This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demi Moore article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business 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.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
FlightTime, could you please explain the reason behind stonewalling an update on a 14-year old picture of Moore to a recent, high-quality image? Per WP:BRD, if you are reverting, there must be a strong reason for it, and not for the sake of it, or else, no article on Wikipedia could ever be improved/updated. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the image, I'm disputing the process, changing an Infobox image without discussion is not how things are done around here, especially on a high profile article. - FlightTime (open channel)14:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. However, image changes in high-profile BLPs are often reverted but it's usually because the image is changed to a subpar one for the sake of newness. That's not the case here so I honestly don't get starting a discussion just for the sake of it. The new image is properly licensed and high-quality. We're lucky that the author has made it available for use. FrB.TG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a reasonable, well-explained edit to the lead here. Another editor reverted my edit, calling it "unsourced personal opinion" (which is categorically wrong). So I re-edited, this time backing it up with evidence that's already cited in the reflist, here. Are we good? Was-a-singin (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}