Talk:Emilia Clarke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

1988

The source does not say that Emilia was born in 1988, but only that she is 23. We can't write born "circa" 1988. Please stop the edit war. --Maz-El (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Um. Ye we can. That is the entire point of the word "circa". According to WP:MOS, when an exact date is in question, but a approximate year is known (as is the case here), we are to use either circa or a question mark after the year (e.g., "1988?"). I don't understand what your issue is here? I wanted to know how old Emilia Clarke is, but couldn't find her exact DOB. I found that she was 23-years old in April 2011 (in that source), so it is reasonable to assume either 1987 or 1988 and, thereby, use the circa 1988. If you prefer, we could state something like: "born c. 1987-1988". Anyway, this hasn't turned into an edit war yet (but I could equally accuse you of engaging in it). I just wanted to know how old Ms. Clarke was and found that Wikipedia (my first destination) did not have the information. --Thorwald (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but we can't categorize her into "1988 births". We can write "In April 2011 she was 23-years old". In any case, {{Birth based on age as of date|23|2011|04|01}} is perfect, we don't have it on it.wiki. I'm glad you have found a solution. Bye! --Maz-El (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

According to No Original Research: Routine calculations, routine calculations like calculating a person's age or birth year is OK. I wouldn't categorize her into 1988 births because it may be that she was born in late '87. FurrySings (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

circa May 1987

Age 23 on 1 April 2011 puts her birth between April 1987 and March 1988, so circa 1987 is more accurate than circa 1988. According to British birth records ("Birth Index for England and Wales".) there were eight woman with the surname Clarke and a given name of Emilia born in London between from 1986 to 1988. To know which of the eight she is you would have to know her full name, or her parents names. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Age 24 on 17 June 2011 (per New York (magazine)) puts her birthday no later than mid June 1987. So between 1 April 1987 and 17 June 1987, given both sources. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like she was born in October 1986 indeed: https://instagram.com/p/9LUBQ8o1Nr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F53A:4200:4822:68F0:F1DD:7041 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire or Berkshire?

Here they say that Emilia grew up in Buckinghamshire, here they say that she grew up in Berkshire. --Maz-El (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Berkshire, she herself has mentioned it in interviews. Plus, HBO is a bit more reliable for info on their "main cast" than a random article. Moley87 (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Best Known?

How can she be "best known" for a role that no-one's seen her in yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.145.13.34 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The series has aired (started in April 2011) and it has been her biggest project of her career. I would say it is accurate for her best known as her character in Game of Thrones.  immunity  talk  05:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This being the reality, can someone find or arrange to obtain better picture-photos? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"best known for" is always a personal opinion. NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia; any time you see a "best known for", it is obligatory to replace it with a simple statement of the facts. In this case, replace "is best known for playing" with "plays". 201.239.107.49 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet Wikipedia is full of rubbish and many biographical pages still try to say "best known for" so while I agree with you that it is a bit silly there seems to be consensus of people adding this sort of information, so unless it really bothers you I'd just ignore it. -- 93.107.189.153 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

She also got GQ's women of the year 2015 I think that should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moira.Irene (talk • contribs)

Medieval fantasy

Fictional series, how can it be "medieval-fantasy"? Shouldn't that just be "fantasy" and if we are really honest it is less fantasy and more thinly veiled fictional politics. -- 93.107.189.153 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, no as for your 1st question, as a subgenre based on a certain type of features (see the Wp page about it if you care). As for your second question/statement, I don’t understand it but it does not seem to require any reply.--210.159.191.32 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Theater Reviews

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2296772/Could-things-worse-Emilia-Clarke-slated-reviewers-makes-Broadway-debut-split-Seth-MacFarlane.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.61 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Will someone PLEASE get rid of that HORRIBLE main photo?

Sorry, but that main photo makes her look like an Ancient Egyptian, and its from season 3 of Game of Thrones - we're approaching season 5 and an update or some sort of change would be SERIOUSLY APPRECIATED. I would do this myself but I don't have the permissions.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrMurphy1798 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I AGREE THE MAIN PHOTO NEEDS TO GO I TRIED TO CHANGE IT BUT (talk) KEEPS CHANGING IT BACK CAN WE USE A GOOD PHOTO FROM TERMINATOR OR GOT SEASON 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moira.Irene (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As I explained on your user talk page, changes to the infobox image should be discussed first. Also, you kept removing sources for the birthdate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The main issue here is the copyvios, though. Moira.Irene, you'll end up blocked if you keep it up. Nymf (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to change the photo, if I'm not doing it right then someone else change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moira.Irene (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How can we get the main photo for her changed? She is doing a lot of stuff and there are plenty of other pictures to choose from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moira.Irene (talk • contribs) 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox nationality - English or British

I have started discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Infobox_nationality_-_English_or_British since this is a broader issue than just this page. I'm sure this is not the first time this has come up. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Emilia Clarke

Cyberbot II has detected links on Emilia Clarke which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.watchersonthewall.com/new-pics-game-thrones-set-sibenik/

  Triggered by \bwatchersonthewall\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate again

