Talk:Sarah Michelle Gellar/Archive 1

Removed from article
''Despite her small screen, film, and modeling carreer successes, Gellar has been somewhat of a controversial character, with many viewers of productions such as "Buffy, Vampire Slayer" or of her cosmetic commercials being instantly struck by what has been often percieved as Gellar's 'complete lack of either acting talent or physical beauty'. An interesting situation often arising where persons seated with fanatical 'Sarah Michelle' fans watching her perform, are themselves moved to hysterical laughter through every scene as "another two-name teenaged model" stars in what such people find to be strictly "B or C entertainment". Interestingly, the same concerns have often followed the carreer of Gellar's husband.''


 * This is rather vapid; it boils down to: some people don't think much of Gellar, although some do, and these two sets of people disagree with one another, only written in a more inflammatory style. It's certainly not NPOV, making only vague assertions that aren't backed up, plus sourceless quote fragments. --Brion 05:21 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * I agree. This isn't NPOV at all. --mav

Nonsense. There was no reason to remove those lines. Are you saying you have never heard such a perspective. You are trying to wipe out part of our culture by wiping out lines in the article. Giving cultural perspective about Gellar's work wouldnt have raised an eyebrow if it lauded it - would it. Save you PC for somewhere else. Is there anything UNTRUE in what i wrote? NO, there isnt, is there?


 * Read our NPOV policy. There is nothing neutral about "complete lack of either acting talent or physical beauty" without attributing the opinion to an authority on the subject (even then it still might not be appropriate to include it). The above reads like it came from a movie critic's corner of a newspaper and not from an encyclopedia. --mav


 * Beauty and talent are largely matters of opinion. Where they are not, it's after enough time has passed for consensus to settle. She's certainly no Olivier, I don't think we'll be seeing her do Shakespeare, but she's no more ugly that any of a number of skeletal teen idols, and her acting skills are up to the task of starring in an action tv series. -- Tarquin

Filmography
Sex in The City, Friends, and Angel were added by dodgy user 134.83.1.225. Okay, I know she appeared in Angel, but don't have a clue about the other two. Can someone check? (They shouldn't be under "filmography" anyway, as they're not films...) -- Oliver P. 15:02 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Sex and the City seems to check out. Google searching for any appearance on Friends is rather harder, since that's a common term... Evercat 15:08 28 May 2003 (UTC)


 * IMDB agrees on Sex... but not on Friends. Also if they don't belong under fimography why does Buffy..., she wasn't in the move. ²¹² 15:11 28 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Removed Friends. The show is one of my weakspots and I am confident that if she had appeared either IMDb or myself would've remembered it. Pcb21 18:35 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Photo
I know she starred in a show about vampires, but does she really need to look like the undead here?

Yes, if the only image licenced for use here is a bad image. Garda40 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations
I think that there should be a section showing all of the awards she has won, and has been nominated for.

Little Ant and Dec
SMG was the victim of an interview by "Little Ant" and "Little Dec" on Saturday Night Takeaway on April 3, 2004.

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simply Irresistable
To describe it as a "disastrous flop" is POV. This should be finessed. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Birth name
Diwann added this:Her real name is simply Sarah Gellar but she could not use her real name professionally because the Screen Actors Guild prohibits two actors from using the same name, and there is already an actress called Sarah Gellar. Since IMDb lists her birth name as "Sarah Michelle Gellar", we're going to need some proof, and then we'll have to tell them. The facts that Sarah Gellar simply REDIRECTs back here, and that searching IMDb for "Sarah Gellar" simply jumps straight to her page, are merely icing on the cake. --Phil | Talk 07:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Joan Hart?
Can someone really back up that she and MJH were best friends? I'm just saying because there's a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense that's been fought over on the MJH page and this might be spill-over from that.
 * Yes, they are i cant give a reference but MJH was interviewed by english programme GMTV. During a discussion about her being in Britney Spears music video she stated that Spears didn't really have anyone to depend on but me and SMG did. 217.44.102.103 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo
I tried changing the photo, but it wouldnt work. I had all of the information, but every time I tried to upload the file, it kept on deleting my source. I dont know what to do

Can someone please explain to me the change from a photo where a) her face was seen from a frontal point of view, b) her hair was brown, its natural, and most recent colour and c) we received what appeared to be, for all instances, a much more accurate display of how she is now, for a poor quality photo of her with a less formally sound facial expression and blonde hair?

(I'm new around here, pardon if I'm missing the cogs of the place and have just acted out of order or somesuch.)Zeppocity 23:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

--


 * Very much agreed. The older picture is a much better representation in every way and I'm reasonably sure it's newer than the replacement one.  I vote to revert to the picture from 30 July, 2005 - though I'd rather leave actually doing it to someone a little more experienced than me!


 * FirestarXL 14:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, again, with the fact that it's a much better representation and from the looks of it, more recent (the last pictures I've seen of her had her sporting the same brunette hair and (healthily, I'd say) plumper face), I've gone ahead and made the reversal myself.
 * If anyone holds anything agains the change, go ahead and point it out. Zeppocity 17:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The image Image:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License, whereas Image:E11 SarahMichelleGellar707.jpg has no information on its source or copyright status. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible.  If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. The same goes for Image:Sarah7.jpg. Extraordinary Machine 14:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry then... Since the person who put Image:Sarah Michelle Gellar.jpg up mentioned only as reasoning that it was a more recent one (which seems untrue), I immediately assumed that the one before was okay regarding Copyright issues... Anyone can go ahead and revert it to that, then, I suppose. And yes, I'll admit that I need to start paying a bit more attention to this sort of situation, but again, since there was no indication that its use was inappropriate, I just assumed it was best to use it... Sorry about this. Zeppocity 16:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I reckon it's worth trying to find another photo then, better to take some time looking than to settle for one that does no justice. I guess finding a suitable one free of draconian copyright is going to be the tricky part.  FirestarXL 12:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added a fair use tag to the image, since it was kinda bad leaving it as unknown. I think it's pretty safe to assume that it is copyrighted, though I am not sure of the source - if we knew that that it could possibly have the PromoPhoto tag.  I would rather have had source data to add here, but I think it's better to at least acknowledge that it is copyrighted even if the additional info is not available yet.
 * One other thing I am kind of cautious about though is the high resolution of the pic - as nice as it is, it might stretch the fair use concept a little further than it was intended for. Might need to downsize it a little? FirestarXL 19:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know... I'd be up for searching for something more appropriate myself, but I still have a hard time sussing out what's appropriate beyond Creative Commons files, so I'm pretty hesitant on this one, though I'm guessing there's always this this and this to check out, but again, I'm unsure as to whether they are usable here or not... So, sort of stepping out of this matter, I s'ppose.Zeppocity 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One option would be to contact owners of Gellar fansites and ask them if they'd be willing to release any images that they or the site's users created under the GFDL. See Boilerplate request for permission if you're not sure what to write. Extraordinary Machine 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've.. sort of done so by now. Hum, also, might as well clear my less than brilliant mind on this: are publicity shots, for the most part, fine, then? And screenshots are pretty much fine as long as they aren't too hi-res? Just confirming this to see if I find something appropriate. So, would this, or this be appropriate?
 * Bah, I'm not entirely clear on this, but trying to find some better solution (both present pics represent an actress in her late twenties as a teen; not that good). Zeppocity 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A promotional photo is a photo published by the actor or his/her agent to promote media interest in the persion. If you want to publish photos as promotional photos, you need to show that they have been published for promotional use. Remember that not just any photo of a celebrity is promotional. The tag is always accompanied with that kind of source. Thuresson 14:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, the end result is that we are once again left with a sub-standard example as the primary image on this page. Is there really not an earlier one with similar copyright freedom that we can revert to as a temporary measure? At the moment it's just pathetic, let's lose this picture for good eh? --FirestarXL 00:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added a much better shot of Sarah Michelle Gellar (Image:Smgellar.jpg), sporting her natural hair color. If anyone feels this image is not eligible, then please do not hesitate to replace it. --DBGFrost 23:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The picture on the Buffy Summers article is much nicer than the one here (which I think has been reverted since the comment above). Any reason we can't use that one?

We really need a better Sarah Michelle Gellar pic. Anybody got one? Psychogoatee 09:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From thousands and thousands of photos available, this is by far the worst (and I really mean WORST) I've seen of her. It just doesn't look like her and it's not very flattering either - so why is it still there?--RL80 13:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why screenshots and promotional pictures can be used for other people on here but not for Sarah Michelle Gellar. Am I missing something? This picture needs to be changed...

12/5/06 - Wow, I wonder if it's possible to get a worse picture of her. DOubt it. Are there no decent fair use pictures floating around?

Atheist?
Is she really an atheist? There's nothing in the text of the article that would lead one to that conclusion, so why is there a "category:atheist" at the bottom of the article? Can someone provide proof that she's stated her atheism in an interview somewhere? Otherwise, it might be best to remove her from that category. 207.6.31.119 10:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "[On religion] "I don't believe in organized religion and I never have." It's IMDB, but it's also a quote so it must have come from somewhere. She's also stated that her parents were Jewish but non-practicing and didn't raise her in any religion. I think the category belongs here, but I dunno. Vulturell 10:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, not believing in organized religion does not make a person an atheist. There are many people who oppose organized religion and yet are deeply spiritual, believe in God ect... With that in mind, it's kind of irrelevant if the IMDB quote doesn't have a source, since the quote only shows that she's not a fan of organized religion, rather than showing her supposed atheism. The category should go, but I'll let it rest for a week so as to give people the chance to scour the net and find something substantial to prove her atheism. 207.6.31.119 10:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NNDB.com


 * NNDB.com is not a first-hand source, i.e. it has no direct contact with Gellar. It's an info-gathering site, just like Wikipedia, but not as reliable. They may well have seen the quote I pointed to and made that conclusion. Vulturell 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who put the quote on IMDB. It came from an interview she did with Howard Stern in 1999.Crumbsucker 05:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me set the record straight. As an SMG fan I know that she is not involved in any religon whatsoever. End of discussion. Lil Flip246 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * that doesn't mean she's an atheist

If she believes in a deity, but isn't involved in any particular religion, then it is logical to define her belief system as "Deist", correct? The Gonz 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsensical. Whilst I have no personal knowledge of Ms. Gellar's personal religious views, it is perfectly possible to be a theist and not be directly be involved with any organised religion. Why wouldn't it be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Howard Stern
In a famous appearance with Howard Stern on June 20, 2002, he grilled Sarah extensively about both her religion and her relationship with her (then deceased) father and she became very angry and defensive.

After seeing the episode no longer than five minutes ago, there is no grilling of Gellar's father, at all. He isn't even mentioned. The reason it's still up is because after watching it, it didn't give an exact date, just June 2002. Can anyone confirm if Sarah Michelle Gellar made more than one appearance on the Howard Stern show during the month of June on 2002? If she only made one appearance, then this sentence is false and should be removed. --DBGFrost 22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence may be referring to her appearance on March 1999. That's when he grilled her about her religion, etc. See this transcript, the very last entry at the bottom. Vulturell 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This June 14 appearance doesn't have anything on her father either . There are no more archived interviews with Gellar on the website, so I think she was only on there the two times. You should probably remove the "father" reference then. Vulturell 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The June 14 episode is the one I just saw. I also read the transcript of her March 1999 phone call to Howard Stern. It mentions about her religion and beliefs, but nothing of her father. So yeah, I'm gonna remove it. --DBGFrost 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fake MySpace account (moved from article)
It has been warned that Gellar fans do not visit the fake MySpace account that is on the Internet. The link is http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=59710327 This IS NOT Sarah Michelle Gellar, and was proven in TV Week. Asked if the MySpace account belongs to Gellar she replied with a laugh "No of course not! Someone obviously has a lot of time on their hands faking to be me on the Internet (On MySpace). The Internet is so dangerous these days. What ever this person says do not listen to them as it is not me". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.74.88 (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2006

Music Video Appearance
Gellar appeared in the music video for 'Sour Girl', a song by the Stone Temple Pilots... if anyone would like to add this to her list of appearances

SNL appearances
I'm sure it wouldn't take a whole lot to track down how many times she's hosted SNL, and it would be better than just having "several times" in the article. IstvanWolf 01:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the IMDB, she's hosted three times, but appeared four.  Navstar 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dating David Boreanaz or not?
At Howard Stern On June 14, 2002 SMG denies ever having dated David Boreanaz, what's the source saying she did? Transcript http://www.smgboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16644 85.178.36.226 11:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercial work
I know in 2001, Gellar appeared in several Maybelline cosemtics TV ads. Her commercial work certainly needs a mention in this entry. Navstar 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nondenominational" wedding?
The link on the word nondenominational (discussing SMG's wedding) is currently pointing to an article that specifically discusses "nondenominational" Christian movements (a category which includes, for example, many evangelical or "born-again" churches). This really isn't an accurate reference in this context. I'd suggest that "nondenominational" might better be replaced here with "nonreligious" or "secular". Comments? Richwales 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it was meant to be a religious ceremony so I  believe "nonreligious" or "secular" would be wrong.However I agree that it was not meant to be a specifically Christian wedding, so that link should be broken  Garda40 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "non-confessional", meaning not of any specific confession? Duribald 16:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

''I have to confess (no pun intended) I don't exactly know what "non-confessional"  means so is the average reader going to know what it means?

''My understanding of "nondenominational" in relation to a wedding was that it meant that the wedding didn't have the trappings of one particular religion but could be a blend of two or more.That does seem to cover SMG's wedding. ''

I say that the word nondenominational should be left but as I said before the link to that article should be broken but if it's changed to  "non-confessional",  a link needs to be made a definition of it 

Incidently in re reading the article I realise that the impression is given that SMG and FPJ dated from when they first met which is not true.They only dated from 2000 Garda40 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "non-confessional" currently redirects to an article about confession and confessionals in the Roman Catholic Church. So that wouldn't be appropriate to link to here.  Perhaps it would be better simply to take the word "nondenominational" out entirely?  Richwales 07:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it to "religiously neutral". If that doesn't work, then please change it. But to me it seems to cover the idea of a wedding that doesn't take sides in terms of which religion is right but still is religious in nature. Duribald 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One question, and the only one that needed to be asked in the first place... What have reputable sources described the wedding as? That's really all that matters for Wikipedia purposes. We can't use the term "religiously neutral" unless a source used it first specifically on this wedding.... Mad Jack 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We can use the phrase if it acurately describes what happened. We don't have to, and SHOULDN'T, copy phrases from sources. So far there's been no discussion about the fact that the wedding was neutral in relation to specific religions, only about which wording should be used. I think "religiously neutral" covers it well. But I'm up for critizism. And, by the way, do we have a source for the wedding being of such a nature? Duribald 09:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

''She made mention in one interview ,it's location I can't recall at the moment ,of having a gay rabbi marrying her and Freddie. Adam Shankman,, to my knowledge , isn't actually a rabbi but her statement does seem to imply she saw the wedding in religious terms'' Garda40 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "We can use the phrase if it acurately describes what happened". That's the original research part. Accurately describes what happened according to whom? If it's according to Wikipedia users, then we can't. If it's according to the source, yes. We shouldn't copy phrases, yes, but when it comes to very specific terms like "non-denominational"... Mad Jack 15:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'''Accurately describes what happened according to whom? ''' According to SMG herself perhaps .She says she doesn't believe in organised religion but uses religious terminology to describe the person who married her.If she doesn't consider her wedding as a religious event why then use a term like rabbi Garda40 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well what did she describe the wedding as? What have other reliable sources described the wedding as? Also, why did you remove the second citation? The Howard Stern link doesn't explicitly say that both of her parents were Jewish, which the citation you removed did say.... (Besides, since that topic is often asked about, it's not a bad idea to have more than one citation...) Mad Jack 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

''She when she has mentioned it, which is not often, has described it as a wedding ,other sources have said wedding or she got married etc.Like most of her private life she doesn't elaborate (and a number of interviews have commented on the fact that she is relucant to answer questions about her private life ). So the likes of Entertainment Weekly saying it was a religious event would be making an assumpation just like anyone else so in this case I don't see how they could be considered a superior source.The evidence from a number of sources strongly suggests she saw it as a religious event but since there is no direct quote saying that I won't put a reference to it being a religious ceremony back in ''

As for the citation she says she was born Jewish ,and presumably considers her parents Jewish, in the HS interview and I've never heard of a Jewish person from birth being born to non jewish parents.

