Talk:Bonnie-Jill Laflin

Citing
Per WP:BLP, we cannot make uncited personal claims of such things as birth date and birthplace. And any claims of being a first must be exceptionally well-sourced, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image
The new glamour image, added without discussion on 17:31, 22 August 2015‎ violates guidelines on infobox images, which say they should be forward-facing portraits without distracting background elements. In the new image, hair obscured most of her fact, which was pointed to the side. In you want an updated image, find one that meets guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I have no opinion on this, I was adding it upon a photosubmissions request directed through OTRS. Mdann52 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have also had File:Bonnie-Jill Laflin 2015 2.jpg submitted, would this be ok to add? Mdann52 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the image was reverted to one from 2009, it is not representative of Bonnie-Jill Laflin. An updated image, different from the one that was removed, has been submitted through Photo Submissions, but I can't seem to get it uploaded, even though it meets the infobox requirements, is owned by Bonnie-Jill Laflin, and license has been granted. Bonnie-Jill Laflin


 * File:Bonnie-Jill Laflin 2015 2.jpg certainly looks, in my opinion, to fulfill the infobox-image requirements. I haven't worked on an OTRS image in a while, so if might like to do the honors? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia bios do not belong to the article subject, and glamorized, airbrushed, or otherwise manipulated promotional photos should be strongly disfavored. The 2009 image is perfectly appropriate. The 2015 image is not an improvement in any way except recency and, given that it has no background, is clearly an artifice of some sort. I therefore believe the 2009 image should be preferred here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure shooting in front of a plain surface or a piece of seamless mean "artifice" &mdash; that's standard portrait photography, and there's no rule that we have to use candid snapshots only. As a matter of fact, the lack of background makes it a better image than otherwise since there's no distracting clutter. And if we're talking artifice, this image certainly shows less makeup than the previous image did. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)