Talk:Summer Glau/Archive 1

Archive 1

vegetarianism

Is there a source for her vegetarianism? - Ambientlight 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is where I read it. --Bacteria 02:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

Why were the links to Summer Glau related fansites removed? the fansites contain many things that the article doesn't have (such as information, news, interviews, and photogalleries). Several articles about other Firefly actors have links to fansites (for example, see the articles for Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Jewel Staite and Alan Tudyk, they all have links to fansites). I think the fansites should be added back to this article. 70.17.132.73 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:EL for the external links policy. --Yamla 04:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• What about the fansites linked on the other actor's articles? No one seems to have a problem with them. I don't understand why it's alright for some articles have links to fansites, and yet they are not allowed on this article. Just look at the articles for the other Firefly actors: they all have links to fansites. 70.17.132.73 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:EL. As a general rule, fansites aren't allowed anywhere. However, most articles aren't perfect. Many violate several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's just that16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Beckje01 (talk) nobody has got around to fixing them yet. --Yamla 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• So do you intend on removing the fansite links from the other articles? If not, then that hardly seems fair for you to just remove them from here, and ignore the other articles. I think we should have links to fansites, as they contain extensive information, for example, Summer-Glau.net has the most Summer Glau interviews and videos I have ever seen, but no one who reads the article will be able easily access the interviews if there is no link to that fansite. 70.17.132.73 04:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken. Just because other articles don't follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines does not mean this one is excused. I have 2,957 pages on my watchlist as of right now and I remove inappropriate external links from all of them. If you dislike the external links guidelines, I recommend you suggest a new policy in the appropriate place. This talk page is not the right venue. --Yamla 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• According to WP:EL, fansites are "Occasionally acceptable links": "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." So, the External Links policy says that "a link to one major fansite is appropriate". In that case, I would vote for Summer-Glau.net, since it has the most interviews, videos, and audios that I have ever seen on one site, and the most extensive photogallery that I have ever seen. 70.17.132.73 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the policy is that they are occasionally acceptable, not generally acceptable. That the site contains interviews is a definite plus. Image galleries, quickly-changing news boards, message boards, etc. aren't considered a good idea to link to. Furthermore, her official site has a number of fansites available through the links page. Given that we have a link to her official site (which is already essentially a fansite), I don't see that adding a direct link to summer-glau.net would be appropriate here. Energy would be better spent getting that site added to her official site if it is indeed the preeminent fansite. --Yamla 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, "already essentially a fansite"? Last I checked, "fansite" meant "unofficial" and "not run by the person it's a shrine to". Now, my brain is trying to tell me "it started as a fansite, and then became her official site by an agreement with the original webmaster because her agent wanted the domain and had they chosen to actually sue, they'd have probably won because traditionally domain names involving an uncommon name under which a particular person works under and is famous for have ended up being awarded to the celebrity as opposed to the person who started the site, under the argument that it was akin to a trademark", but if true, that actually still doesn't mean it's "essentially a fansite" by default. Check out the actual article on Wikipedia for fansite, and you'll see that there it's defined as "a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon," which muddies the waters a bit. Does it still count as an actual "fansite" if the actor uses it as their own official site? I mean, what's stopping the webmaster of say, JKRowling.com from being a fan of JK Rowling's work? Yet that person made that entire site, and it's not generally considered a "fansite". I don't mean to attack you here, I'm just wondering why you used that particular phrasing in this case, and if you could clear that up for me. I should think that, really, if that particular fansite were so overwhelmingly popular in this case, that we could afford to allow two links (but not more than that for obvious reasons, and only based on the fact that the fansite mentioned here has interviews. If those same interviews aren't available on Glau's official site, it could be well worth linking). Also an option, perhaps, is using that site as a source, instead of just a random external link. I mean, it has interviews, right? Assuming they don't every single one of them include only information that's seen everywhere else (that hasn't copied it from there, at least), that might be an excellent way to go about it, utilizing the one key feature in the site's favor (and adding a source and more infomation!), but not giving the impression that a ton of fansites is appropriate for WP's EL section. :) 63.21.7.204 23:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

FAQ

At what stage of development was the script when she was hired? I am pondering about the relationship between Summer's previous role as a ballerina and River's interest in dancing.

Photo

worst photo ever! HarveyDanger 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the best, I agree. But we are limited by copyright laws. There are very strict limits to what we can use freely on Wikipedia. Redux 04:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we use something from her website? I would think she would grant permission for Wikipedia to use a better photo if she was asked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.7.175.177 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

If the images on the website are copyrighted, we won't be able to use them. Since May 19, 2005, the Wikipedia:Image use policy no longer allows the use of copyrighted images with authorization specific for use on Wikipedia only. This means that, if whoever is responsible for the website gave permission for any given image to be used on Wikipedia only, we would still not be able to use it. Our best shot would be to find a free image somewhere, or a fair use image — unless, of course, the people associated with the website would agree to release some image for any purpose, but I figure this would be unlikely to happen. Redux 12:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a photo I took at a convention of her signing some autographs I will upload it when I have a chance. HarveyDanger 05:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We appreciate it. :-) Remember that, for the image to be usable, you would need to release it for all purposes. And if you are going to do it, please upload it to Commons, which is the media depository for all Wikimedia projects, rather than to Wikipedia. It only accepts free content. Once the image is there, you can link it to this article as you would normally any image that were hosted on Wikipedia, so there is no practical difference in terms of the code needed to link an image on Commons to a Wikipedia article. And there's the plus that, contrary to what would happen if the image were on Wikipedia, an image hosted on Commons can be linked to from any Wikimedia project (in this case, it could benefit the "Wikipedias" in other languages, which might also have biographic articles on Glau). Cheers, Redux 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also would suggest inclusion of some other picture that shows her in a more natural pose, like Image:Summer Glau 2006.jpg. Image:Summer Glau (2005 Serenity Flanvention).jpg could have also worked but its somewhat of a side shot. A front shot works better. As for Image:Summer Glau premiere.jpg, its also not a front shot, plus its suffers from technical problems like red-eye. --soum (0_o) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced the image that was there with one of the files you listed. They are on Commons, so that means they are free and we can use them in the article. I chose the one from the 2005 Flanvention, since the image that was there before was also from that event. But if anyone would like to replace it with the other one, or some other free image, then you can be bold and do it. Redux 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Serentiy Outtakes

Why do they yell her name when they mess up in two of the outtake scenes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just an in-joke that originated during production of the Firefly episode "Objects in Space". During filming of the penultimate scene, which uses a continuous shot that ends with Summer, she flubbed her lines. So from then on, they call out her name when someone screws up, even when Summer isn't in the scene. From what I understand, it goes beyond just being used during filming of Firefly and Serenity - apparently Fillion evoked her name when he was filming a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode. --Bacteria (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

naked

Is it sufficiently notable that in both pilot episodes - Firefly and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles - she appears naked? --AlisonW (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly took note. (rimshot) McGehee (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. >.> Peptuck (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's all hope Summer Glau has a long and varied career. Fritter (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And lets all hope she gets naked more.

YippiePower (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Interview

Summer Glau interview on Wizard's website.[1] I only mention it because this article is woefully under-referenced (but I don't have the time to do anything with it right now). Perhaps someone can find it useful. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Age

Page says she was 12 in 2002, but linked fansite info box and imdb say she was born 1981. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeldipops (talk • contribs) 07:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says she's been a professional dancer since 12, and that she relocated to Los Angeles in 2002. That doesn't mean she relocated when she was 12 :) Perhaps we should rewrite the sentence to clarify? - TexMurphy (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged the text to that effect. I didn't remove or add any information, just shuffled around what was already there. I suppose it's better now, but please feel free to improve it further if needed. Redux (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement

There was an unsourced statement regarding Glau and Daniel Wisler that I removed as unsourced per the WP:BLP policy. Such information needs a source to go with it. 23skidoo (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And I added it back because it seems evidently someone somewhere down the line was cocking around and took off the citation that supported it. --Bacteria (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I went looking for a reference earlier and found one saying that he played her boyfriend on The Unit, so I left it out not realizing that he was also her boyfriend in real life. For An Angel (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright

I've been keeping tabs on this article for awhile, but haven't had time to do anything about it. I've got a half day off tomorrow and and large stack of sourced material that I'm going to be using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venerable Bede (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture caption: What's a Flanvention?

"Flanvention"? Koro Neil (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} --Yamla (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't fix it - it ain't broken. See the Google search. - BillCJ (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I only fix what I'm sure of. I'm guessing the word is "fanvention", but I've never heard that word either. Koro Neil (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Googling "serenity fanvention" only comes up with 10 hits and asks "Did you mean: serenity flanvention?" which comes up with 6,560. I've never heard of either word either but I'm guessing it's supposed to be flanvention. For An Angel (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's "flanvention" - it derives the word "flan". See Browncoat#Fans. Let's please not make this a big deal. --Bacteria (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a slightly weird response (the last sentence anyway), but the Browncoat link was helpful. Do you know enough about it to put a section on Flanventions in the Firefly and Serenity articles? Or can anyone watching this page do this? The caption could then link to this. I've extended the title of this section of the talk page in the hope of catching someone's eye. I think it's worth making a small deal of. Koro Neil (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what was weird about it (though I give thanks, anyway). What I meant by my last sentence is that I don't want a shitfest over something that can be so easily backed up simply because a minority "don't get it." I've almost purged wikipedia entirely from my daily life, so I'm certainly not going to get involving in a hair-pulling match. Anyone who wants to start that can do it without me. All I can say is that the flan thing is real, but I cannot add anything more. I don't get involved in public displays of fandom much, so I don't have an intimate knowledge of fan conventions. --Bacteria (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since we started this, someone has been in and changed "Flanvention" to "convention", not realising it was under discussion. I have reverted it, with a comment indicating that the original is correct, and the editor seems to have accepted this. I might track back through the history and see who put the caption there in the first place, and see if they can be persuaded to expand on the term a little. I shouldn't think anyone will get their knickers in a twist over it, but it's a quirky little piece of trivia that people will take note of. Cheers. Koro Neil (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

External links to be converted to sources

Just removed these from the "External links" section.

• Summer Glau interview about The Sarah Connor Chronicles
• Interview at www.wizarduniverse.com
• The Onion A.V. Club interview

I'd love to see these be turned into citations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Best known for?

By now, I'd say far more people know Summer for her role in Terminator than for her role in Firefly. Shall we switch the opening paragraph to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.246.179 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. The paragraph already mentions both shows, so I don't see any reason to change it. MasterGreenLantern (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there also needs to be a mention of her role on The 4400 in her introduction. --Selfish Gene 2009 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that would be necessary. She wasn't in that many episodes of The 4400, and I'm not sure that she is well known for that role. The intro paragraph shouldn't list all of her work, only a the work she is most known for, and I think most people either recognise her as River, or as Cameron, since those are two of her biggest and most popular/ well known roles. MasterGreenLantern (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Another good gauge is to look at what awards an actor has won, and for what roles. She's won for River and Cameron, but not for Tess Doerner. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no reference at all to the Werewolf movie she starred in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.249 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall her staring in any movie with werewolfs. 4I7.4I7 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

XKCD

She is mentioned by name in a recent xkcd comic (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/venting.png) should this be mentioned somewhere on this page? Maybe in a cultural references section? Alastairthegreat (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Jbramley (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, good job finding the other reference too. Alastairthegreat (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't think it's worth mentioning any time a celebrity is mentioned in a comic strip somewhere. I'd file that as "unencyclopedic" (in the general territory of WP:NOT#LINK and WP:IINFO). I'd vote for nuking that section. -- Narsil (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for a pop culture section expand it if you don't like the current content, also one vote to nuke means you get to nuke? Even though 2 others above show interest in it. And now I also vote for it so there 2.5 to 1 it stays. (.5 for Alastairthegreat never really for it but showed interest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.125.236 (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy! The "XKCD Digs Summer" section struck me as obviously non-encyclopedic, so I explained my rationale and removed it (I was Being Bold). That said, it's not worth an edit war. I'll wait a few days, then quietly come back and fix the page when the fuss has died down. -- Narsil (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A note on the Template I think this is a much better apporach, opening it up to more talk on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.94.59 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a Democracy is fine but as the straw poll had already started I would assume you would use it as a guide. Back to you're general territory statement as for the WP is not link reading that there is nothing that says a popular culture section is wrong or shouldn't be there, the section is not just a collection of links but an description of her appearance. As for the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information well lets see FAQ- No, Plot summaries- No, Lyrics databases - Not even close, Statistics - nope, News reports - Closest match but it still doesn't fit, it is a section started to show the pop culture references she's been involved in. As for being bold ok be bold add to the article fix it up so if its non-encyclopedic because its just XKCD at this point fix that. Popular culture references can be hard to understand at times and if I had not understood exactly what was going on with the nom de plume in reference to Summer this is the perfect place to look it up. You've sited now 4 things about wikipedia as if I don't know what Wikipedia is well nothing you cited actually goes against a Popular Culture section so do you really read these pages or do you just link to them to try and bully people around so you get your way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.94.59 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm sorry, but this is tragic. We have a discussion featuring not one, not two, but THREE unsigned comments from unregistered users. Straw polls are never to be used to determine consensus. They are not binding and they are not to be used in place of actual debate. That said, if I had a dollar for every single time some random xkcd fanboy inserted the latest strip into some article or other, I could buy myself a new computer. Given that not ONE registered user has edited in favor of this section I'm asking for this article to be semiprotected. Maratanos (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So its tragic people are using Wikipedia without a name? Ok.... guess I don't really agree but whatever. Beckje01 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew! Imagine my relief. I'll let things sit until tomorrow, and if the State of Play doesn't change by then, I'll quietly nuke that section and see if the world moves on more calmly... -- Narsil (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, looks like the dirty deed's been done by someone else... -- Narsil (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, did it for you. Figured it'd STAY DONE once the semiprotect kicked in. Maratanos (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least now we're getting comments from registered users--though I can't help noticing that all of the registered users who are in favor of an "XKCD totally digs Summer" section have redlink "user" pages. Is it snobbery for me to comment on that? -- Narsil (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have always felt everyone in Wikipedia is equal login/no login and user page/ no user page, that to me was always the point and why there are not experts, if a PhD comes along and edits their edit has no more weight then anyone else. So in my mind that comment is really against what Wikipedia is.Beckje01 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont know, I was kind of in favor of a pop culture section. It would help others to understand her in context. Shes not important without the cultural references surrounding her.Miles32 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of a pop culture section, but I would like to see more in it. As it seems still in question and the only reason it got deleted was because of a lack of a user name supporting it here I am with a user name supporting it. Lets see if we can build it into something more. Beckje01 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against a "pop culture references" section in general. But I do think that the XKCD mentions are far too trivial to warrant mention on her page. (I mean, hey, one of those strips describes someone posting on internet forums with the pseudonym "Summer Glau". So should we mention that on the Wikipedia page for Internet? And maybe the WP page for pseudonym?)

And if we remove the two XKCD strips--which are, in my humble opinion, hella removable--then we have a "popular culture references' section with no, count 'em, no popular culture references. Which, it seems to me, is worth deleting.