Shivertimbers433 (talk · contribs) removed this bit at "19:43, 5 February 2015." Kokomo Coconuts removed this bit at "10:02, 15 May 2015." Since Kokomo Coconuts's edit, Clarke's birthdate remained unsourced in the article (unless one of the other sources in the article notes it). Therefore, I removed all mention of her birthdate. It needs to be sourced, per WP:BLP. And, no, not with IMDb; see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. As seen with the aforementioned edits, Clarke's birthdate is not reported consistently, so this is not as clear cut a case as one would think. Also, Kokomo Coconuts, be careful not to mark an edit like that as WP:Minor. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Her date of birth should have a source. I found a website that may contain her birthday, TV Guide. It is used as a source in many actors' or actresses' articles for their date of birth. Here's the link. TV Guide says that she was born on May 1, 1987. But Business Insider says that she was born in the fall of 1986: Here's the link. Marie Claire's issue on April 9, 2014 says that she was 27 years old in that time which means she should have been born in 1986 (either in May or October) or even in 1987, but then it is impossible to say that she was born in May 1987, because with that date of birth she had to be 26 in April 2014. International Business Times also says that the actress' real birthday is on May 1, but she enjoyed a "name day" celebration on the set in October 2014. Other websites say that her birthday is in October and Wikipedia, IMDb and Google had provided wrong information. That's why her date of birth is changed in IMDb and Google. I'm really confused. Maybe we should have both of those suggested dates like Mariah Carey's article. Keivan.f^Talk 08:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also a discussion on this page dated September 2011. It may help also. After seeing that discussion I think May 1, 1987, is the correct date of birth. Keivan.f^Talk 09:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. In 2013, The Huffington Post marked her 26th birthday and the following year InStyle reported her 27th birthday. It's rather impossible that both sources are that wrong and if other dates are as good as 1 May 1987, then they may go alongside. Brandmeister^talk 12:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those sources Brandmeister and Keivan.f and for your comments on my talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, this case is like a Mariah Carey case, and we therefore should probably list more than one birthdate; if not visibly in the article, then via a WP:Hidden note. Since editors will no doubt want to change the sourced birthdate, there should be a WP:Hidden note stating that this is a somewhat unclear matter that has been discussed on the talk page. And, yes, I knew of the birthdate section already on this talk page; that's why I titled this section "Birthdate again." Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted Kokomo Coconuts, here and here, per above. Kokomo Coconuts, discuss this matter in this section if you still want to change the birthdate. Per WP:BLP, we should be using good sources for this material. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22! I was wondering why there is a certain adamant overtone in asserting 1 May 1987 to be the correct birthdate? These two sources (not The New York Times but valid all the same) confirm an October birthdate, one from Clarke herself when she was on Instagram under the username "emiliabodelia" here and then photographic evidence from the set of Game of Thrones here of a birthday celebration, even if the source is not top tier. I feel like this whole dispute will be settled come October since Clarke is active on Instagram again, and will probably make some mention of her birthday. Kokomo Coconuts (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2015 (CDT)

Kokomo Coconuts, including both birthdates in the lead, as you have now done, was obviously another suggested option. But as you can see above, we are not clear on the day, month, or year. So it's perhaps best to not include a birthdate at all in this article until confirmation from Clarke herself (if she ever publicly gives such confirmation). Also, you should remove this source; that is too far from a WP:Reliable source. And how do we even know that was her Instagram account? People impersonate celebrities all the time, which is why Twitter has the "verified account" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Keivan.f. Flyer22 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: You're welcome :) Keivan.f^Talk 20:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Moley87 (talk · contribs), regarding this, I reverted you because you need a WP:Reliable source for that, per above. Also see that, per above, sources do indeed differ on this matter. In the Mariah Carey article, we list both birthdates because sources differ; and we have done so here for similar reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Moley87 (talk · contribs), I know you thanked me via WP:Echo for my "21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)" post above, but I've reverted you again because that latest source you added also is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And I would hope this IP is not you. Flyer22 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And this. Time to get this article WP:Semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Per this, Live to dead (talk · contribs) is very likely Moley87 (talk · contribs); I'd already warned Moley87 about WP:Socking, before the Live to dead account showed up to make the same edit., Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I struck part of my post above because I see that Live to dead (talk · contribs) was reverting to a previous version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting Imansti (talk · contribs) here as the other registered account. Resolution to the birth date matter is in the #Correct her birthdate section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: Moley87 (talk · contribs) explained on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ADHD

Can anyone confirm this claim found in this edit? The source is The Emilia Clarke Handbook by Emily Smith published by Emereo Publishing (isbn 9781486461912). Emero Publishing doesn't seem to have a good track record. I'm going to start a discussion on RSN, but would love if someone could verify this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. It seems clear that this is not WP:RS. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Emereo_Publishing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct her birthdate

Her birthdate is october 23, as confirmed by Emilia berself on her Instagram page. Let's change that birthdate please because it only leads to confusion among fans and media in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.247.225.33 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So now after the page has been WP:Semi-protected due to WP:Disruption (see here), you decide to comment on the talk page? You should have done that before, instead of IP-hopping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's been a post on her official Instagram page dated October 23 showing her celebrating her birthday. So now I think it's an evidence which shows that she wasn't born in May 1987. But it doesn't mean that she was born on October 23. They could just be celebrating three days sooner because she doesn't have time on her actual birth date and maybe is busy with her film projects. Keivan.f^Talk 07:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now if anyone doesn't have any problem, I'm going to remove May 1987. But I think we need another discussion again to make it clear that if her birth date is October 23 or October 26. Keivan.f^Talk 07:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so why is 1986 still there again? There are sources given in #Birthdate_again that confirm 1987. Biography.com says 1987. Lapadite (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Per the Birthdate again section, if there are WP:Reliable sources for both, either list both or remove the birthdate material altogether. Clearly, listing her birthdate is too complicated with all these varied reports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Both dates were on added on July 10. Is there a reason why it was removed? Lapadite (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, so this October 2014 IBTimes article says birthdate is May 1. This May 2015 IB Times article says 28 year old. And then this October 2015 IB Times article says Clarke turned 29 on 26 October. This May 2013 Huffington Post article says she turned 26 that year, and this May 2014 Huffington Post article mentions her 27th birthday. This October 2015 MTV article says she's 29. Ha, what a mess. Flyer, so is there a consensus on which dates and year to include? Prior edits have been all over the place, and not sure if the present version is even agreed upon. Lapadite (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The only consensus is what was agreed on in the Birthdate again section above. But as this section shows, that context has changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that a Twitter source is now being used for her birthdate. Tenebrae since you've dealt with cases like this at the Mariah Carey and Stacey Dash articles, etc., any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Normally there's agreement on the date and the only issue is the year, since stars sometimes like to shave a year or two off their age. The first thing, of course, is to note that Clarke's tweet — and this is the film's verified Twitter account, so we can accept that the post is by her or her representative -- does not give a year, so that has to go. The second thing is that Biography.com is an RS, so the date it gives has to be mentioned. I'll make an initial pass, and then we could look at the IB Times and MTV claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

So not only Biography.com but also TV Guide gives 1 May 1987. When we have such RS sites agreeing, we can't ignore that information. While rare, stars sometimes are cagey about their birth date, and not just the year: See Ken Wahl.

