1985 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

Which image is more suitable for the infobox?

• 
  A
• 
  B

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 
  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edits

@Leewills: Do you think you can give it a break, some edits are okay, but others are starting to feel disruptive here. Govvy (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is considered disruptive? All i've done is add headings and the public image section, all of which has been removed.Why is Leewills (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)that?

You adding in the same information already mentioned in the article, that's twice now, also, have you not noticed a few different people have removed your edits, yet you've put them back again and again. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough but what was the issue with the public image section? Most of that was new, relevant and correctly cited information e.g. the issue of nudity and her being invited to join the academy yet it wasn't allowed to stay. I don't get it.Leewills (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Leewills: I moved the information you added to "Public image" to more suitable sections. For example, the issue of nudity would be better in the "Game of Thrones" section, where it was already mentioned. I added the Academy invite to "Awards and nominations". The public image section is not a catch-all, most of your additions would be better in different sections. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me just be clear that it is NOT my intention to be problematic, however I do need some things cleared up so that I can know how to properly conduct myself moving forward in relation to edits: I understand moving certain pieces of information to more suitable areas, but the nudity topic for example, where I tried to go a bit in depth with her stance on the matter e.g. being annoyed at the constant questions in relation to nude scenes and turning down fifty shades of grey was completely erased and then simply replaced with one line of information about her becoming more savvy about the level of nudity needed for a scene. I'm not saying a whole essay should be written on the topic, but why reduce it to just that little bit of information when there's more to it? Which is why I tried giving it it's own section under "public image". Lastly, I've seen many articles where other celebrities have distinct headings for particular sections of their page e.g. charity work,endorsements,advertisements, media image etc. yet when I try to add them (even as sub-headings) to her page for better clarity they all get removed and are reverted back to being under one single heading titled off-screen work. Why can't charity work/charitable causes and advertisements at least be separated and given their own headings since they're so vastly different?Leewills (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Leewills: I went through your edits and found two big issues. The first issue is that your edits sound very essay-like. The sentence "The latter half of that description could in part be attributed to Clarke’s time as the Mother of Dragons, as she herself has stated that she grew with the character of Daenerys Targaryen..." sounds like original research. Another issue is that the references you provided does not back up what you said. We need to be careful in not making up information, both intentionally or unintentionally. That includes removing original research. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I am new to this after all, but what was the issue with me creating separate headings for endorsements/advertisements and charity work? They're two completely different things yet they're under one very vague heading. Why can't they have their own headings for better clarity?Leewills (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Leewills: Wikipedia article titles and headings should be concise and brief. Having all of her charitable activities and endorsements would be classified as her off-screen work. I went ahead and created subsections for her endorsements and charity work. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. That was the last of my inquiries. I'll be sure to be more mindful of my edits in the future.Leewills (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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)