Talk:Kim Novak

Excessive photos

Pictures are there to illustrate/support something in the article. This article is overloaded with five pointless, contextless pictures of Novak after her career had ended. What do these illustrate? That she aged like everybody else? This is contrary to what articles of other major stars do:

• Audrey Hepburn: one photo showing her humanitarian work, one of her and her husband at the White House, and one with her husband
• Cary Grant: two photos
• Gary Cooper: none
• Bette Davis: one of her with Ronald Reagan in the White House
• Marlon Brando: one at a protest march, one with the Finnish first lady regarding UNICEF
• Ginger Rogers: one
• Ava Gardner: none

Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

A waste of time. This is a BLP article, so it makes zero sense for you to compare it to articles whose subjects have been deceased for decades. Also, everyone on your list was at least a generation older than Novak. If you're going to make comparisons, compare with other BLPs. Ieonine (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Red herring distinctions, but okay:

Cameron Diaz: none

Bruce Willis: one of his USO tour

Jack Nicholson: none

Michael J. Fox: none Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a thought. How about you come up with counterexamples? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikimedia Commons even have photos of these stars post-retirement? If not, that's the reason you aren't seeing any in their respective articles.

While we're on the subject, you might note that Diaz recently unretired. Ieonine (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Your reasoning is odd. Commons doesn't have photos because nobody thought they would be useful. Still waiting for counterexamples, even one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Priscilla Presley (last acting role in film or TV was 1999) comes to mind. Ieonine (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that most of the images from the 1966–1991: Acting sporadically section downwards are not great (looking at revision 1297390211 for future reference). Images from before that section generally show Novak in production stills or behind-the-scenes photos, which are useful context for her career.

The more recent images (particularly File:Kim Novak 05.Jpg, File:Kim Novak 2004.JPG, File:Kim Novak at home, 2014.jpg, File:Kim Novak 07.Jpg) are low quality/resolution, have her in strange positions or at odd angles, and generally don't add anything more to what the better images already show. Iiii I I I (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kim Novak 07.Jpg is probably the most flattering photo of her available on Commons. She looks great, very contemporary. I like File:Kim Novak at home, 2014.jpg too. The others can go. Ieonine (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't keep random photos just because you like them. The ones you want to keep add nothing (unless she won Ms Cowgirl 2014, and if that were a real thing). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't Fanboypedia, as shown by the fact this isn't done in other actors' bios. Cease being stubbornly obstructive. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I would try to eliminate the ones that do not really show the person in question. For example, the Vertigo section has three photos of her which is excessive. I'd limit to one. Perhaps having one photo from nearly every year of her life is also a bit much in the 1950s. The Pal Joey one appears a bit overlit, and the other on the magazine is probably okay, if a bit over stylized. Compare this to the quality of the photo for the promo shot of her for Middle of the Night where its just would stand out more in a sea of photos. Probably can keep the '80s one as well for similar reasons. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I have found MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which states the obvious and should end this dispute once and for all: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)