Also, IBTimes gives contradictory dates, so for this topic at least, it is not RS.

This HuffPo link and this HuffPo link each agrees with 1 May 1987, but we already have two RS cites for that so we don'd really need a third. And this MTV link goes to a defunct page on the German MTV website. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this, Tenebrae. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to. I just hope we get a definitive interview with her in, like, Vanity Fair or The New York Times or something where they nail down the discrepancy. Fingers crossed! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't usually involve myself in these considerations but I'm surprised social media is considered a reliable source. Just because a celebrity says something about themselves doesn't mean it's true; that's why we don't want them to edit their own articles. She could be lying about her birthdate, or it could be an in-joke, or something along those lines. Maybe she took the Instagram picture days or months before she posted it.Teiladnam (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae, what do you think of Teiladnam's argument? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly of concern — celebrities for many decades have been known to shave a year or more off their ages, and at least one, Ken Wahl, has given varying months and days as well. On the other hand, the birthdates that appear in magazine and newspaper articles generally come from the celebrity giving it or confirming it in the course of an interview ... but at least the latter has the possibility of a birthdate being vetted with management or official records during the editing process. I think the most authoritative sources are official documents, often in the form of arrest reports, divorce filings, the Social Security Death Index, marriage certificates, etc., but obviously there is a limited number of such things publicly available.

I would also note that the date a celebrity gives on Instagram, say, of a party or of a cake may not be a birthdate — people often celebrate their birthday on the weekend or another more convenient day.

Overall, I think we have to weigh a celebrity's social-media claim as one source, not a definitive source. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A search through England & Wales births 1837-2006 produces a result for an Emilia Isabelle E R Clarke registered in Westminster, London, 1986. This means that she could not have been born in 1987 and Clarke is likely to be telling the truth. I guess that the 1987 date is something that has spread across the internet erroneously. I've changed it in the article. —JennKR | ☎ 19:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Great find, and I completely concur. The FindMyPast.co.uk / England & Wales births 1837-2006 reference seems definitive. We still need to include a mention that the highly RS sites TVGuide.com and Biography.com are incorrect, and we have to show why (i.e. link FindMyPast.co.uk) since unless we do not, then the wrong date will keep getting used by people referencing these two sites. This way we acknowledge what these sites say and demonstrate why not to use the date given there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, I understand why you made this edit, but there is precedent for including the birth date even when sources conflict. See Mariah Carey. But maybe we should simply drop the birthdate info at this article? Tenebrae, thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. I definitely don't want to go against any consensus (if I've done so), but I highly recommend and strongly advise that we somehow find out using a undisputed reliable source what her birthdate is before we add it. I'll leave that to your call; feel free to revert my removal if you feel that this has already been accomplished. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, no problem. As you can see near the beginning of this thread, I suggested removing the birthdate material altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that was a good call - I completely agree with you. Conflicting references (especially on a BLP) would signal me to remove it until a undisputed reliable reference is found with the correct information and others involved in the talk page discussion agree that the reference is reliable and the information to be accurate. I'm reading through this discussion now; please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and I'll be happy to help out :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is her certificate of incorporation via Companies House giving her birthday as 23/10/1986 (dmy) an undisputed reliable source? It has her full first name so it is extremely unlikely to be another Emilia Clarke. The occupation is given as actor which also matches this Emilia Clarke. These sources [1][2][3] identify it as her company, but being tabloids I'm not sure if they would qualify as reliable sources. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emir of Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 August 2017

First, a housekeeping note: The first bluelink above leads to "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below." The second bluelink does contain the certificate.

We now have a secondary source, FindMyPast citing "England & Wales Births 1837-2006", plus a corroborating primary source, the incorporation certificate, which by itself we couldn't use because of WP:PRIMARY. Both these sources state 23 October 1986, with the latter identifying this Emilia I.E.R. Clarke as an actor. Despite Oshwah's good-faith edit, we can't simply choose to ignore reliable sources when they conflict — the sources are out there whether we like it or not, and must be acknowledged. Because of the preponderance of evidence for 1986, my suggestion would be something along the lines of what we do at Norma Shearer: We give the 1986 birthdate, and in a separate footnote acknowledge that Biography.com and TVGuide.com give a 1987 date. All bases are covered. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I guess we should go with that then. Also, the infobox still currently lists a birthdate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Done as per consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal life section: "no confirmation from subjects or representatives in cited sources"

Lapadite77, I understand why you made this edit; see this discussion, where I pointed to a case where I argued similarly. But like I also noted in that discussion, I lost the argument in that similar case. The "no confirmation from subjects or representatives in cited sources" standard is apparently too high in some instances. There's no WP:BLP rule that the confirmation has to come from the subject, agent or other representative. For example, if a TV Guide profile lists that two people were married or dated, we can include that material in the Wikipedia article based on that TV Guide source. I'm not arguing that you should revert yourself on this Emilia Clarke matter, especially since I'd rather see better sources than the ones that were used for that material; I'm just stating that such matters are not always clear-cut "Remove it" situations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, the main issue is citing sources that merely say "a source told". That's is tabloidish. And WP:BLP does say "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant. Here, from what I've seen, it's just someone's "sources" saying "so and so dated or is dating so and so" usually with a picture of them in proximity to increase credibility. I will see if I can find a reliable source that makes a declarative statement. But I still maintain that WP shouldn't be reproducing tabloid-like news such as "x dated y and then they broke up" or "x has been dating y since", etc. If the subject or their rep has not or did not officially confirm it, I don't see how it encyclopedic, or worthy of inclusion. Lapadite (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I figured that "a source told" type of reference was your main issue on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

These are the best sources I found about a Seth McFarlane relationship, though they all mention the 'source told' story: [4], [5], [6], [7], and Indiewire interview with McFarland but there's no actual confirmation. Lapadite (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion but I gather that both of the experienced editors above concur that we cannot make definitive, encyclopedic relationship statements based on anonymous, unidentified, shadowy "sources" making unconfirmed claims. Unconfirmed claims are by definition rumors. WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:BLP apply. Gossip magazines and tabloids frequently claim people are dating when they're simply seen together.

