Talk:Juno Temple

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 70.178.58.115 in topic Main image

The main image of Juno Temple

edit

could the picture on this page look any more unflattering? the girl is hot, the pic sucks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.106.103 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had to come on here to comment about that as well. I love Wikipedia, this article gets over a 1000 hits a day[1] yet we only have one photo of her, because someone "gave it" to the project and compared with her fellow actors, she looks like she's having a shit [2] poor girl. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Agree. Having no picture is better than that one. 71.77.19.7 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I too came in here just to make that remark. Do we have a big enough mob yet to take action?99.37.216.64 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yea we can remove/hide it, if everyone prefers no picture instead of that one. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well I chose that photo to ask to have relicensed as Wiki-friendly as it was the one I felt could be used in the most places on Wikipedia. Who knows, maybe one of his other images might be more suitable - from this set or this set? (Mind you, the license would need to changed first...) Tabercil (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
And there's a new image present which we can use and is now present. Tabercil (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah the girl is hot, we need a new picture please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.172.11.115 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree. Though looks are no matter for Wikipedia articles, I feel the facial expression she's making strongly contrasts some of the common images you'll find of her on Google. In other words, there's better photos of her – ones that resemble her a lot more adequately. The issue is that we need to find a photo of her that isn't copyrighted, which can take time and research, and sometimes even conversations with the owner! Hopefully an experiences Wikipedia user can complete this task soon, since everyone's in favor of a new photo! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

^This is a wiki, yes you can remove the picture. Anyone can!

edit

"Removing the picture per the general consensus on talk page. Just saw Kaboom and this picture seems like it could be vandalism / malicious."

The old picture for safe keeping. Sorry, I'm not finding a new one. You're welcome --67.54.192.38 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, if you looked on Commons and also back in the history of the article we already have a different one available... which I've added. Tabercil (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Juno Temple. 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:

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) 17:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Main image

edit

Seems like a strange choice. You can't even see her face. Surely there is a photo available with her actual face visible? 70.178.58.115 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply