Talk:Jenna Coleman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

• Ah that picture is so much better than that old one which did Jenna no favours at all! 213.106.252.209 11:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion troll

Why did someone get rid of half the stuff on this page? The Children In Need thing isn't all that impressive I admit but getting rid of it opens up a whole can of worms. Should I go around deleting all TV appearances of every actor/actress that I think is 'non-notable'? Cls14 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than asking in here, you would be best asking the user direct, who edited out the details you mention in, their talk page. The one thing this page does need though is some sources other than her personal website for facts. For instance, the Blackpool Gazette are likely to have backlogged stories on her which could be used as a source. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Clara or not, companion or not?

OK, so there's been a spate of editing on this page since the season opener and JLC's surprise appearance in it. I thought it would be helpful to start a discussion on how we phrase this article.

1. As I see it, we know she will be playing the new companion, who may or may not be called Clara.
2. We know she played a character in the season opener.
3. We don't know that these two are the same character. In a Steven Moffat world, nothing is clear and the man is an inveterate liar when it comes to spoilers, as he freely admits.

I'm not sure that we should be saying that her first appearance as the new companion was 1 September until we know that that is the case. It's likely to be the same person, but with Moffat and timeywimey, it may well not be. After all, the Doctor hasn't actually seen her face, so who can tell.

Anyway, there you go, what do you all think? GedUK  12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We should just wait until the Christmas Special 2012 comes nearer. This has happened in Doctor Who series before. The lady who played Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman) also played another role in a past episode, Adeola Oshodi, who actually dies. I don't think that we need to be this accurate for now. Masterpeace3 (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed Karen Gillen was in the Pompeii one. But this time Coleman appeared after she'd already been announced. But the fact remains that there's going to be speculation about this, and we need to make sure that it doesn't get into this page, so we should be clear about what the consensus is. GedUK  12:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is very common. Shows like Stark Trek (pick your series) also did this all the time. I would say the evidence is against it being the same character, with the previous examples of Martha and Freema appearing as different characters giving this position extra weight. BTW, I used to date a lady who looked exactly like Jenna-Louise Coleman, so I'm very excited about this! Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Christmas Special 2012 had officially aired someone created a page about her here, "Clara Oswald". You guys should check it out and carry the discussion there. Masterpeace3 (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible picture edit?

I have found a better picture of Jenna-Louise Coleman to be used as a picture on her article. If anyone's wondering, this photo is of Coleman attending the Titanic 3D World Premiere on March 27th, 2012.

The gallery and website of where I found the picture is located here.

If an administrator could change her picture, that would be wonderful. Thank you for any administrator for reading this :)

MewVanilla (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Vanya

What is the copyright status? If it's not shown, or is even doubtful, we must assume that copyright exists and that we do not have permission to host the image. Please see Help:Files and Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That site doesn’t seem to have a direct contact method, but it hasan admin and a link to a DMCA page, so it should be possible to ask for permission. Either way, the photo should be changed because it’s a bad one; you may as well use a shot of her in mid-sneeze. Google Images is an easy way of finding a good photo. Just do a search, click the page containing the photo, then look for a contact link. Just make sure that the site owner owns the (i.e., they didn’t just download it from somewhere else.) Synetech (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

FHM poll

"In 2012, she was voted 91st by readers of FHM in their annual 100 Sexiest Women poll". While this is verifiable, I fail to see the relevance of this. Who made FHM readers the authority on who is sexy, and does anyone really care? It is trivial and I propose that it be removed. --Jameboy (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Lots of women who have appeared on the list have it mentioned in their articles. It might be trivial to you but not to lots of people. FHM readers do not have authority on who is sexy, but the panel at the Oscars don't have the authority over who is the best actor/what is the best film of the year. If you've removed it I am going to put it back in, mainly because lots of other female celebs have references to it on their artices. Cls14 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

New Name

Jenna-Louise Coleman is now called jenna coleman so we should rename the page79.68.243.18 (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I also saw someone try moving the article yesterday via a copy/paste rather than an article move. Today I Googled, but have only able to find one news story on it so far: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-06-20/doctor-who-jenna-coleman-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-louise

According to it, there has been no formal announcement of a change. I can't find anything else describing a change; and all other news stories that I can find which mention her within the past week seem to use both versions of the name interchangeably, so both are still in general use. Unfortunately, unless more is written about it, we may need to just wait for her next performance to see how she is credited in it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

She has changed her name, but the new form will not be her WP:COMMONNAME until she receives an acting credit as such on-screen. Ie., I say the article should be moved after the 50th anniversary Who episode on November 23rd. Pre-publicity for that should also provide plenty of sources for the new name. Sound like a plan? U-Mos (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

She was credited as Jenna Coleman in the printed program and introduced herself as Jenna Coleman on stage at the Proms (which were broadcast on BBC 3 radio). Is that enough ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I've called her Jenna Coleman for years she still get credited as Jenna-Louise on the Dr Who opening credits. Until that changes then I suggest we keep it at JLC. Cls14 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

She is credited as Jenna Coleman in the program sold at the Proms. Hektor (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonono, COMMONNAME is not her most recent name, or even her preferred name; it's the name she's most commonly known by. The guidelines say 'more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change' once we've established the name change. We should also be careful saying she's changed her name; she hasn't, she's changed her performing name. The title of the article can change eventually, but the lead para shouldn't but should have 'known as' or similar added. GedUK  11:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

She was credited as Jenna Coleman again last night in Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor. I believe that many people called her Jenna Coleman even when she was known by the name Jenna-Louise Coleman. Because of these reasons I now think it's the right time to move the page. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 12:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, should be moved. MisterMorton (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

She's certainly changed her stage name, though not necessarily her actual name, but the point is, what is the most commonly used name? Jenna-Louise gets 4.1m ghits, Jenna only 310,000. At the moment, it's quite clear what her common name is. It will change, and probably very quickly once the new episode and series airs, but not yet. GedUK  13:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the name in the article content and caption to "Jenna Coleman", but that was reverted, IMHO incorrectly. MOS:IDENTITY says: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself." There is no dispute in this case as to how Jenna Coleman should currently be credited, and therefore the primary name in the content should be changed. It is not necessary for the name used in the article to be the one by which the subject is most commonly known or credited, and it is not necessary for a majority of sources to refer to the person by their new name; any single reliable source for the name change will do. (The issue of whether this also applies to article titles is a contentious one subject to a current policy change discussion, which is why I didn't move the article.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the opening line per MOS:BIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. Sources do not suggest that she has changed her legal name ("The Doctor Who star is to drop the second part of her name from all future acting work" – Radio Times), so Jenna-Louise Coleman is still her real name and should be stated first. This would still be correct if the article was titled Jenna Coleman. January (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with January. GedUK  12:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise here I think we should wait until the 50th Anniversary Special of Dr Who airs and then change it according to that. It's clear that she now is known professionally and I certainly hear her called Jenna now far more than Jenna-Louise. But we'll wait? Cls14 (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Change what? The lead sentence shouldn't change unless she actually changes her name: her name is Jenna-Louise, though professionally she's just Jenna. The name of the article, however, is a different thing that can change over time. I'm still not sure about when though.

I agree with those who counsel patience. Wait until a day after the 50th Anniversary Special airs (so that press coverage will be readily available), then file a proper requested move based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. As for the lede, compare Bill Clinton. bd2412 T 12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the weight of reliable source citations is now in favour of Jenna and the article should be re-titled: see multiple BBC uses of Jenna at [1], [2], [3]; and multiple other RS uses of Jenna at [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I don't particularly see the point in waiting for the 50th anniversary special to air, but if others feel that way... The point I wanted to make is that I think the article is wrong to begin, "Jenna-Louise Coleman [...] known professionally as Jenna Coleman". Her legal name is clearly Jenna-Louise, but [13] implies that she is generally called Jenna in her everyday life. I suggest the lede should just say "Jenna-Louise Coleman [...] known as Jenna Coleman". The current phrasing wrongly implies that Jenna is only a professional credit, whereas actually it's her common name. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Awful photo

Is it just me or is anyone else starting to think that Wikipedia editors choose the worst pic they can find of a person(especially women) on purpose. Jealousy perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.48.232 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather a random comment. I'd imagine that the uploader was a bloke (although I might be wrong) so hardly jealousy! Probably more the fact that free to use images are quite hard to find. That being said, it doesn't do her much justice. Try and find a better free to use one :-) Cls14 (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

and the essential criterion here is free to use. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cls14 and Redrose64:I agree with the first comment by the original poster in this subsection. I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and replaced the photo with one where the subject is smiling instead of with closed-mouth expression, at File:2013 July 20 Jenna Coleman smiling (cropped).jpg. Alternatively there are a few other options I've found from Flickr as well with smiling-expression, at commons:Category:Jenna-Louise Coleman. A few more free-use images, here: http://www.flickr.com/search?license=4%2C5&sort=relevance&text=%22JENNA%20COLEMAN%22 Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Btw, original poster in this section per timestamp was referring to this version of the article which had this image in the infobox at that time. — Cirt (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2
• 
  Option 3
• 
  Option 4

Here are four nice alternatives, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, the comment was in August 2013, I added the better image in May 2014, there was no need to change the image as the current image (which you have now changed) was a much better image than what you have replaced with...for infoboxes, the BEST images are those which are facing the camera (and/or looking directly at the camera and possibly smiling) and the poor image the anon was talking about was added by Gage Skidmore which is actually very similar to the image you just added to the page so thanks for reverting to the version the anon was against in the first place..--Stemoc 03:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually took your advice and did not revert but instead replaced with a 2nd image that is indeed front-facing. We could also politely discuss the options, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Circumstances change; notice the 14-month gap after my last post above. At the time that this thread was created, c:Category:Jenna-Louise Coleman contained about three (certainly no more than four) images; the three that were definitely in the cat in Summer 2014 were File:Doctor Who Peabody 2013.jpg, File:Jenna Coleman by Gage Skidmore.jpg and File:Jenna Coleman Peabody 2013 (cropped).jpg. The first was definitely unsuitable (it's a group shot) and both of the others were used at one time or another. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting, Redrose64, I've been in the process of adding several more to commons:Category:Jenna-Louise Coleman, which from commons:Category:Jenna-Louise Coleman do you prefer so far? — Cirt (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Jenna Coleman facing front
• 
  Jenna Coleman "actually" facing front

 Done, replaced with File:Jenna Coleman facing front.jpg see for example shown here. I think this is the best of the bunch. — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

sorry about editing your post, but its better this way..are you saying the image you added is far better than the previous image on the page? the color tone is darker, she is actually looking sideways, not facing front..but anyways, since you really want to force an image change when there was no need, you can have your poor image...I won't discuss this any further--Stemoc 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Stemoc, the other previous one looks like she's chewing gum or something. This one with the darker tone is better, it almost looks like a professional photo background. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Another option

Here's another one, recently uploaded to Commons, facing front. Might be the best option so far. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Horizontally straight but now vertically not! Compared to looking up from below her chin, we might as well have her sideways. (I liked Option 2 above for that matter.) That said, the "darkness" in File:Jenna_Coleman_facing_front.jpg isn't too bad. Image brightness and contrast is certainly something that can be post-processed easily. My quick try is below.

• 

--Asahiko (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, 朝彦 (talk · contribs), that looks much better! — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly too sensitive personal information ?