And incidentally, if two people are dating and it turns out not to be serious enough that it gets confirmed, I'm not sure that ever minor, short-term dating relationship is of encyclopedic importance.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible New Main Photo - Please Read!

Everyone wants a more recent photo, and I think I may have found one that could be uploaded to Wiki, and used, providing links and full credit are given. Since I am not fully aware of all things copyright, nor can I upload it myself from my phone, here is the link to the photo (it's very recent):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96656228@N03/21891166405/in/album-72157658969589598/

As you see, it says "some rights reserved", when that is clicked, it brings up this page:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

So instead of causing trouble by just uploading it when I have no idea what I am doing in that section, I thought it best to just post it here for more experienced Wiki members to check out.

From what I understand, it can be altered too (such as being cropped), if full credit is still linked to the original pictures link?

Any response or input would be great! Thanks. Moley87 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking for new images, but it cannot be used. See this link for what the license should look like. Nymf (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you. Moley87 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet again we have edit warring over the image in the infobox. Discussion? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

To User:@Musdan77:.. When you remove content from this page(Emilia Clarke), and with no reason given. Please discuss in the talk page first. Or you will get reported. - AffeL (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, AffeL?? Don't act like I was wrong and you did nothing wrong -- and then you threaten me? I did give an edit summary, while you didn't (WP:REVEXP). There is no requirement to explain on the article's talk page the reason for removing what doesn't belong on a biographical article. But if you have a problem with an edit I've made, have the decency to discuss it on my talk page before reverting it. And a complete reversion should only be done if it's vandalism (WP:ROWN, WP:MASSR). And I was going to say: "at least you didn't revert it back again". But no. Now we add edit warring to your list of disruptive wrongdoing. Normally, I would only say the above things on the editor's talk page, but since you put out my name and slandered it here, I figured I'd just keep it going.

Now, I made a lot of different changes (as I said, per MOS, and WP standards), but you haven't said what you objected to. You just say "removal of content". Here's what I removed: (1) a pre-production untitled future release does not belong in a lead section. (2) forced image sizing per WP:IMAGESIZE. (3) a "wikitable Key" is very unnecessary. It takes up too much space. I changed it to a more acceptable style. I could have just removed it. (4) A column for directors does not belong on a bio article. It goes beyond the scope of the article. I would personally allow it on a filmography page, but I know editors (even more experienced than me) that don't hesitate to remove those from filmography pages as well. As I say, there were various other changes I made as well, and there is no reason for you to just revert all of it. You did not give any valid reason for that. To me, that's one of the worst things an editor can do to another. —Musdan77 (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(1) Why not?. if it's a major role like that, It does belong in the lead section.

(2) I fixed that.

(3) How does it take "to much" space?.. what you did took as much space as it did. And what is even wrong with taking "to much space" anyway?

(4) "A column for directors does not belong on a bio article".. according to who.. you? Almost all 'Feature Articles' have a directors column. - AffeL (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, you don't even respond to my first paragraph. You just ignore the things you did wrong. That says what kind of editor/person you are. (1) It's the same reason that pre-productions don't go in filmographies. You should know that. (3) You can't even write correct English -- so why should we think of you as a competent editor? If you actually compare the two, it was less than half the size. Do you not know what too much means? Besides, a key/legend goes on top. (4) I already said that other editors (I think one is an admin) regularly revert those. "Almost all 'Feature Articles' have a directors column." That's not true at all. In fact, most featured articles for actors have separate filmography pages -- and any that do contain those, they must have been added since they were given featured status. You didn't give one example of one that does; and you haven't given a link to anything to back up your views. And you still haven't said anything about the other changes I made. So, if you don't, I will be making those changes again. The bottom line is: you have to follow consensus. You can't just totally revert another editor's edit just because you don't like most of it. You have to give a valid reason (WP:AGF). —Musdan77 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

'Leonardo DiCaprio filmography', Here is a link to "back up my views". Also please stop with the disruptive editing now and try for once to be a competent editor. - AffeL (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What did I say -- that you yourself quoted?: "A column for directors does not belong on a bio article". A filmography list article is a separate issue. Don't just use words that I used against me. Try to think for yourself. Nothing I did was disruptive. Again, you have not given one WP policy or guideline, so your claims are baseless accusations (WP:CIVIL). And you have not given any justification or regret for your actions. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What actions? What are you talking about?. You have to get consensus. You can't just edit what ever you like. BTW, I agree with you on the first point, so I removed that from the lead. And also stop being so damn hostile and be (WP:CIVIL) for once. - AffeL (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I told you the many things you've done (with links) – in fact, I even repeated a couple. I gave you the link to WP:CONS, which you must not have read, because you still don't know what it means. Please learn from more experienced editors, and don't act like you know it all. And learn to work with other editors. WP is all about collaboration. "Hostile"? What do you expect after the way you treated me? You're the one who started this whole thing. And I'm still waiting for an apology -- but I'm sure I'll never get one. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Musdan77, your edit was definitely cleanup, not WP:Disruptive editing. Musdan77 is one of our finest editors, AffeL. There is no need to treat him like he is some newbie who doesn't know the rules. Cleanup generally doesn't need consensus. Neither do most edits we make on this site. Do be careful with throwing around the term disruptive editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emilia Clarke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll review this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that even after a cursory look, I have to quick fail this article. There are two reasons for this, both of which would individually be enough for a quick fail. First, most of the text appears to have been lifted verbatim from [8]. There is a possibility that the website lifted from Wikipedia, but it seems rather unlikely that a not-unknown website would have the temerity to copyright content copied from Wikipedia without attribution. Even if this were the case, and the duplicated text were not a concern, the article is very far from meeting the criterion of comprehensiveness. It is currently at 700-odd words of prose, which is very very low for a figure as public as this one. Furthermore, it is at this point no more than a quick history of the roles she has played or been offered. This is an article on an important topic, and deserving of a GA, but not today, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Good article?