It's not helpful, I think, to say to me "well, add more pop culture references". I'm not the one who thinks there should be a pop culture section in the first place! Please either (a) defend the inclusion of the "XKCD" links, or (b) suggest other pop culture references that ought to go in the section.

In the meantime--and in the wise and prudent words of our father among the saints, Strong Bad--I must sadly and soberly say, DELETED! -- Narsil (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

a) All I'm saying to don't delete a work in progress. A) I feel internet comic strips count as part of popular culture if they have a high readership b) As soon as I see other pop culture references I would gladly add them but I don't have any, but I would be very interested in seeing more so my hope is that the knowledge of the many will provide more to that section. Beckje01 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't just list a site and claim it's some how notable to the subject. You have to have a reliable published source that specifically backs up the claim. All the XKCD site proves is that some guy or guys (or perhaps women too) like/admire/whatever Summer Glau. It doesn't prove anything about her popularity or status beyond the people running or posting to the site itself. Now if a big-city newspaper or entertainment magazine runs an article on the site, then we can report what the article says, assuming the article actully proves the item is not trivial. Beyond that, such a section has no place in a WP article, per WP:ATTR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok wow love how you think an entertainment magazine or a newspaper is what we need to cite, what would you cite that they recognized the comic or the use of Summer? If they recognized the comic it has nothing to do with Summer in Popular Culture, if they recognize the use of a Summer in a comic that adds nothing all it says is another media noticed it besides the fact you can't really cite a magazine its nothing just a secondary source when the primary source can be cited always cite the primary. Unless there is some additional content added by the magazine such as a commentary but is that really necessary when we are simply trying to list popular culture references? So what is the yard stick for trivial? Beckje01 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not making this stuff up. Try WP:Notability, which I left out above. That's the "yardstick", and it requires reliable published sources. If you're not willing to abide by WIkipedia's policies, or even bother to read them, then I don't think you're going to find editing on WP to be a very rewarding experience, unless your goal is to just be disruptive. - BillCJ (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I know your not making any of it up its just that a magazine is not really something you want to cite, they are not reliable at all no sources no accountability. In general either its really an all or none idea when it comes to popular culture sections, while I feel they are a good thing in general they can help explain references in popular culture I may not always care but that isn't a reason to me to remove the section. The yardstick I'm asking about is how you choose if something belongs in an article or not. The WP:Notability guidelines are for articles not content of an article, WP:Notability on content. I do read the policies, and no I'm not tring to be disruptive, I felt that the template was a great idea to lead to further discussion but for some reason there isn't talk it just deleting, then lots of linking to policy that hasn't really related just sounds good. The real question is if Popular Culture References sections belong on Wikipedia at all. The citation for the references is directly to the references and this seems perfect for an encyclopedia these items are verifiable that they happened and this is just a Popular Culture References section not any analysis of the impact on popular culture; for that I would expect journal aricles or other peer reviewed material (not a magazine that would be the pop culture reference or simply a report on the refernces any analisys on the impact in a place that isn't peer reviewed is really worthless). Beckje01 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ok wow love how you think an entertainment magazine or a newspaper is what we need to cite, what would you cite that they recognized the comic or the use of Summer?" If the magazine referred to the fact that XKCD made reference to Summer Glau, then it would be appropriate, in the Summer Glau article, to talk about how XKCD made reference to Summer Glau. That's the yardstick for notability. Without that, it would be appropriate in the article on XKCD to mention that the strip makes references to geek-fanboy icons like Summer Glau--but it would not be appropriate to mention that on her page. By way of example, if a comic strip regularly made jokes about George Bush, it would be appropriate to mention that on the strip's Wikipedia page (because it's an important aspect of that comic strip), but it wouldn't be appropriate to mention it on George Bush's wikipedia page (because it's not of comparable importance to him. To paraphrase Pope Benedict XVI, "Geeks talking about Summer Glau is not noteworthy. Geeks talk about Summer Glau all the time."

