Talk:Jenna Fischer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Missouri Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


She's listed as starring on "Undeclared" twice.

Contents

[edit] She broke her back :-(

See [1] Should any of this be in the article? 69.143.11.232 20:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separation

This news came straight from their MySpace blog which has been verified to be owned by both James and Jenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin0820 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Try one of these instead. Jauerback 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Jenna is separated from husband James Gunn, not divorced. So why does the section "LolliLove" refer to Gunn as her "ex-husband"? I corrected it to "husband". the couples current domestic status is mentioned under "Personal life". If and when they divorce, it should read "then-husband", as they were married during the making and release of the film.

96.247.159.18 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, bad photo

The photo is not even identifiably her. Tempshill 06:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad photo, yes, I agree. Identifiable as her, I disagree. However, it looks like it's a free image, which is better than no image, I would think. Jauerback 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed it to the photo of her playing Pam Beesly on The Office. — Ian Lee (Talk) 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your change. When we have a free image available, we never use a nonfree one. Granted, the one we currently have isn't ideal. But a nonfree one is certainly replaceable. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. -- RG2 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. For months no one has been able to find an image, but the single one that have been found, isn't even clear enough to say it's her. This obviously failes "Acceptable quality" under bullet one of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. — Ian Lee (Talk) 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Using a fair-use image fails #12 of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images. I have reverted your edit. – JYi 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, it has been MONTHS. NO ONE has found a picture that even kinda-sorta looks like her. #12 refers to deciding between a free picture of acceptable quality (which is has not found for months) verses a nonfree picture. I'm going to revert the image as we're both over 3RR anyway. Please stop. — Ian Lee (Talk) 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Item 12 has nothing to do with quality. Quote: "taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." In this case, yes it does serve the same encyclopedic purpose, regardless of whether or not one of "acceptable quality" is currently available. Is it possible to get one? Yes. This is a policy that has been enforced for years, it really isn't debatable. – JYi (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
But it doesn't serve the same encyclopedic purpose. A reader can not tell how she looks like with the photo you are supporting. Additionally, after months of searching, a photo has NOT been found. If after months of searching, a free photo is not found, it should be accepted that a nonfree photo must take its place. Stop being absurd. — Ian Lee (Talk) 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictures of people still alive are generally unacceptable if they are not free, as it's clearly possible to create a free image. If after months of searching, no photo is found, it just means that someone should go out and take one, since it's still possible. -- RG2 07:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Added new image. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parade interview

In the section on her personal life, there's a paragraph about Fischer's separation from her husband. That paragraph has been the target of some back-and-forth about a quote from a Parade magazine interview, sort of a low-key edit war. I've attempted to resolve the issue with the following:

When Fischer was asked, in an interview for the December 9, 2007 issue of Parade magazine, whether the couple might reconcile, Fischer replied "Everything is possible. That would be the best!"<ref name="parade"/> Over a month later, in a blog entry on Fischer's MySpace page<ref>[http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27753303&blogID=349771654 Me and David Spade], a January 21, 2008 blog entry on Fischer's MySpace page</ref>, Fischer asserted that the Parade interview included a quote that was "completely out of context" without identifying the quote in question.
Of course if a reliable source can be found that's more definitive (and gets past the Spam blacklist), feel free to add it, citing the source of course. 67.100.127.53 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's unnecessary. Commenting on the "feelings" of a factual situation is absurd. It reads like spin, as a distraction from the fact that Jenna's breakup with failed screenwriter James Gunn is an embarrassing situation for Gunn. If this is allowed, then certainly a paragraph about how James Gunn is still in love with wife should be allowed. Or why not a quote from Fischer about how she still loves her husband??? Of course these additions don't add anything of value to reporting of facts. They are weasel words meant to soften the blow from the factual assertion that she left her husband. It shouldn't be allowed because they don't affect the facts one way or the other. And if anything, wiki is a great opportunity to factually present "without emotion" about the history of life, celebrity and everything else without doing PR work these folks. If Jenna gets back together with Gunn, then report on it. Otherwise, just keep it simple. If that objection doesn't satisfy you, then the principle of creating lean, economic wiki pages without too much filler should be our goal here. This article can live without this addition just fine. It is embarassing to keep it in.209.181.73.91 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
All that was done was to cite reliable sources (Parade and Fischer's MySpace page). If additional reliable sources are available, add them. Who knows or cares who left whom, unless reliable sources make such information available. 67.101.5.218 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
Actually, myspace and blogs and messageboards are NOT considered reliable sources. That, and simply citing a source to include frivolous material that puts a spin on the subject matter is relevant. It still violates NPOV because you are using the source to waterdown a factual situation. As it stands, it violates NPOV wiki policy and as such it will be removed. Have a nice day.209.181.73.91 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)