@Vanamonde93: With respect to what you just said above, I have to say that I highly doubt that this article is a duplicate of movieactors.com as it has been expanded through the past months and users who have contributed to this page have been long enough on Wikipedia to know that it's against the policies to copy texts from copyrighted websites. Anyway, I'm leaving this message because I want to ask your opinion about the ways this article can be improved. There's already a good version of this article on Arabic Wikipedia which seems to be well-sourced. Would translating that article into English be a good idea? Keivan.f^Talk 05:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Ultimately, the article needs to be comprehensive, based on reliable sources, and without copyright issues. How you go about getting there is less of a problem. If you find it easier to translate from Arabic, and to verify all of that content to the (presumably Arabic) sources on that article, go right ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I'll try my best. The sources also seem to be in English which hopefully makes translating it easier. Keivan.f^Talk 06:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emilia Clarke. 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/20140306054124/http://worldenow.com/2014/02/emilia-clarke-tops-askmens-women-2014-list/ to http://worldenow.com/2014/02/emilia-clarke-tops-askmens-women-2014-list/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/stench-and-stenchibility%2C102153/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emilia Clarke. 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://archive.is/20150124212602/http://sitmovie.com/videos/emilia-clarke-rare-short-ed-by-university-of-london to http://sitmovie.com/videos/emilia-clarke-rare-short-ed-by-university-of-london

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Brother is older, not younger.

Source 91.10.15.123 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Photo

@Krimuk2.0: Could you elaborate to what you meant by What? in the revert of my edit please. 86.170.13.28 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

So why is it that Johnny Depp having one African ancestor from freaking 1612 warrants a American people of African descent category on his page, yet Emilia's grandmother, whom she was actually alive to know, the grandmother she was named after, the grandmother she went to India to scatter her ashes for, is too "distant" to note that she has some Indian ancestry that she confirmed herself? smh, y'all are so illogical.... Trillfendi (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The only source that has an exact date is celebsnow.co.uk, HBO source is a deadlink, toofab.com doesn't exactly give an exact date, just said that the wiki article had it wrong before. Are any of the links reliable? Govvy (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see the old archived talk, seems unclear, so many sources with different dates, heh, it does seem pretty unclear. Govvy (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Sorry for not making clear that the birthdate had been discussed previously. As you have now realised this is a confusing issue and what we may normally call reliable sources contradict each other. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourced now with Baltimore Sun. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I clicked on the link and got this "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism." Govvy (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Screencap Rusted AutoParts 01:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: This Tweet disagrees with the day of birth with no comment on the month or year. I am grateful for your efforts but could you please remove the birthday? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That tweet is really confusing, official British government documents gave a year and month, but we can't use those as sources. The only source that seems remotely helpful might be celebsnow.co.uk that is the only website giving an exact full DoB that matches anything close, yet we need to establish if that is a reliable source to use. Govvy (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Govvy Celebsnow is absolutely not a reliable source. It's akin to the Enquirer. It's a tabloid. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Then Emir was probably right in removing the DoB, all those sources should be removed also, leaving a source that is deemed unreliable with DoB wasn't helpful. Govvy (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this article in Elle? --Count Count (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that Elle magazine has a much better reputation than most. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that Count Count. I would say that is a good enough source for the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I stripped out the other citations and replaced with the Elle one. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Govvy. This article now has the correct birthdate. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Sorry about earlier btw, but now I look back on it, there were too many citations, it was like that analogy, too many cooks spoil the broth, too many citations could confuse the reader, etc. Hopefully we can keep the article clean and precise. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if this is still an issue but I was watching "Solo: A Star Wars Story Cast Answer the Web's Most Searched Questions - WIRED" (Wikipedia flags the link as being blacklisted likely just YouTube in general, but it is easily Googlable and at s5m20s) with Emilia Clarke and she says 23. October. At least she backs up the Elle date so you have that.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, we have extensively discussed how to relay her birth date before; see Talk:Emilia Clarke/Archive 1#Correct her birthdate. Sources disagreeing is an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