"besides the fact you can't really cite a magazine its nothing just a secondary source when the primary source can be cited always cite the primary" That's not how it works here. If a magazine cites it, that does say something--it says that the comic's reference to Summer Glau was so noteworthy that it was commented upon by a secondary source. That's the WP standard for deciding whether something crosses over the noteworthiness bar--do other people think it's news? ("Other people" who edit magazines and newspapers?) So if a secondary source says "XKCD jokes about Summer Glau", it's actually a primary source for an entirely different fact: "It is noteworthy that XKCD jokes about Summer Glau". If you take my meanin'.

Anyway, isn't it time we move on with our lives? There's a new XKCD strip today. It makes a joke about GPS navigation systems. Perhaps you should add a link to the strip on the Wikipedia page for Global Positioning System? (That was a joke. Please don't do that.)-- Narsil (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok well as I see it the media source should only be listing major recurring themes where if a person appears in a popular media outlet it should be listed in a popular culture references section, but the section should have some sort of threshold as we don't want a every SNL/Daily Show reference to George Bush listed but shortlist of important appearences, that is dependent on both the number of pop culture references and the popularity of said pop culture outlet. It just so happens as these are the only pop culture references I've seen so far they meet the threshold in my mind. Beckje01 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again its fine to use that as a bar for noteworthy but you don't cite on the page that the information is noteworthy, citations are to back up the information of the page the talk page is here to decide on the notability, but I'm drawn back to WP:Notability on content which says that the notability is for a article itself not the content, the section is not being put into a article by itself but added to an already established page so the notability of the section is a mute point because it is not a stand along article.Beckje01 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Never read WP:BEANS, have you Narsil? :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Naw don't worry I don't see the reason, if it was about a particular product line yes... but it's not and at this point the prevalence of GPS compared to the readership of XKCD dosen't make a good argument for it's inclusion.Beckje01 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: kill the "In pop culture" section (well, keep it dead) and use the talk page to collect links to be used in the event that the section can return. It might very well be a viable section, but we don't know it because all we have are the xkcd references currently; there might very well be more. (for what it's worth, as much as I love xkcd, I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, it's unimportant) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So if section stubs should be made in the talk page, I'm sorry I never knew that. I'm 100% fine with that. I feel pop culture reference sections are important not really to most of us today but future generations may want to understand better the context behind older pop culture. Also as an example if I were to moved to London and walked past the Tintin store, I would probably wonder what exactly Tintin was so I would head to my trusty wikipedia and look it up, finding a pop culture section would be very helpful to help me gauge the importance/influence of a particular item, in the Tintin article the Adaptations and exhibitions I find very similar to a popular culture references for a person and it would be helpful to understand better that Tintin means something and i would want to at least get an idea about Tintin. I do feel that as the only pop culture references I know of so far are XKCD there is no reason why not to have them, but in the future they may be replaced by more broad reaching items but currently not. Beckje01 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "in pop culture" type sections are generally only in articles about fictional concepts; for example, see Cultural impact of Star Wars. There are, of course, exceptions; Christopher Walken#Cult status comes to mind, but I'd say that Summer is far from that level of cultural prominence. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I feel that the Star Wars example is a cultural impact section which is very different then a cultural references section, as for the cult status of Christopher Walken that is what happens when a pop culture section becomes too big. So mostly I feel there is a area where its not yet cult status but the references are interesting yet not notable enough for a full article.Beckje01 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. There's just notable/non-notable. This is just plain non-notable. Sorry, it just is. I feel that notability guidelines are radically misinterpreted often, but the fact of the matter is that there has to be reliable sources. Nobody disagrees with WP:V and WP:OR. Again, it's often misapplied in my opinion, but this is not a misapplication. It's flat-out original research. We can't talk about the pop culture status of Summer Glau until secondary sources do. Sure, there might be wiggle-room to add pop culture references not mentioned in any such articles, but until we have secondary sources saying "Hey, look at these references to Summer Glau in popular culture", we can't do squat. Especially when we only have one such reference. Find me at least a second. No, don't give me that stupid excuse about how Summer Glau's CHARACTER showed up in this other article. That goes on River's page, if anywhere. We currently have one pop culture reference to Summer Glau, and the fact of the matter is that even if we ignore notability, original research policies, and the whole shebang entirely (which we mustn't), we need several more sources before it's worth having a section. Maratanos (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok one last time about the notable/non-notable, those guidelines are for articles not the content, please see WP:Notability on content. As per the primary research question well we can't have a section that says Summer influenced popular culture or that X happened in popular culture because of Summer but we can have just the facts without any commentary such as references in popular culture. It's original research in any way as its not research; listing a fact is not research drawing conclusions on the facts is. As for the other reference being to River then yes it doesn't belong in the Cultural References section so it should be removed. But one listing as a start is fine for now give it a stub template or something but I would want to give it some time before deletion. Also its not as if that section wasn't being worked on. The original post was simply the section and one bullet, the section was expanded even corrected of some silliness, and my favorite thing was the addition of the pen name reference (which as a side note exactly why I like wikipedia and how it always wastes hours of my life) so in my mind it was a start of a section killed off incorrectly so I put it back. Also had it only been one person not a few I would have never put it back up.Beckje01 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dbizz I am also in favour of the pop culture section. I would guess that more people read XKCD than watch Firefly or the Sarah Connor Chronicles, and I don't believe that is irrelevant simply because she is an actress. The paragraph could tie into her career section by pointing out how Randall was satirizing the nature of the characters into which she's been typecasted. —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a side note I've been trying to respond to each section of :: so it's clear what I'm responding to I'm not sure why you keep moving my comments around if you don't want me to comment in the middle of something don't start a new :: Beckje01 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Beckje--The trouble is, if you break my comment into multiple sections, it's hard for people to tell that it was originally one comment, written by one person (me). Instead, it looks like three different comments, two of them unsigned. It makes it much harder for other people to follow the flow of the talk page. That's why I moved your comments into a single block.

Instead, you should just make a single comment, after the comment you're responding to. And if you want to reply to particular things I said, quote them in your comment. Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I took each :: as a separator between comments. And I was trying to avoid quoting as this section is getting way too big. Beckje01 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for some clarity and brevity.
I have seen sections of "cultural references" and "pop culture" in the Wikipedia articles of other actors. When I noticed Summer mentioned In a comic (XKCD) I looked for her on here and posted with the suggestion that we should consider creating a "cultural references" section for her. I didn't intend to start a flame war. I would like to clear up a few things:
1) Wikipedia is not a democracy
2) however it should value the opinions of every user (registered or otherwise) equally
3) I am not "some random xkcd fanboy" and I never suggested that we insert the comic itself, I merely suggested that we reference it.

I will not be editing this page any further myself, However I will state that I feel that a short section of "cultural references" would enhance this article.
please refrain from making lengthy, cluttred or inflammatory posts in the talk section. Keep things brief, to the point and civil as far as possible. Alastairthegreat (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All information belongs on wikipedia, not what random people think should and shouldn't be(especially when the page is so short). So i have re-added the XKCD link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.56.131 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're digging up the past. I'd thought this particular piece of XKCD-vandalism dead and buried. Regardless, I could turn what you say around. What belongs on Wikipedia isn't what random people think should or shouldn't be. No, not even if the random person in question is you. We must follow the POLICIES that guide us. The two policies you should probably read are No original research and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The first more than the second, really. But the point here is that if some reliable source decides to write about XKCD's opinions on Summer Glau, then surely we can reference it. It may be more appropriate on the page about XKCD itself, however. But in the meantime, while there are no such reliable sources talking about it, it shouldn't go on Wikipedia. I suggest you pay very careful attention to the goals of Wikipedia, because they have made quite, quite explicit the fact that they are NOT supposed to be a collection of all information ever. Maratanos (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the pop culture section was vandalism. But I will go with it doesn't need to be there yet. And I'm not re-adding it don't worry. But the whole no original research doesn't exclude linking to primary sources which in a pop culture section would include that comic. Beckje01 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about XKCD, and "In popular culture" sections, I think this sums it up... Mdwh (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/action_movies.png also mentions a role she had played, XKCD references are probably given enough. Since Summer has not (yet?) been taken into a direct reference to that comic like Cory Doctorow or Richard Stallman, I believe that these facts are actually irrellevant. The other thing I'm asking myself, does having been vegetarian for ten years of your life really make up your personality? I am (besides of not being logged in to the wiki) a long term vegetarian, and I don't think that is something I'd mention on my CV, isn't it? To be vegetarian may also have other reasons (besides of being an expression of overdone animal love)...

Link

What's with the external link in caption of Summer's Photo? Is it actualy relevant in anyway? It seems to me that she is nowhere on that page, correct me if I'm wrong, tell me, or remove it yourself, if I'm right.--Onion Cloth (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a plug for Flanvention, has little to do with her. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

i am not sure if you are aware that she played a signifigant role in charmed which was on the cw until its cancellation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.73.120 (talk • contribs)

Um, no. She was never on Charmed. MasterGreenLantern (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Always playing

She seems to always play some sort of nut job. She plays a 4400 with schizphrenia on "The 4400". She plays a character who's bad with people, mainly because shes a machine. And she plays a 'child prodigy' on Firefly who again has all sorts of issues due to experiments that were run on her. Three tv shows, and she doesn't play a 'normal' on any of them, even though most the rolls each show are. Is there a reason she's always playing the roll someone who's a bit crazy in one way or another? Either way, it should be mentioned in some way or another. TheJoak (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a source saying that she has been typecast, go ahead and add it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think she's been typecast yet, she's just so good at playing the crazy. She plays "normal" people in The Unit, Angel, Cold Case, CIS, and all of her films except Serenity. As for sources, there are a few interviews where they ask if she thinks she'd been typecast and she always replies that she's just happy to be working. [2] [3] —preceding comment added by ИИИИ 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Summer Glau play Go?

She's shown playing out a go opening in the Sarah Connor Chronicles episode 'Strange Things Happen at the One Two point'. It would be interesting if she actually plays go (just speculation, but I'd imagine she might have learnt to play for the scene). No-genius (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology?

Three years doing this program, and dammit, I'm still covered in icky thetans. 5:17 AM Jun 27th, 2008 from web

From Glau's Twitter account. IS this a joke or serious? Are there any other sources that confirm/deny this? Tar7arus (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the account is not actually used by Glau. Zybthranger (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Summer no longer has an official website, nor any official social networking pages" - [4] 4I7.4I7 08:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Injury that caused her to quit dancing

The page says a broken ankle prevented her from continuing to dance and cites to a random e-magazine thing. Whereas this interview (http://www.avclub.com/articles/summer-glau,14203/) with her says it was a broken toe and tendonitis, which are the causes I've seen elsewhere (which is why I checked it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.240.247 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I should like someone who knows how to pronounce this actress’s name to add an IPA transcription thereof to the beginning of this article, please. Thanks. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Shouldn't this article have an In Popular Culture section, and shouldn't it reference the XKCD obsession with her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.124.22 (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I would like to express my thanks to you for not immediately modifying the article itself, you should probably take a look at WP:V and then attempt to find a reliable secondary source which discusses this. Additionally, you may want to consider WP:IPC and whether or not a reference to the link between xkcd and Summer Glau would be more relevant on Summer Glau's page, or on xkcd's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.191.113 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)