Talk:Gemma

From LGPedia
Revision as of 23:29, 1 February 2007 by Brucker (Talk | contribs) (Gemma as a main character)

Jump to: navigation, search

Etymology

Some interesting info on Gemma's name, which I'd like to eventually incorporate into the page:

ALPHECCA or GEMMA (Alpha Coronae Borealis). One of the very few stars with two commonly used names, Alphecca is the dominant (mid- second magnitude, 2.23) Alpha star of the delightful constellation Corona Borealis, the Northern Crown, a semicircle of stars to the east of Arcturus that truly reminds the viewer of a heavenly crown, the constellation representing the crown of Ariadne. The name Alphecca in fact comes from an Arabic root that alludes to the "broken" nature of the circle, the semicircle that makes the crown. The alternative name Gemma rather obviously derives from the star's central placement in the semicircle, it being the "jewel in the crown."

What a pretty name, I would have never known. Perhaps then it follows that the word "gem" can also be traced to these origins?OwenIsCool 17:47, 6 December 2006 (CST)
Raises the question: what does Bree mean??--JayHenry 18:17, 6 December 2006 (CST)
mm, i think it got it's name from the original word for jewel. i mena they didn't just make up random words when they named stars.--Skeeta 00:36, 11 December 2006 (CST)

RIP Gemma

In OpAphids video The Ends Justify The Means an anagram of this appears - could she be dead?

Gemma as a main character

Since Gemma is no longer making videos, should she still be in the main characters section?

Well, she's like a former main character. She's a main character like Ben Kenobi in Star Wars:A New Hope. --Brucker 13:52, 1 February 2007 (CST)
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. but... maybe you can make a secondary characters thing under the main characters and put like Gemma and P. Monkey and Bree's parents. Besides, star wars is a fixed movie. this is an ever changing ARG (thanks Maddie for pointing that out :D )and yeah. but,sigh, do want you want. :/ Wingless
See, thing is, even if you see Gemma as "less main" than Bree or Daniel, she's still wayyyyy above Bree's parents, and she's definitely not a stuffed character. The important thing is that they're the four bloggers the series has had. If more characters became really important, yeah we'd reoganize. But as it stands right now, it seems to me just fine. OwenIsCool 14:24, 1 February 2007 (CST)
I don't see Gemma as "less main." I see her as no longer main. There's a difference. How is she "above" Bree's parents? I guess if you're talking speaking part. But who's had more influence on Bree? I think her parents. Yeah, It's all debatable, and I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong. I'm just voicing my thoughts. Wingless.
I like OiC's idea, that she remains as-is until another "main character" is introduced. The thing I see as a possible problem is the tendency to over-categorize. For a while we had just "Characters", then we had "Stuffed characters", then "Main characters/Supporting characters", then McPhee became a "Guest character", etc. Gemma just isn't in the same league as the supporting cast, and so moving her would almost require creating a new category. However, the four we have pictured on the front page are truly special, even with Gemma no longer with us (dead or not).
Here's a better example: If you go on imdb.com and look up the show ER, you'll see that Anthony Edwards and Eriq La Salle are still listed high on the cast list despite neither of them appearing on the show for about five years. Gemma is still a "main character" in the series as a whole, and I think she should stay that way. I would be quite willing to remove her from the front page listing if another blogger was added to the cast and we needed the space, though. --Brucker 16:40, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Why don't we just get rid of all the catagories then? Have Bree on the main page, and a link to a list of ALL the characters, non divided. You don't HAVE to do it, it's just an idea. Wingless.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. I think our current setup is good, but if it starts getting too complicated, going the ultra-simple route would be nice. --Brucker 17:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)