The Optimistic One, this is a poor lead image. We try to avoid a lead image of the subject making a facial expression such as that. We want the subject's face to be neutral or for the subject to be smiling. Newer is not always better for images. Yes, Clarke dyed her hair blond, and the image showcases that, but it's still a poor lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: It does appear that her mouth is open in the photo but whether it's a facial expression or not is debatable. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what type of argument you are making. "[W]hether it's a facial expression or not is debatable"? Huh? I'll leave a message about this at MOS:IMAGES, WP:BIOGRAPHY and WP:TV for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: How about this? File:Emilia Clarke -- Dom Hemingway 07.jpg. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Sorry! What I meant to say is that whether it should be used or not is debatable. The image is far from poor. It's good enough to stay, IMO. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support the image given before in Special:Permalink/859359231. -- Alex^TW 04:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ditto – that's a good headshot. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @AlexTheWhovian: Her eyes can't be seen that great in that other photo. Personally, I'm not a fan of it. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• To my surprise, that video is in the CC-BY, and so there's at least 30 sec more of images of Clarke from that. There's some even in the first second that look fine. She's a very animated speaker so when she's talking she does have odd expressions but she is still for some of it. Also keep in mind that several images of her on Flickr in the CC-BY licensing from previous SDCC appearances. --Masem (t) 06:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I really am not sure about this image, one it looks horrible!! And two, it looks like a screen grab from a TV interview and surely who ever filmed the interview holds the copyright, so isn't this image WP:copyvio?? Govvy (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Just as an aside, although the image is declared as cc-by and appears to have been checked by an admin I cant see anything on the original video page on youtube that shows any license info. How did they know it was CC-BY ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I had another look at the image saw the link to YouTube, MilborneOne it says "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". (MTV International). I still prefer the older image, not very keen on this new image. Govvy (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology I didnt see the "see more" link where it was. I am sure we can find a better image evn if it is taken from the same video. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, yeah, I was also thinking that it's a screenshot, despite the licensing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fine with the current stripy top one - recent, good likeness, & I for one don't have a problem with women opening their mouths. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, since I am also a woman, I don't have a problem with women opening their mouths either. Let's not make this into a sexism issue. I would feel the same if it was a lead image of a man making that expression. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I make a request? If the current picture is taken off, can we please keep the previous one gone as well. Personally, I'm not a big fan of it, her smile is awkward and her eyes can barely be seen. It's far worse than the current photo. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Optimistic One, we should be attempting to choose the best lead image. While preference is a part of editors' commentary in this discussion, a rationale such as an awkward smile is subjective. Stating that Clarke's expression in the image you added is not neutral and is an atypical expression for a lead image is objective. Like we did at the Scarlett Johansson talk page, as seen at Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image, we could start a WP:RfC and line up pictures to choose from. But let's wait and see if others have anything to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Yes! A WP:RfC with multiple pictures to choose from sounds great! We'll wait and see how this one pans out. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke smiles with all 32 of her teeth half the time and squints, that’s just her personality, I don’t see how it’s awkward. If you’re focused on wanting her to look beautiful then there’s this one.Trillfendi (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support previous image New one just looks awful (probably because of her facial expression). Also, if readers want a look at a new photo of her, there's one from earlier this year further down in the article. TedEdwards 21:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support previous image Could be the lipstick! Looks way too strong!! But I preferred the previous image also if we are going in that direction. Govvy (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we should change the image... Put one of Qi'ra or Daenerys Loki Hunt (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Loki Hunt: We can't put in an image of Qi'ra or Daenerys, as the image wouldn't be free, and would therefore breach WP:NFCC#1, as another photo of Emilia Clarke, which would be free, is available. TedEdwards 12:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: How about this? File:Emilia Clarke -- Dom Hemingway 07.jpg. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any reason to change the image and I don't know what's wrong with the previous one. That said, I don't particularly mind this image if it had to change, but I would prefer it if the picture was more focused on her face, we don't need to see the pen or the cop. Btw The Optimistic One, in case you didn't know, if you were trying to make a wikilink to the file, put a colon in front of it like [[:File:Emilia Clarke -- Dom Hemingway 07.jpg]] to get File:Emilia Clarke -- Dom Hemingway 07.jpg TedEdwards 19:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Optimistic One, WP:Consensus is clearly against the image you added. Because of that and WP:ONUS stating that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," I think you should restore the status quo version. Or Govvy or someone else should. You have not convinced us to go with that poor image. Of course, an RfC can still be started on this matter, but the status quo should be restored first. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to this talk page for replies on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done The Optimistic One (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Exxeamethyst (talk · contribs) added File:Emilia Clarke-Emmys 2018.jpg and is claiming to be the owner of the image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Does feel a bit suspicious, also it has been cut from another image which has stripped out the camera watermark data. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane

• Moved from User talk:The Optimistic One#Emilia Clark

Really, that edit additional about dating Seth seems WP:GOSSIP, WP:TABLOID. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: It's from a reliable source and Emilia has confirmed that she did date Seth herself, I didn't write the sentence, it was removed from her own wiki. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

okay, I just didn't think it was that important or encyclopaedic for wiki. Govvy (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: If there's a reliable source to prove stuff like that, it's worth staying. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Seth's very own wiki has the same information about their relationship. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

heh, I am not a big fan of Seth MacFarlane, I don't look at his page or have it on my watchlist, I've got Emilia Clarke on because I love Game of Thrones. It's not about the sources for me, it's just I didn't think it was that notable. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: See WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And you could have a reliable source talk about a celeb dropping her change on the side of the round. You don't need to note everything! Govvy (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Just want to clarify things. The Optimistic One (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "who's dated who" blog. If the relationship was significant and covered in reliable sources then it should likely be included. Dating for six months then breaking up is not significant. The E Online website quotes "a source" for the duration of the relationship, which is typical tabloid garbage and does not meet WP:RS. I'm with @Govvy: on this one.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: E! is a reliable source and the two subjects are notable. Why is it a problem on Emilia's wiki but not Seth's? The Optimistic One (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

E! publishes mostly titillating gossip-based celebrity info. As I noted, portions of what you have added to the article regarding the relationship is based on anonymous sources, which, per WP:BLPGOSSIP should not be used in a BLP. In addition, per WP:BLPNAME any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. So the sources are mediocre, include anonymous sources for info and there is no consensus that the relationship is significant enough for inclusion. I'll post to the talk page and bring it into compliance with BLP if it remains unchanged when I'm back online tomorrow. This goes for both articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Even on Seth MacFarlane page I would removal it, seems so trivial. Govvy (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the gossipy bit for now. The length of the relationship is linked to anonymous sources, which leaves only the information that Clarke dated McFarlane at some point. Even with that, there is no evidence of the significance of the relationship that would merit its inclusion. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

London, England or London, UK or?

