Talk:Allison Janney/Archive 1

Cancellation of The West Wing
I don't see a need for such a large section on the cancellation fo the show in this articlel. Too much of the text dealt exclusively with the show, and not about Allison Janney. I've integrated mention fo the cancellation into the "On The West Wing" section. If readers want to find out more, they can read the main West Wing article. --mtz206 14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo size
I don't understand how the photo quality is substantially comprimised by making the image less overwhelming and similar in size to the other images on the page. --mtz206 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that the main/primary photograph should sustain its original pixel size. It is not overwhelming, it covers a small portion of the article in comparison to the texts written throughout. The last photograph (Janney and Dennis Quaid) is also of a larger nature, simply because the original pixel size was so high. And as long as it is not exaggerated, I see no fault in having a larger image than another.
 * --AJ24 18:00 2 Feb 06

Re: Cancellation of the West Wing
Allison Janney's current career is centered around the West Wing; she is also famed for being a part of the distinguished cast. The meer cancellation represents an exigent part of her publicity. I do agree that the Cancellation section needs to be "cleaned up", but deleting information is exactly oppostite to what encyclopedias attempt to accomplish. I am going to re-post the information and modify the article, adding information that reflects Allison Janney further.
 * Three responses: (a) I am not simply "deleting information." Much of the content you insist on reverting to is not relevant to an encyclopedic article about Allison Janney. If readers want more details on the history of the show, its awards, its cast, and its cancellation, they can click the link to the show's article. (b) your complete revert ignores other changes that you do not openly dispute, such as renaming the "On the Big Screen" section. I will be making that change again. (c) Please create a login and sign your posts. --mtz206 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, Allison Janney's present career centers around The West Wing, the cancellation will more than likely affect her on multiple levels. The information regarding the cancellation, in detail, cannot be found on the West Wing article. I also modified the section significantly to include further information concerning Allison Janney. Please modify the Cancellation section as appropriate, but yes, you did originally delete the entire section, instead of modifying the information to be more relavent to Janney. I did retrieve unnecessary information within the cancellation article and amend it to include more information concerning Janney.
 * 1. The information within the article, cited as "Allison Janney", should completely and credibly contain important information, which also pertains to a "current events" status.
 * 2. The Cancellation of the television drama, The West Wing, is a vital part of Janney's history. It also entails as to how much longer she will receive her salary and special status on NBC.
 * 3. The sub-title, "Other roles", is a broad, rough term that does not specifically generalize the information within it. I do agree the past title "On the Big Screen" was more of a magazine or newspaper headline, and is not suitable for an encylopida. If you have any other ideas concerning a new sub-title, you should include it.
 * --AJ24 20:45, February 1, 2006
 * I agree that some mention of the cancellation of the show should be made, but much of the details in the current version are superfluous for an article on Janney, and should be edited down considerably (see my versions in history). Consider the brief mention (or none alltogether) of the cancellation in articles for Martin Sheen, Janel Moloney or Bradley Whitford. It just doesn't merit such a major mention in this biographical article. --mtz206 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Those three articles in which you mentioned, are not properly and fully maintained. If an article is to represent a figure it should represent it as a whole, not in bits and pieces. The West Wing article, itself, does not even have a complete cancellation section. I agree the section should reflect Janney further, but it seems you wish to limit the information of the article, while other articles contain every tangible piece of information known. Why can't Janney's article be the same?
 * --AJ24 18:00 2 Feb 06
 * Then much of the text meant to be placed here should be added to the West Wing article. We need to consider the encyclopedic value of the information: if someone comes here looking for information on Janney, the article should be about her, noting that this show has been cancelled. All the extra detail about the shows awards, ratings, reception, etc are not directly relevant facts to Allison Janney, the actress. --mtz206 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the encyclopedic value, if a person wanted to visit the article looking for information on Janney's most notable role, they would have full information on...
 * a) facts of Janney's role in the West Wing
 * b) how the cancellation has affected her
 * c) additional facts of the cancellation
 * d) and a small amount of info regarding her castmates

...then they would be able to find it in one location. The information is not an overload either. It is a few ounces of information of those that pertain to the career of Allison Janney. There is full relevance in that. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.72.202 (talk • contribs) 15:53, February 4, 2006.

I've made some additional edits to this section to clean it up and make it more relevant to Janney. According to the cited article, the show was cancelled primarily due to ratings, and the decision was made prior to Spencer's death. Also, I think the Entertainment Tonight mention should be removed unless a citation can be provided showing that they made these comments after the cancellation of the show. --mtz206 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Front pic
Isn't the main front picture "too good"? -- Orz 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No pic?? Que pasa? Nicolasdz 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
'''== Biography assessment rating comment == WikiProject Biography Assessment

Needs a top pic, but otherwise a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
I removed some unsourced material and some geocities links. Also removed a imdb link. It looks like there is still a ton of originalresearch/unsourced material. Anyways, --Tom 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we get ANY photo of Janney for the article? --Tom 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)'Bold text'Bold text'Bold textBold text' Italic text '

Janney & Jenik: status?
Does anyone have information on the status of the engagement of Allison Janney and Richard Jenik? Or if they were married?

Yes they are engaged he proposed in Golden Gate Park at night to her. (See her 2nd interview with Ellen DeGeneres) I don't know wether they are married yet.

Jenik's IMDb bio page says they broke off the engagement in November 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.112.77 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong links
Why are the names of movies linked to the disambiguation pages for the words in the title instead of being linked to the articles on the movies? Why should I click the link for the movied titled "Flux" and then wade my way through the four bezillion things that Flux can mean in physics, electronics, and social science to find therein the movie named Flux and then click THAT link? Why can't I just click the title "Flux" IN THIS ARTICLE and go straight to the article that is about the movie titled "Flux"? Why do I need to read about any kind of Flux other than Flux-the-movie? This is obviously a Wikipedia standard because it always works this way for any item being linked -- the link goes to the disambiguation page that lists 8,000 different usages rather than to the article that is about the only thing that someone clicking that link could conceivably be interested in that has that name. There's just NO WAY that anyone reading about Allison Janney and wanting to hop from there to the movie "Flux" will want to read any other Flux-titled article except the MOVIE's article. Ergo, they shouldn't be taken to the disambiguation page. Why has Wikipedia elected to go this route?69.86.130.90 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Is Allison Janney related to Marie Windsor
These two women look like twins from a different era — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.164.187 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Best known for ...
This is something I see in almost every wiki about movie and TV stars. It is rarely true and it is never backed by a source. 62.12.14.26 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted some language regarding this very thing. It’s probably what you’re referring to. I agree in part, disagree in part. The known-for language is too often so generous it breaches NPOV. I disagree in the sense that some stars are known for certain things and little else.
 * Take, for example, Charlie Chaplin and his tramp character. Or Estelle Getty, known for her portrayal as Sofia on Golden Girls. In cases like those, there are sources backing up those claims. In this case, maybe Allison Janney is known for her versatility (I personally think she is), but there were no sources supporting that claim. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Allison+Janney+Women+March.jpg

Quotes
I'm not totally opposed to the quotes at the end of the sections, but do we really think they should be there? We're not E! after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.119.42 talk 23:37, February 6, 2006 (UTC)