Talk:Katy Manning/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
SJA?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/04_april/19/sj_adventures.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.110.203 (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Girl Illustrated
Not having seen the magazine (but having seen Katie's shots) is the work pornographic really necessary. The article states she posed nude. Pornographic makes it seem like she was coming up with creative uses for the suction arm or something. Sabalon 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is the naughtiest (includes a nipple) photo [1] which I think one wouldn't say was porographic, however the article is saying the magazine "Girl Illustracted" was pornographic. Apparently it grew out of a Naturalist magazine [2] and closed in 1977. It probably was pornographic for its day but would not be considered so now. AntiVan 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you mean a naturist (not naturalist) magazine 140.147.160.78 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
- You are of course correct. I appologise also for my other misspellings. Since then I have changed the term to 'glamour' and added a stub for Girl Illustrated. AntiVan 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There was one photo that showed Katy stradling the suction arm in a most suggestive manner...--74.101.116.61 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are of course correct. I appologise also for my other misspellings. Since then I have changed the term to 'glamour' and added a stub for Girl Illustrated. AntiVan 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean a naturist (not naturalist) magazine 140.147.160.78 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
![[1]](http://members.fortunecity.com/noops212/katy_manning0015.jpg){kind=link}
According to the stub on the magazine - it ran until 1977, but here says Katy's shots were in 1978. Which is correct?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Currently, the article doesn't mention the photoshoot at all. Why do Wikipedia articles get worse, not better, over time??? 141.151.57.48 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
"Famously myopic?"
Why the phrase "famously myopic"? Did she do something incredible due to her vision? SJ2571 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty well-known amongst Doctor Who fans that she is extremely myopic. On one of her first days on set, she was running somewhere, tripped, fell, and knocked herself unconscious--because she couldn't see where she was running. This is why, for her entire tenure on Doctor Who, she can be seen holding Jon Pertwee's hand whenever they're running. DigiFluid (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering too, until I read the linked article. I agree it's noteworthy, but it should be explained. Perhaps rephrase the sentence, add the reason why it's noteworthy--85.127.78.142 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)?