@The Optimistic One, Ponyo, and Govvy: saw the discussion (now closed) on ANI and out of curiousity checked out her article. This ignorant American wants to know, shouldn't her place of birth and location be London, England, UK? In truth I've had this problem in other situations. To my chauvinistic American (which is in itself a euphemism, as a United States of America citizen is long and unwieldy)there is England, Scotland, Wales, and other nations which are incorporated into the United Kingdom are not referred to as UK, ex: Bermuda,Falklands, British Virgin Islands, Northern Ireland. And apparently there is another term: Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales.The United Kingdom did not exist until May 1, 1707. I personally think that London, England has more clarity. Take for instance Whitby, England. If you referred to tit as Whitby UK you would not know whether it was in Scotland or England. (It is a name with Norse roots, it means Whit's farmstead. There needs to be a consensus.Oldperson (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree Whitby, England ~ is more informative. A bio page of a Scottish or Welsh actor are mostly likely to say their which constituent UK nation they hail from rather than just the UK e.g see Jonathan Pryce, Rory McCann, Iwan Rheon, Sean Bean and many others where UK is not used. Maybe London, England, UK is unnecessary long. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A little bit of Template:Infobox person style guidance 'For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state; for United Kingdom locations, the constituent countries of the UK are sometimes used instead, when more appropriate in the context'. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 01:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

To my American ear "London, England" is the correct way to say it. People know what/where England is at least as well as the UK. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: @Bodney: @DIYeditor: It should be London, England, I followed the template guidelines for years, but for some reason Emir of Wikipedia and Davey2010 refused to listen even know I posted that on their talk pages. It's not good to have London, UK or say, Norfolk, UK or Boston, UK. Because two letter suffix can be confusing to a lot of readers it can violate WP:ACCESS rules as UK and US are very similar. Because America has so many towns named with the same name, Boston is a fine example everyone thinks o ye, that's in American, except the original town it's named after Boston, Lincolnshire, and London, how many other London's are there, well just have a look at London (disambiguation). Govvy (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Govvy I changed it to London, England and explained why, check View History. Let's see what happens.Oldperson (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"It would've been nice if Oldperson waited for me self-revert instead of rushing in like a bull in a china shop and adding the edit back themselves!, That all being said the consensus above is to not include UK which I'm absolutely fine with, Thanks everyone for your comments and help with this matter, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010What do you mean wait. There is no indication that it would ever be changed and I certainly did not know that it was you, and we have never interacted before..I might change my user name to Bullinachinashop. My spouse is a procrasinator and I never put off till tomorrow what I can do today.Oldperson (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well because I was going to revert myself - I was aware of this discussion and wanted to see others opinions first, I assumed you reverted based on this discussion but if you genuinely didn't then my apologies (I myself have unintentionally added something that was removed with a discussion ongoing so it's easily done :) ), Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

We should follow the template guideline and have UK in there somewhere even if we write it out as the United Kingdom unless there is a good reason to not do so. For some reason Govvy refused to listen though. There is no consensus to remove UK which is the country. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance ...Which template guideline? The only thing close to consensus in this discussion is that we write London, England rather than London, UK on this page. ^{(which I assume includes London, U.K. or London, United Kingdom: ...while... London, England, United Kingdom is unnecessarily overlong)} -- ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 18:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to have some sort of RFC somewhere on whether "UK" should be included in infoboxes?, –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That could perhaps be the best course of action. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why can't we include UK? It's just two letters capitalised. Isn't U.S included in her residence? The Optimistic One (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am saying we should include UK, but it could be better to have an RfC to gain a wider consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There was something about making the address too long? About info box size, can't remember where that was know. Govvy (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal life (again)

• Link to archived discussion

(copied from my talk page)

I remember we went through on the talk page about relationship information and you removed it, I removed it twice now and UditaCh has restored it again. I am not sure, can't see in the history section but I thought I told this person to read the talk page log. Maybe you can sort it out? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see anywhere where I have been spoken to. Except it being written in the second revert that "I thought we talked about this". Please correct me if I am wrong but should a confession directly from the person concerned be counted as Gossip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UditaCh (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy and UditaCh: My overriding concern when I removed the information the first time is that it included information, including a timeline of the relationship, that was linked solely to anonymous sources on a gossip website. The inclusion of the relationship with Seth MacFarlane in general can be included in the article, I suppose, according to editorial consensus. My personal inclination would be not to include it, as it is clear Clarke has been reticent to discuss the private relationship and it was essentially a short lived fling that happened several years ago. It really doesn't add anything to a BLP article to note the subject had a low-key relationship for a handful of months years ago. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Alos, here's the previous discussion, buried in an archive. The page wasn't overly long and the topics crop up repeatedly, so I'm not sure why the page needed to be archived. I can see if a year had gone by, but it had only been a month. <shrugs>.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

{{|Ponyo|}} Aye. I did not include the time as the mere confession in Clarke's interview was that MacFarlane and her were together. We don't know for how long but they were in one. Same goes for hers and MacDowell's relationship which she published in her own social media. I found sources saying they parted ways this February but since none from reliable ones and not their own confession, I didn't include it. I mean it's still a personal information and which is why we have sections on them don't we? I didn't elaborate on either keeping with the ethics on writing information on Wikipedia.-- User:UditaCh

@UditaCh: I really don't think we need to write on a wikipedia page, who dated who, that's what OK Magazine is for, it's suppose to be a biography with the important key points about her life, I hardly think dating Seth is that important. That's what the original conversation on her talk page was suppose to be about. Govvy (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait. So even when the person confesses to having had a relationship someone it's not an important event in their life and is to be omitted from a biography? Going by the implication of OK magazine are we not assuming that she merely dated for a short while when all she said was they were together (which is all I mentioned since it came from the horse's mouth itself)? Both events were certainly important enough for Clarke to have mentioned or put up in her own social media. Might I emphasize that it came from her. Neither MacFarlane or McDowell. From the very person whom we are writing on.-- User: UditaCh —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand the obsession with noting these short lived relationships on wikipedia, I can only point you too WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:TRIVIAL, WP:TABLOID, which kinda covers the elements to which I refer to, telling you what to avoid when writing about relationships on wikipedia articles. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Again - who said it's short lived? Why are we assuming on Clarke's part? And the " obsession" is due to Clarke's own words. Which I have argued follows the guidelines set. -- User: UditaCh —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If we don't know if it is short or long term relationship, then maybe it is too early. Totally agree that this is WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:TRIVIAL and WP:TABLOID and really not notable enough for a quality encyclopedia article about Clarke on Wikipedia. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I still do not get how is it WP:BLPGOSSIP when clearly it came from Clarke herself and she is okay mentioning it in public. It is not like there are details from either relationship added other than the fact that Clarke confirmed it. "maybe it is too early" - May be McDowell's then. Certainly not the bit on MacFarlaneas it was 2016 when she confessed. I rest my case. Rest up to you. I am done here. -- User:UditaCh —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

