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 England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
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 France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was copy edited by Finetooth, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 23 January 2008.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Infobox image
@User:Reggie Osborne: "recent picture better" is not a valid edit summary for reverting an explained change. Per WP:BRD, please bring your reasoning on why the image is better to this talk page before reverting, as per the warning on your talk page. Thanks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bettydaisies, it seems that you're the one proposing a change? The Circle image has been in the article for several months - since July 2021 - including at least one of your own edits here.
If you wish to invoke BRD, you should note that it's you who needs to rationalise your edit: You made a change, and it was reverted. Explaining why in your edit summary and changing it back again is not part of the BRD process.
Let's review: The change was made in May and remained in place for several months with the argument of a higher quality image, with an unexplained revert occurring in July. I went ahead and undid this revert - not making a new change - based on the fact that it lacked explained merit. Reggie undid this twice either no edit summary or a general edit summary ("better" is an incredibly general term, unless they meant that recency is preferred over quality, the nuances of which cannot be fully discussed in a back-and-forth series of summaries) - both are unhelpful. I opened this discussion - which I still hope can take place - instead of initiating a second revert of his edit to avoid a WP:EDITWAR. --Bettydaisies (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing something that happened back in July is not a revert, and most definitely does not fall within the remit of BRD. The only times you can claim justification on that is for obvious vandalism, which this certainly wasn't - although you did leave an L1 disruption twinkle warning on Reggie's talk page. I removed that because it was highly inappropriate. By all means let's discuss, but so long as you realise that you are the one proposing a change, and should be the one to justify, not Reggie. I personally am in favour of the circle image, due to it being the more recent, and although the resolution may be lacking, it's still good enough quality for an infobox image. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thoughts re:BRD - but Reggie is the one proposing a change, because they, without explanation, restored an unexplained revert of an explained edit, as linked. Thanks.
Whilst not using edit summaries, or inaccurate ones is not ideal that doesn't lessen the value of the edit - again obvious vandalism excepted. You are skirting away from the fact that you proposed a change to the article, and you were reverted. You are not the editor reverting an action here - Reggie is. Thus it is you who needs to justify your actions, not Reggie. It would be helpful if Reggie came along and also commented, but at this stage it's unnecessary because I've taken up the torch as I also feel that the current Circle image is a more appropriate infobox image. If the change had been done a few days ago, you'd have a case - but it was done over a month ago with a plethora of edits (including one of your own) to the article since.
If we follow your logic, then surely this edit is nothing more than a reversion of the previous image, which is a reversion of the one that went before, and so on until we get to July 2007 when the first image was added to the article.
I'm open to discussion around the image, but it's important for you to understand that in terms of process, you are the one proposing a change to the article, and (albeit possibly unintentionally) have done so without giving a reason as to why you want the change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me summarize this again: as previously linked, the image was changed to the 2013 in the name of quality. This edit was clearly not an unexplained reversion, but was reverted by another user months later without explanation. I undid this, upon which my restoration was reverted again without any explanation. Therefore I am not the one proposing the change, I was merely upholding the last explained version of the infobox, and therefore Reggie is the editor who should've provided an explanation. Cheers.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can summarise as often as you like - it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong in your understanding of BRD and the concept of when an edit is a reversion, and when it is a change.
Additional: I'm on vacation for 10 days. A lack of response here only means an inability to log in and edit, not a lack of interest in the ongoing subject. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained several times that my edits were not proposing an unexplained change - Reggie's were - and I agree, little headway can be made unless we simply agree to disagree. It's even more frustrating that little discussion has been made of the ongoing subject itself.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't matter how many times you explain something if your fundamental understanding of the concept is faulty - which is the case here. While yes you were technically reverting a change, it happened so long ago that it cannot be included as the "R" in the "BRD". Your (scarequotes ahoy) "reversion" was in fact the "B" in "BRD". Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BRD timelines are dictated by common sense. For an article that is rarely viewed and has no (or very few) inbetween edits then BRD could span a couple of weeks. But for a heavy view article where the change was made over a month prior to the reversion, with multiple edits inbetween (including one from the reverting editor) then it can be reasonably established that although the change is back to a prior version - it is not a reversion that falls within the remit of BRD, but a proposed change in its own right. The fact that edit summaries were not used has no effect on the validity, as the content of the edit does not change depending on the presence (or lack of) edit summary. Using a lack of edit summary as justification for reversion is very much out of line, albeit not actually disruptive or pointy.
