Jump to content

Talk:Gemma Arterton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deformity

[edit]

"Bond girl Gemma Arterton was born with six fingers on each hand" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3150384/Bond-girl-Gemma-Arterton-was-born-with-six-fingers-on-each-hand.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonSlaveII (talk • contribs) 00:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was looking at a claim like that as well. Is there a name for this deformity? Something-dactal? It's kinda common, IIRC, but I can't remember what it's actually called.
~ender 2008-11-07 11:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.12.213 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polydactyly is the word you're looking for. She's mentioned in the list on that article, but whether or not it's entirely notable for inclusion here is up for grabs, I'd say. I'll add it for the moment, but someone's welcome to tweak things later. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's why I need wikipedia and not news reporters, because they don't know the names of things, and thus I can't find out more information. The text as it is right now is kinda long, I might go for something more along the lines of 'She was born a polydactyl.', and make people click the link for the definition.
~ender 2008-11-14 1:45:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.12.149 (talk)

Upbringing

[edit]

The article states she was brought up by both her parents. The reference which follows, however, only states her parents professions - it doesn't indicate whether they both brought her up. Her IMDb page, of which the link is present, states that she was brought up by a single mother, which contradicts what this article claims. If anyone reading this knows or can find out the truth, please clarify it. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

although obviously totally unprovable, I knew her sister quite well. I always assumed their parents were separated. 82.24.251.231 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Fields

[edit]

The link from her role as "Strawberry Fields" in 007 (under the "Career" section), is a link to "The Beatles" song "Strawberry Fields Forever". This has no relevance. As far as I can see, there is no mention of a reference of any sort on that page. So, should this link be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.223.189 (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, now a link to her section in List of James Bond allies in Quantum of Solace. Huon (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast for James Bond

[edit]

In the Quantum of Solace article, it is mentionned that Gemma Arterton was cast out of 7000 postulants. The source provided is from The Herald. In this article, it is mentionned that she was cast out of 1500, with a quote from the pre-production diary, which actually refers to an article from The Sun. Apart from the fact that there should rather be a direct link to the Sun piece in the article rather than to the pre-production diary, which journal should be trusted ? Link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/film/article580415.ece Garzhul (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the main picture so horrible?

[edit]

It's probably one of the worse pictures to judge Gemma off.

Can we get it changed to something like:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/07/07/alg_gemma-arterton.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.54.32 (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no eyes, no portrait. I'm getting bold-- Delete. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra fingers redux

[edit]

Reviving a discussion from 2008 (see top of this page), I think it's a notable enough fact for inclusion. Aside from the major media reference cited at the top of this page, Arterton herself discusses this on a major TV appearance here: [1] That's two major media references, which I think is more than enough to satisfy notability. (Note that the clip was officially uploaded by the BBC, so it can be cited as a source without copyvio concern.) Also, the latter reference also verifies the fact that the extra fingers were surgically removed early in her life, so it's not as if you'll see anything in current photos. I think inclusion is perfectly justified given the fact that most other biographical articles about people with deformities or lifelong conditions make reference to this. We have two major sources at least - the Telegraph and Arterton herself on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross - so any BLP concerns should be covered, both in terms of verifiability, and the fact Arterton is willing to talk publicly about it. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The extra digits issues IS often mentioned again and again in popular media. I had NOT heard of it until it was mentioned in some article about her and then again today linked to in this gallery of celebs[2] with scars or "deformities" , which is a little harsh of a term. I would think the BBC official uplaod of the discussion should be a Reliable Source confirmation. You know, in my opinion as an editor and occasional tutor to teenagers, I have noticed my teen pupils will rush to wikipedia for verification of something they have heard that is other odd or something that they relate to when it is mentioned in the media about a Celebrity or public figure whom they admire. If it isn't in the wikipedia article, for them, it might as well not be true. When I was tutoring one child in Mammalian Biology and discussing primitive Milk Patches in the Platypus, the Milk line and how ALL mammals have a Milk line which means we can and sometimes will manifest incomplete Supernumerary nipples as humans, I was able to show them one on Wikipedia and then they saw a list online of famous people who had one. Until then, they thought it was like Mall Rats, where the thrid nipple is like a Cyclops Nipple, in the middle! In my view, if a given famous person notable enough to have their own article on wikipedia has verified a scar or biological abnormaility that is actual fairly commong and easily fixable such as cleft palate, extra digits and so forth, it might serve an encyclopedia purpose to include the information AND the verification of it just in case our primary readers,STUDENTS, might want to see that info and take some comfort from it. That's just my opinion. If it's not in line with other WIkipedia policies, feel free to ignore it or give it only the weight you feel it deserves. LiPollis (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image change without consensus

[edit]

An anon IP has begun edit-warring under the dynamically generated 37.104.16.206 and 37.106.37.118 so far. He has twice replaced the existing photo in this stable article with a photo many editors might find objectionable due to poor lighting and, in particular, an odd expression that seems designed to humiliate the actress. This notice is to alert other editors of this article to offer their thoughts. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't change her picture. Lg16spears (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. They are subpar and unflattering, but most of all has very poor lightning. If it for some reason has to be changed, it should be to File:Gemma Arterton 5, 2013.jpg. Pose is on par with the current image (face identification wise), and the lightning is decent. Nymf talk to me
That picture you link to, and which appears near the end of the article, is indeed pretty good, and in fact I'd advocate it as a new infobox image. Good find! What do others think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So any disagreement on replacing the infobox image with the one Nymf suggests here?--Tenebrae (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow it will be two weeks. Last call for objections to the change to the infobox image that Nymf suggests. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, buddy. No objection from me. :-) Nymf talk to me 21:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gemma Arterton. 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) 22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

[edit]

This article is dependent to a surprising degree on the sensationalist and unreliable tabloid the Daily Mail or its associated website. Is there a special reason why this is reliable for this one actor? As it is, I'd be inclined to remove all these references, either replacing them with references to more reliable sources or, if such sources can't be found, deleting the claims. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this pair of edits I removed references to the Mail where these co-occurred with references to other sources, and marked the remaining Mail references with "Better source" templates.
What's worrying is that a lot of the other sources currently used are about as feeble as the Mail. -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gemma_Arterton&oldid=1256885981"