New info box image

Is it me or is it hard to see her face on this new image? I personally preferred the older image with less makeup. Comments? Govvy (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

+1 - I came here to post the exact same issue as Govvy, I guess the current one could be cropped but imho (if we haven't already had one) an rfc should be started on the image given it's a widely watched/edited article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Emilia Clarke Vogue

Going slightly astray from the discussion is but how about ... if it is actually allowable on wikipedia. It is dark, but more easier to see her face than the current pic. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it me, or does she look rather raunchy in that pic?? Govvy (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Er Yep, sorry not the normal clean wikipedia infobox image, i was just looking on the Commons for a better image than the current one. The previous infobox picture some how looks clearer to me on the Commons than it did here. I have no idea why. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree that the image on the page isn't good, for the reasons Govvy outlined (having thought of them before I saw their comment). I prefer the old image, and think we shouldn't be finding new images for the sake of it. If a new image comes along that is good, then we can use the new image, but a terrible but new image is much worse than a good but old on, especially as Clarke hasn't changed that much in six years. --TedEdwards 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted The Optimistic One's image choice. It's a poor lead image because it's not how she normally looks and one has to click on the image just to better see her face. Agree with TedEdwards; that is pretty much what I state any time a lead image is changed on a biography article. For those unaware of our previous image discussion, see Talk:Emilia Clarke/Archive 1#Lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Emilia clarke by sachyn mital (cropped)

Why can't we use the photo of her at the Game of Thrones season 8 World Premiere? It has better lighting than the current image, Clarke is not making a weird face in it, it isn't "raunchy", and as a bonus it is newer than the almost 6-year old photo currently being used. mypurplelightsaber (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly better cropped, but the make-up is a little vampyric for my taste. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

mypurplelightsaber, because, to repeat, it's not how she normally looks. That's my main reason. Newer is not always better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That new image is not my cup of tea, not so natural, she has a Goth look there, I also agree with Flyer22 Reborn, new isn't always better. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

About her aneurysms & surgery

Someone should add details about her brain aneurysms and surgery she underwent whose pics were shared by her recently. AbdulKareem92 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in the "Personal life" and "Charitable work" sections. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

strange inconsistent formatting.

I really don't understand the bad formatting, you should either have one or the other. In the info box there is UK and US, you either have U.K. with U.S. or UK with US. It's pretty poor construct to have UK above U.S. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Lasted info box image

I am a bit confused on what copyright if any is on the latest image. The new image has been a screen capture from a video on vimeo, however Dior upload their videos to YouTube, and I am really not sure if the video should be on Vimeo, at the same time I can't see what copyright if any are on https://www.youtube.com/user/Dior ?? Govvy (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder claim

Gaolinual and others, regarding this, it needs stronger sourcing if it's to stay. This is per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand, the source being used is fine. I've never heard of La Parisienne being an unreliable magazine, if anything it's probably one the most reliable French magazines. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Govvy in that it is a reliable source. I'll wait to see if there are other arguments before restoring it, but so far the arguments given are not sufficient to remove this fact from the article. Gaolinual (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG, what other sources state that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? If it's true, other reliable sources should confirm it. That is what WP:REDFLAG, a policy, is about in cases such as these. I just Googled the matter and I am not seeing anything. Is the French magazine an exclusive interview? I will alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it, nope, it's not an exclusive interview. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Translated from French the June 2018 article says:

"The 1.57-meter mini-model has had an exceptional ride that now leads her to the Hollywood throne. Enough to give strength to all children, suffering like her from the syndrome of attention deficit with hyperactivity (TDHA) and for which the actress takes a treatment." [9]

It is strange that there is only one source reporting on her having ADHD and that the source itself doesn't seem to have actually interviewed her-- it seems to be based on Emilia's instagram posts. I don't think it's impossible that she really does have ADHD, it's just strange there aren't better/more sources reporting it. The top hit on google [10] appears to be an August 2017 reddit post that mentions its source for the claim as wikipedia... but that's before the article was published... Was this claim previously on wikipedia? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears this claim has previously surfaced on this wikipedia article in July 2015 [11] and that it was removed because it was sourced to a publisher that directly copies information from wikipedia and pushes them as handbooks. [12] 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your concern and I suggest we keep this out until we find a better source. I'm positive better sources exist though, because I clearly remember her mentioning her ADHD herself in an interview. It was in a morning show called "This Morning!" in the UK. She mentioned this quickly when talking about an anecdote (that she lost a data collector job due to her hyperactivity). Unfortunately, I can't find it online at the moment, but there are some links on google from conversations referring to it (i.e a reddit conversation, and a lipstickalley conversation, an IMDB list, etc etc.) Also, when googling about this in French, there are much more credible sources that mention her diagnosis and use of medication (Ritalin), notably Le Figaro on this page, as well as other french magazines. This suggests that she probably also mentioned having ADHD in an interview that took place in French. Leave it out for now, but I will look for the This Morning! interview when I have more time, and if I can't find it (or if copyright issues arise) I will look at interviews in France. Gaolinual (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree. Also, I clicked through some of those links and found it was mostly users commenting on articles that Emilia had ADHD, not the actual article saying it herself. Again, I don't doubt that she might have ADHD (as it is common), but having more than one WP:RS verifying it would be good. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)