Talk:David Cronenberg

No subject

Hi, can a fan give some examples to shore up the 2nd and 3rd paragraph? Otherwise it strikes me as 1) potentially speculation and 2) not something that illuminates me much. I'd much rather have an assertion like those followed by specific examples, or--perhaps better--specific examples with little to no assertion. Koyaanis Qatsi 05:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Unsigned post

I'd like to forward the suggestion that Mr Cronenberg might like to consider a film take on 'How the Dead Live', by Will Self - I'm just curious to see what he'd find. danla17092005

Template

The order of the movies is wrong: Videodrome was made before The Dead Zone. Can someone fix this? Sdicht

Infobox photo

The current photo should remain in the infobox. The new one is smaller in size and Cronemberg looks disheveled. The current one is far more profesional. Jon698 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

With your change, you are officially edit warring and in violation of the three revert rule, as you have performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. There is also no requirement that infobox image changes be discussed on the talk page first.

As I mentioned in the edit summary of my edit, the one that was put back has distractions in the background such as the modular metal truss and the lettering on the sign. Additionally, the lack of any edge lighting means there is no background separation, making his suit blend in with the dark area, which is extremely undesirable for portraits. He also does not "looks disheveled." As you can see from his other photos, it is in line with his look at other events. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

He is wearing some random outfit in the proposed image and he hasn't shaved in some time, that is disheveled. In the current image he is wearing a suit and is clearly ready to be photographed. I see no problem with the background and find the bland white background of the proposed image to be worse. Consensus is also required for images, so yes a discussion is required. Jon698 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Also I am not in violation of the three revert rule as Colleen Sturtevant's first edit incorrectly placed the image outside and above the infobox. Jon698 (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah you should have seen that that was a good faith edit by a new editor and helped them instead of reverting without a reason! --Seewolf (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The actual image is extremely noisy, badly lit and shows no correct colors. It's outdated, which obviously makes Cronenberg look better. --Seewolf (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• 
  picture 1
• 
  picture 2

• Support for picture 2 --Seewolf (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support for picture 2

  A few reasons:

  • Photo 1 is one is from 2012, so well over a decade old (Obama was still in his first term in office when this photo was taken and uploaded!). My understanding on enwiki custom is we use the lastest good photo until the person dies, and then we elevate a photo of their then in their “glory years.” Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth II being recent examples. A rule of thumb I give new photographers is that it is fine to swap out anything more than 5 years old, but if it’s a recent photo (last 2-3 years) that’s strong, then they should leave it. This is not a recent photo and it’s not that strong.
  • The 2012 photo is just not a very good photo by today’s Commons standards. It’s grainy. It’s dark. His suit blends into the background. I don’t have a good sense of the photographer’s body of work (it’s the only photo they have uploaded onto Commons and they don’t have a user page), but I’m going to hazard a guess then that it’s a opportunistic photo of someone who happened to get Cronenberg and not someone who takes photos of notable directors frequently. Photo 2 is from a professional red carpet photographer. That being said, Photo 1 was likely a good photo for Wikimedia Commons in 2012. There are many better quality photos of Cronenberg on Commons now, though of mixed provenance and some he’s not looking at camera (I even have one from 2024 from TIFF where his face is blown out from the bright lights). Scanning all of them (using View It! A very cool tool which won a Wikimania award), Photo 2 is the best combination of recency and quality.

  Jenny8lee (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)