Talk:Jennie Garth

Notable?
Is this really worth listing here as trivia? Even IMDb doesn't list stuff like this anymore (or their policy says they won't add new fact like this). JordeeBec 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

 * Garth was born within five months of another famous "Kelly," Christina Applegate of Married With Children fame.
 * Jennie was born just ten days after gymnastics legend Kristie Phillips (who also happens to be an actress and a stunt-performer), during the same year. Both ladies are Arians.


 * I'd say this "trivia" is nonsense and certainly not noteworthy. I am in favor of deleting it. -- fdewaele, 5 September 2006, 9:32 (CET)
 * Agreed, they are inane, coincidental and do not offer any useful information. -- Dancrumb 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully support and agree with the deletion of such material. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cult &c.
We could sure have some elaboration on the waves of her life. I came here specifically with the question, "didn't I see her on a where is she now show chanting how she had found God and hated the evils of hollywood," and yet What I Like About You (on in the background) is pretty adult-humor intensive. Was that her cult time? What does all that mean? --Mrcolj 22:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction
I do not believe Jennie was in the movie How High.

Typo
> Rumors that Facinelli is a cuckhold have never been confirmed, though some speculation persists.

I had to look it up -- the correct spelling appears to be "cuckold".

Incorrect/outdated Dancing with the Stars profile link
The link is http://abc.go.com/primetime/dancingwiththestars/?pn=bio#t=star&d=23272, and is at the bottom of the page, but this goes to some extra videos page and nothing about Jennie Garth. Please take a look and update/fix the link ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead photo
There's been some disagreement over whether to currently use "Jennie_Garth.jpg" or "Jennie_Garth_Heart_Truth.jpg"

I'm with the former because it's more related to her profession. I'll be changing it in a few days or so unless, of course, there's strong objection. -- 4.249.84.8 (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hands down, Number 2 is better. There's just no question. -- >David  Shankbone  18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the Heart Truth photo. It's a better photo (she looks stunning), if only because it shows her face in full. "Related to her profession" doesn't cut it, in my opinion--both pictures were taken at the kind of public occasion that is entirely related to her profession. The Heart Truth photo, moreover, is more recent. BTW, when you change pictures, make sure there's still a caption there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm in disagreement with the "stunning" opinion, but this really isn't about her looks. I've mentioned before that "more recent" is a non-issue, because there are only a few months, not years, between the photos. Anyway, the CW image is more related to her profession because it's more representative of acting. -- 4.249.84.206 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't do leads based upon professions (Joe the Plumber would still get a standard headshot even if we had one of him smiling while fixing a toilet). The CW image obscures her features too much; it's not that sharp; she's not looking at the camera; and the color is off.  I have created plenty of similar low quality, and when they are replaced I'm fine with it.  But there simply is no competition between the photos, and to be honest, #1 doesn't scream "Acting!" to me, regardless.  Anyone can end up on a red carpet.  -- >David  Shankbone  19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A compromise: How about this photo, once its approved, which shows her face in full and is more clearly representative of acting, being from the People's Choice Awards? Best of both, and a nice photo. James26 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still prefer #2 because it is 158KB, more recent, and a nice shot. The Flickr shot is nice, James, but at 17KB, it's little more than a thumb nail.  So my order of preference would be #2 above, #3 and then #1 as a last resort. -- >David  Shankbone  19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with David. "She looks stunning" isn't just a statement about her--it's a statement about the photograph as well. Besides, at a public occasion like that, in the sexist society we live in, that's what she in her position should look like. I am in perfect agreement with David's assessment about the quality of #1, which, frankly, is quite awful--just look at what the flash (I think that's what it is) to the color of her hair, and at the distracting background. And there's someone's arm in the picture as well. The photo isn't even in focus--just enlarge it and you'll see that the sharpest thing in the image is the "W" in the background. Someone took this picture as she was walking by, no doubt. I don't really understand what "representative of acting" means here. Both are photographs at public occasions; she is at those occasions because she is an actress. No? Drmies (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also seriously doubt that Flickr user "Wiehanne", from which #3 came, owns the copyright on the image to release it. They have a lot of copyvios they have uploaded, and it remains to be seen who OTRS is expecting to get permission from, but Weihanne doesn't have the authority to give it, IMO.  -- >David  Shankbone  19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guys. With regard to "recent," David, both photos were apparently taken in January, so there's really little difference as far as time is concerned. With all due respect, size is something that can be increased, and it's not that big a factor. As far as the various definitions of stunning go, she's just as visible in #3 as in the current one.

As far as authority is concerned, I'm a little confused. The current image is apparently owned by The Heart Truth, but was uploaded by someone named Tabercil. What's the difference between Tabercil and Wiehanne? Or between Alan Light, who uploaded one of the, and Wiehanne? In any case, I suppose OTRS will just decline the image if there's an issue.

Personally, I prefer her facial expression in #3 to #2, and aside from that, I think it's just as visible a photo. So, with the issues of time, size, and visibility addressed, will there be any more concerns if the photo is approved? James26 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * James, you're confused about how the copyright issue works. Tabercil is a trusted user who uploaded a photo owned by an organization called "The Heart Truth", who has a Flickr photostream, and who owned the photo taken at their event.  Alan Light is well known to be releasing his images, that he took, for us to use.  "Wiehanne" is an Asian girl who is going around collecting images off the Internet that she neither took, nor has any claim to control their copyright.  The copyright on Photo #3 is not hers to release to us - she doesn't own it.  She gives where she got the photo from, which was some website; she uploaded to illustrate hairstyles.  You are citing her as if she took the photo herself.  She's also uploaded movie posters, etc.  She doesn't own those to give us, either.  You can't give away property that you don't own.  Because #3 will likely be deleted, the real question is #1 or #2 as #3 is a copyright violation.  So it's not worth discussing the merits of a photo that we can't use.  -- >David  Shankbone  22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But if both 2 and 3 are good, why change from what we have now? Drmies (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that 3 is much nicer, as mentioned, due to her expression (she looks much more pleasant), and it's also the brighter of the two. I obviously can't force a change, but I do think there are nicer photos of her than 2, 3 being one of them. James26 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian
Jennie Garth is not a vegetarian. http://vegetarianstar.com/2009/03/02/jennie-garth-peter-facinelli-kids-like-tofu/ She claims to eat chicken and fish. Helpsome (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Appropriateness of '92 Emmy Picture
Yes, I know anything goes on Wikipedia, but why oh why is a pic that shows her areola a fair representation of her likeness? 71.165.132.84 (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed, but you're right. In terms of encyclopedic representation, I'm not sure that's the more representative image available. We have two other images so I'm not sure we need a third, but I'll crop this one and then others can decide how many images to use.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tenebrae. 71.165.132.84 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"The youngest of seven children (though the only child of both)"

Both what? Parents? This statement is very confusing to me. 198.6.33.13 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennie Garth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523185101/http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Jennie-Garth-Joins/800039315 to http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Jennie-Garth-Joins/800039315/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jennie Garth at Hearts Truth 2009.jpg

Luke and Laura /
no one mentions her role on the soap opera! Luke and Laura was a big deal back then 2600:1012:B140:9F5:402F:2C43:D343:3F0 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)