Talk:Cobie Smulders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
 

Robin Sparkles[edit]

So does Cobie do her own singing? Does she have any history with songerizing? 204.69.40.13 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. See http://www.tv.com/how-i-met-your-mother/show/33700/videos.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gumballs&tag=gumballs;title;2 If that link doesn't work, go to the how i met your mother page on tv.com, and then click on videos and select "Making of Robin Sparkles Video (Behind the Scenes). BTW, is she dating Josh Radnor in real life????? What's with that peck at the end of that clip? --Macrowiz 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC) My bad. They appear to be in character. --Macrowiz 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonder Woman[edit]

She was considered for the role and was Joss Whedon's pick. Where was it stated that was a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallingx (talkcontribs)

The tenor of Joss' comments at Whedonesque. His continual insistence that he was not thinking about casting until after the script was finished - which it never was. The fact that Cobie Smulders was never considered outside the fact that some interviewer asked her if she would open for the part. And that she said that her agent asked if she would go up for the part and her belief that every brunette in Hollywood would be asked the same question. And Joss is known for his parenthetical remarks that are gags. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.10.173 (talkcontribs)
Read the entire post at Whedonesque, where he clearly says he never had an actress picked out, nor even a consistent front-runner. Which fits in exactly with his statements all along - that he wouldn't cast the part until the script was done. And the script was never done. The post-script is clearly a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.52.188 (talkcontribs)
"Where was it stated that was a joke?" Here. If you're not familiar with Joss' posting style, this might shed a bit more light on the tone of his dispatches from the development hellmouth. I'd hate to think that someone would add "Whedon found the cancellation of Angel 'hilarious'" or "Whedon claimed to have committed a string of grisly murders in the '80s" to the Joss Whedon article on the grounds that he neglected to embellish his jocular lament with a smiley.
chocolateboy 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the Name[edit]

The source says it is from her grandaunt, not from her aunt. i changed it 84.56.162.167 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Does anyone else think we need a better picture for this article. First time I saw it, I thought it was Kate Walsh (of Grey's Anatomy/Private Practice fame).88.107.136.211 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a better, free, picture? -Duribald (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationality[edit]

She has stated that she has one british and one dutch parent. The nationality laws of those countries both provide her with automatic citizenship due to those parents. She was born in canada, the nationality law of which provides her with citizenship by birth. I don't see why she should be listed as being exclusively canadian. 79.97.94.12 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That statement is unclear. A "British" parent could mean either an immigrant (or naturlized) or a 1st or 2nd generation Canadian of British descent, for example. To conclude that she therefore has a nationality of either of those parents is expressly original research. If you want to change the heading, I suggest finding a more explicit reliable source; preferably one with a direct statement listing all her official nationalities. Until a source like that is found, I suggest she remains "Canadian". Please establish a WP:CONSENSUS before changing contentious material (see also WP:BLP). DP76764 (Talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

British means British. Dutch means Dutch. She states that her parents are Dutch and British. Not of Dutch and British descent. It is not original research, expressly or otherwise, to say that she has either of those nationalities, as both nations grant automatic nationality to a person with one parent of that nationality. 79.97.94.12 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In North America these things are far blurrier that the above poster suggests. I agree with the second poster - Cdn only unless we have further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maria Hill[edit]

See discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Dutch[edit]

Netherlands was fouded by Spain, the dutch famili of Cobie are Spanish... (i know that in the US think that Spain is Mexico and Aztec culture, but I inform you that we are Europeans... white europeans, not other race) user:Zayuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.159.217 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Her middle name...[edit]

...is spelled Fransisca, not the more conventional Francisca, as per both the TV Guide and Venus Zine cites in the References section. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox photo[edit]

It seems as though User:Nymf dislikes he new photo. Now, considering his arguments are lame (water bottles, microphone in photo, it's a tad dark), I reccomend we keep it. The bottles and mic do not cover her face. You can still see it. And it's more recent. The photo he wants is from 2008. It's representing her from 5 years ago. Not at all the better choice. Rusted AutoParts 16:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


I've set the image to one that nobody likes and protected the article. I'm getting seriously irritated by this trend I'm noticing among several of the editors involved here, where every change to an image involves an edit-war back and forth before deciding on one. Discuss it, people. Choose an image by consensus and then insert it. Don't revert people over trivial issues like a picture being a few years old or an errant water bottle being in one corner of the picture.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ive already said my piece. Other than his argument of the water bottle and mic somehow disrupting the photo, there isn't a thing wrong with the Comic Con picture. You can see her face just fine, it isn't blurry, it's visible and it's recent, like a week old. The other one is from 2008, when she was 26. She's 31 now. It's time for a new picture, and the comic con photo is easily acceptable. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am obviously not alone in thinking that the image is inferior, as the first revert was not by me (but by User:Tenebrae). These Comic Con images are also being discussed (for the second time) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Massive changes to infobox images.2C redux, and so far everyone is of the same opinion. Nymf talk to me 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Kww, the stray water bottle is not the issue, but rather the fact that half the image is covered by a name tag, two bottles and a large mic. It is also much darker than the status quo image, making it hard to identify the subject. Nymf talk to me 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think either stray water bottles or being from four years ago is an issue, and I'm not trying to weigh in on which image is better. What I am trying to say is that you guys need to learn to talk about images and then change them, not the other way around.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with that, and perhaps that is a sentiment that Rusted AutoParts can adopt, as I am not running around changing images. Nymf talk to me 19:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case, you and Rusted Auto Parts both have two reverts, and Rusted Auto Parts was the one that started this discussion (although I agree that doing so after he had reverted wasn't the best thing to do and I have already pointed that out to him).—Kww(talk) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
First, thank you to Kww for stepping in and mediating before things got out of hand.
Secondly, the original image, with the white background, was practically the definition of an encyclopedic head shot: full face, no obstructions, no distracting background details, well lit, in focus and no unnatural and non-representative expression. The others have obstructions, aren't as clear or, like the current one, is a side shot partially in shadow. It's great, of course, to have people take free-use images of living subjects, but it's not like we don't have scores of such people. When we have amateur photographers going from article to article removing good images and replacing them with their own inferior ones, I think we can genuinely call that problematic. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Birth date[edit]

AskMen.com, which previously cited her birth date as April 3, 1982, has taken that information down, which suggests the website felt it was not confirmable. I've subbed the best journalistic citation I could find, from the Los Angeles Times' website, which gives just April 1982. Most websites gives the age from IMDb or from mirror articles. We can't say "April 3" without concrete citing. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)