More of a question on my part: Is including publicly undisclosed information on a living person's family members alright at all ? Because I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to disclose the identities of her other family members, as long as she didn't do it publicly, e.g. in a TV interview, etc. Including the names of her parents and brother in this current edit of the article (not mine) feels a bit like random, irrelevant trivia. I'm unsure whether it constitutes a possible breach of the persons' privacy or not, but I'm leaning to the former. Could a tabloid publication like The Mirror be considered a credible source ? Feel free to correct me if it's OK and still in line with Wikipedia's rules. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Normally parents are listed in "Early life" sections, and siblings by name if they are notable. I am sure there is a policy on this somewhere. It would not disagree with rephrasing it along the lines of "the eldest/youngest of two siblings" or the like. On the flip side of the coin, there is no defamation of having the brother listed, especially if it is cited/sourced.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oswin vs Clara Oswin vs Clara

There have been numerous changes to the filmography for the Doctor Who characterizations. In an effort to promote consensus, how should the table entries be listed?

1. As separate entries for each character
2. As a single entry encompassing all "versions" of the character

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is in relation to these edits and these edits, and their respective reversions here and here. It's not a new problem, as may be seen from the page history. I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would consider them all essentially the same character and would therefore credit her only having played the one role on Doctor Who. Eshlare (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps have the character name as just 'clara osawld' for all but leave a note "creditted as oswin/clara oswin" 90.220.228.223 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that this issue has flared up again. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Captain America

Her appearance is sourced to IMDb, which clashes with Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. -109.64.135.164 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Material removed until it can be reliably sourced. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 07:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Jenna Coleman has departed Doctor Who; Clara died in "Face the Raven", the page needs to be edited to show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.166.226 (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The story spans over three episodes. Please wait for all three to air before nailing the lid on the coffin. She died, but the Doctor has his ways.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Relationship

Reliable sourcing shows Madden and Coleman started a relationship in 2012. If anyone has reliable sourcing to show that this relationship has ended please add and modify the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I do believe the Guardian article in August 2016 confirmed it ended last year. What is still up in the air is whether she is involved with somebody else. That's only been reported by tabloids. Considering no marriage occurred with Madden, I don't see the sense in having a "Partners" section anyway since even when they were dating there was never any indication of them living common law or entering into an alternative to marriage; they were just dating. Ask Taylor Swift how long that lasts. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's definitely ended. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4022586/Jenna-Coleman-Tom-Hughes-confirm-relationship-hand-hand-meet-Doctor-s-Peter-Capaldi.html 109.145.35.179 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail's showbiz column is not a reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There's pictures of them holding hands ... Plus a simple Google search will show that multiple articles have picked up on this. I only chose that link as it was the top one. 109.145.35.179 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Gossip is not reliable. Rusted AutoParts 19:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you can't be serious. I know you're appealing to Wikipedia's guidlines, but can you just admit yourself that it's pretty obvious they've broken up? 109.145.35.179 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am serious. No junky gossip websites. Whether or not you, others or I find it "obvious" is not relevant at all. Rusted AutoParts 21:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are aware then that one of the cited sources for Madden is a gossip site, right? And the other source is a "by the way" and hardly official. I recommend based on that the paragraph be junked because it fails the standards you yourself abide by. In fact based upon WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and WP:BOLD I'm deleting it now. This is not a "snark" edit. I agree with you 100% and based upon this agreement the Madden reference fails the standard. She was never involved with Richard Madden as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If you actually read the second article cited, it refers to a direct interview with Madden, a primary source. DonQuixote (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So I take it we're now ignoring the literally dozens of US newspapers that are reporting about Madden and Coleman no longer being together in the various stories related to Victoria's US premiere? Or are you going to wait until Richard Madden and Suki Waterhouse's marriage certificate is read out in Hansard? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If there are literally dozens of US newspapers reporting it, then please cite one. DonQuixote (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard Madden confirmed he's single in an interview with Vanity Fair Italia from last year. I think he can probably be removed as partner, no? http://www.vanityfair.it/show/tv/16/10/13/richard-madden-intervista-i-medici-raiuno-game-of-thrones 108.56.70.233 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo in profile?