Note that I have no bones with the RFC, nor the outcome of it - the only issue I had was your attempt to reinstate an image by claiming you were adhering to BRD. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which portrait photograph of Watson would best represent her in the infobox, based on a myriad of factors including angle, quality, recency, recognizability, etc? --Bettydaisies (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C. It is well lit and shows her full face. It also seems to be representative of recent photos of her online. For these reasons, I support Option C. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A none of these are very current, and it seems important for a bio of *living* person to try and represent how she is today - particularly for a young person. A 5-year old 2017 image seems far preferable to the circa 10-year old images from 2012, 2013, or 2010. This also seems the most recent available in wikimedia commons, so use it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C I prefer C also, more natural, better light, it feels more her and the photo feels more respectable next to the current A image, which feels somewhat more raunchy, in A, I don't know if it's me but it looks like a photo at the beginning before she does a porn shoot!! Govvy (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B or C as they seem to be the highest of quality. Watson's appearance has barely changed so I see no need for A, which has lower quality. Pamzeis (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A - the image while lower quality is still acceptable, and images are not necessarily based on what we remember a person to look like, but how complimentary it is, and how recent it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
B - in terms of quality. A being the recent, has bad quality and bad portrayal. While C has good portrayal, B has the greatest quality and portrays good and is close enough to C in terms of recenticism. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
C This should be the new image for Emma Watson -- The C image has high clarity; the lighting is better than A; it's a natural, candid pose; the portrait's close-up focuses on her face rather than her body. Those are just a few of my reasons for Option C. Pistongrinder (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
none of the above, or A Emma Watson since 2013 has done a lot...the HeForShe campaign, working at the UN, branching out from Harry Potter movies. C is a decade old photo that doesn't accurately represent Emma as a 10 year older adult that is more accomplished than the 2013 photo. If I had to choose one it would be A based on time. B based on photo quality. There should be a better photo out there than A. TheWikiJedi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A The current photo (C) is almost 10 years old and needs to be updated. A is not a great photo, but there has to be a decent photo that can replace the current one. ANDES27 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B is the best quality image, in my opinion, since it seems to be the most polished and the least blurry. It also gives a more professional image of Watson, I think. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just out of curiosity, when should the image in the infobox be changed to a more recent photo? I noticed that in the articles of Watson's Harry Potter co-stars, such as Grint, Lewis, Lynch, Radcliffe, and Wright, the images in those infoboxes are from the years 2018-2022. Watson's image is from 2013, which, of course, is from a decade ago. Shouldn't the image in the infobox be updated to a more recent image? Bibliophile Dragon (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No; a consensus regarding the picture was found with the above discussion. As this was only some months ago, I think it still stands. Feel free to start a new thread, but be aware that many people will point to said discussion above. Lectonar (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Last paragraph of “Activism” section, replace “environmental justice” with “sustainable fashion”
The reason: the reference used links to an article about how she work a sustainably made outfit to meet Al Gore, a prominent climate activist. Wearing sustainable outfits is not the same as environmental justice, which is the concept that those who bear the brunt of pollution should have the power and influence to reduce that pollution and live within a healthy environment. 75.168.94.15 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This is a request to add the paragraph below to the Emma Watson page, either in the section “Activism and advocacy”, immediately AFTER the current second sentence (“In 2015, Malala Yousafzai told Watson she decided to call herself a feminist after hearing her speech.[157]”) or by creating a new section, “Critical reaction to feminist activism”.
<Watson’s feminist activism has received criticism by radical feminists like Julie Bindel, who wrote: “ Watson’s call to men was less about demanding that they support women in our endeavours to end male violence and oppression of women than it was about her desperate attempt to prove that feminism is not synonymous with man-hating.”> Epsilon Moron (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also seems like WP:TRIVIA Cannolis (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)