Jenna Coleman has a distinctive facial profile and a photo from the side is a recommended addition.GeeBee60 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: Can you obtain one that is not non-free use? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: No thanks. (Many people have faces that are more interesting in profile. I probably should not have made this specific suggestion.) GeeBee60 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jenna Coleman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328111013/http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-03-27/doctor-who%27s-secret-history-of-codenames-revealed to http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-03-27/doctor-who%27s-secret-history-of-codenames-revealed

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) 03:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jenna Coleman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928004007/http://www.screenyorkshire.co.uk/news/news-archive/casting-unveiled-on-room-at-the-top to http://www.screenyorkshire.co.uk/news/news-archive/casting-unveiled-on-room-at-the-top

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) 04:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Imaginary Forces

Coleman's filmography section mentions a 2012 release "Imaginary Forces". Although a trailer for the film was released on YouTube by its director in 2011, there has been no indication that the movie was ever released. I've checked the official website of the director, done searches for media coverage, nothing indicates the movie ever came out. So I have added a "fact" tag to the release date. If anyone has any reputable source indicating the movie came out (remember IMDb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia), please add it - and let us know because fans of Jenna Coleman have been looking for this film for 7 years!). 50.66.121.20 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Relationship

Multiple reliable sources (for example, the Guardian and the Times) have confirmed a relationship between Jenna Coleman and her Victoria co-star, Tom Hughes. The first confirms they are serious enough to be living together. Is this sufficient for inclusion in the 'Personal life' section of her page? 71.126.178.96 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're married or common-law partners, no, it's not notable for an encyclopaedia. This isn't a gossip rag. Alternatively, if every media service starts putting this as part of their main headline (which by this point is a little too late), then yes--otherwise still no. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I admit I'm confused. Reading through the archive, her previous relationship, which was neither common law nor marriage, was listed here for years. In fact, it required a reliable source to remove the relationship once it had ended. The inclusion of her current relationship with Hughes wasn't allowed for quite some time on the grounds of source quality, not that the relationship itself wasn't noteworthy. This strict of a standard also appears to be one many other biographical pages are not held to. 71.126.178.96 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress, so this article might not be up to par. If someone can take the time to make this a Good Article, then that'll be great. But there's no rush. DonQuixote (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Updated

As I have encountered some users and bots who have on occasion reverted IP edits without cause, I'll just note here that I have updated the article to include The Cry, All My Sons and Inside No. 9 in the career-discussion section. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Inside No. 9

Someone (not me) added a character name for Jenna's Inside No 9 appearance but the only other place where this is listed is the IMDb which is not considered a reliable source. I can find no media or other announcement indicating this to be her character's name, so I added a citation tag. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Clara character name in table

There's an embedded note about not changing the Clara Oswald name since character like Oswin, Clara Oswin, etc. are meant to be the same character. I wonder if rather than an embedded note this could serve a better purpose as a footnote. We're now at 6 years since the nature of Clara's character was revealed, and there are very likely people who aren't familiar with the storyline now given the passage of time. Maybe the note should be converted to a footnote? 136.159.160.5 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Updates

Updated to include information on the belated release of Corporate Monster, which was filmed in 2010-11. Also added "TBC" after the release dates for Inside No. 9 and The Serpent as neither have been confirmed. Steve Pemberton, one of the stars of Inside No. 9, tweeted in mid-September 2019 that broadcast would not occur until early 2020; and, while The Serpent likely will air in 2020, neither Netflix nor the BBC have officially stated this as of the end of September 2019. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• TBC removed on Inside No 9 as it airs 10 Feb 2020. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Name change and 2020 NTA listing premature

Added a reference to her name change to the lead (with a source). Listing her as nominated for the 2020 NTAs is premature. She is simply on the longlist (which is open to anyone who is popular). The actual nominations don't take place until either late 2019 or early 2020 at which point we'll find out if she actually made the shortlist (the actual nomination). 70.73.90.119 (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like someone put the NTA thing back. She was never part of the final nominations, so I removed it. As noted above, virtually every actor and show broadcast in Great Britain in 2018-2019 was eligible for the long list; it is the shortlist that counts. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the NTA back. A national award is certainly notable to an awards table, even if she was only longlisted (hence the purple longlisted template being a thing). – DarkGlow (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of Emmerdale episodes

Is there a source for the number given (more than 400)? That would appear to be quite high and is higher than other numbers given. IMDb says only 180 episodes. Is it possible the >400 is a count of all Emmerdale episodes broadcast during the period Coleman was on the show, and doesn't take into account the ones in which she actually appeared? 70.73.90.119 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As someone who primarily edits soap opera articles, 400+ episodes for a four-year tenure on a soap is pretty average. Soaps are on between 4-7 times a week, every week of the year. But, I've removed the count until there is a source other than IMDb to verify it; per WP:CITEIMDB. - DarkGlow (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I agree 100% that for a daily soap 400 episodes is not unreasonable, but I don't believe Emmerdale is a daily broadcast, and the lower number given on IMDb may well be based on episode appearances. But yeah, until a confirmed count is available better to leave it off for now. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@70.73.90.119: I believe episodes were on 5-6 times a week during Coleman's time on the show, so it's almost daily. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I did some hunting around and was not aware that there is an Emmerdale Wiki that has synopses of every episode. this is a list of all the episodes Jenna appeared in and the total does come to 411. Question is: is the Emmerdale Fandom Wiki considered a suitable source under WP:BLP? 70.73.90.119 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I was aware of the Fandom site for ED and while I trust their episode count, it's sadly not considered a suitable source per WP:RS as it's user-edited. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

So does any acceptable source exist for this? If not, maybe the key is to change the number of episodes to "unknown". Anecdotally, as time goes on the acceptance of wikis and other sources is probably going to have to evolve as fewer books and other "reliable" media are published. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2021

The following should be added in the main heading to reflect her current role:

In early 2021 she appeared in the leading TV role of Marie-Andrée Leclerc in the eight part series "The Serpent" made and broadcast by the BBC. UKTechguru (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@UKTechguru:  Done – DarkGlow (✉) 14:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Tabloid rumours

In July 2020, The Sun, and other tabloid magazines commented that Jenna Coleman and Tom Hughes had allegedly split up. This is an unsubstantiated rumour and is almost certainly false. This wiki is not a place for tabloid rumours, so do not change the description regarding their relationship unless there is actual concrete evidence to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.116.184.104 (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rumour of split should be removed from article. It is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EulerLagrange42 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is more than rumour that Jenna Coleman and Tom Hughes have split up. The brak has been reported in various reliable newspapers. Coleman's personal relationships are an important part of such an article. This information should be put back again.SylviaStanley (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Serpent

I'm not changing anything yet as an exact date has not been announced, but BBC News, Radio Times and The Telegraph are all reporting that The Serpent will begin airing at Christmas 2020, so the 2021 date we have may be slightly off. One other reason I'm not changing anything yet is as far as UK holiday TV is concerned, "Christmas" includes New Year's, which of course would place the show as debuting in 2021. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The date of the first episode of the Serpent on BBC One was on 1 January 2021 as mentioned by several sources (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/jan/01/the-serpent-review-tahar-rahim-bbc) . This date should be included.SylviaStanley (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Career section

@DarkGlow: Please be specific which sections you would like to remove. They broadly seem to be supported by sources to me. The name "2021-present" is for future-proofing. She started multiple projects just this year alone. This section is likely going to grow much larger. Nerd271 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nerd271: 2021 IS the present, how can you essentially write "present-present" and think that makes sense? And as for the section size, it's tiny right now. No need for a section on 6 months of her career. Perhaps "2020-present" is more appropriate as more can be added, and well, it actually makes sense? – DarkGlow • 14:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)