As for the second citation how a newspaper column is superior to SMG's own words I don't understand and while it offers evidence, of a sort , to prove how Jewish her mother is it doesn't in relation to her father Garda40 22:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying a newspaper column is a superior source to the Howard Stern one, but there's no reason not to cite it as well, since it adds some details. As for Entertainment Weekly, it's a reliable source, so if (for example), they described it as a "religious ceremony", we could say "described as a religious ceremony by Entertainment Weekly". But again, so far no direct sources have been presented here that mention anything specific about the ceremony.... Mad Jack 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

'As for Entertainment Weekly, it's a reliable source,'

And in this instance it's no more reliable than you or me saying it

'so far no direct sources have been presented here that mention anything specific about the ceremony'

SMG isn't a direct source huh?

since it adds some details

And what details are they that SMG's own words don't convey given that how religious her relations or indeed anybody's relations are doesn't infer how religious you are  Garda40 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean Entertainment Weekly is no more reliable than me or you? EW would pass WP:RS as a major magazine, while you and me would not.... :-) SMG would be a direct source, but where is the source that reported what she said about the wedding? Mad Jack 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I said in this instance not in general as regards EW since they would be making an assumpation just like everyone else.

''Where is the source of what she said about her wedding ? Not tracked down yet is the answer .And since I and apparently you aren't going to put a referance to a religious ceremony back into the article I can't quite see the point of tracking it down'' Garda40 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce and Peter Vickers?
Are we sure about this? Is some rabid fan named Peter Vickers injecting himself into this article? Googling "Sarah michelle Gellar divorce" and "Sarah michelle Gellar" + "Peter Vickers" brings up nothing.

I think that was just Rugratfan under a "sock" putting up more false information as he's being doing the last week or soGarda40 15:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Tattoos
I can't quite fathom how Maire Claire magazine ( and a host of other magazine for that matter)don't amount to a significant source for information about her tattoos since a lot of the other information in the article has come into public knowledge from magazine articles

If citing a source is needed please ask for that Garda40 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

citation
'''Gellar also appeared in the movie's sequel, Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004), which had a lower gross than the first film. Gellar and co-star Freddie Prinze, Jr. have stated that they would not return for more films in the series and the studio has no plans to continue the franchise.[citation needed]'''

What is the citation required here. Is it that SMG and FPJ won't return, the studio has no plans or both

The only information regards the studio having no plans I know of is that they signed the 2 other co-stars for a third picture in summer of 2004 and that there has been absolutely no movement on it since that time which would seem to suggest they have changed their initial plans but I don't know how you would cite that Garda40 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for both? As for how you could cite it, I don't see why there wouldn't be a source that said that the studio has no plans to continue the franchise (and if there isn't, then why are we saying it?) Mad Jack 15:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dread Central link?
Does anyone other than Garda40 and Chicken Wing have an opinion about the Dread Central interview link that has been prompting a revert war on this page? Richwales 08:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two very good reasons not to have the link. The first is that it was added by a spammer, a user who has only added Dread Central links to Wikipedia without adding any content.  The Dread Central article had to be deleted and protected because that user wouldn't stop recreating it.  Secondly, it appears that this Garda40 character might be attempting to "own" the Sarah Michelle Gellar article.  By my count, the user's name appears 11 times just on this talk page, and the user has edited the Gellar article 51 times in its last 500 edits.


 * As a side note, I don't want to be tormented. I was in the process of removing spam from Wikipedia, a valid and constructive process.  For my efforts, Garda referred to one of my edits in an edit summary as vandalism and you accused me of 3RR on my talk page.  Both of these comments defame my character on Wikipedia.  Months from now after people have forgotten that some user spammed Wikipedia with Dread Central stuff, they'll still be able to visit my talk page and see the warning and visit the history of this page and see the accusation of vandalism.  Both of those actions were unconstructive and damaging.  Chicken Wing 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

'''I am not trying to own the article just trying to keep it accurate or is that wrong in your opinion. If people have added or edited the page with information that is truthful I have left those changes unedited '''

Putting meaningful edit summaries as I have done on all my edits instead of commennts like "spam spam" etc is very easy and stops the thought forming instantly that the editor is a vandal  Garda40 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not everything that is truthful is encyclopedic. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a list of facts.  Poetic edit summaries might be less-than-desirable and to be avoided in the future.  That being said, the policy that applies here is to assume good faith.  The burden isn't on me to prove I didn't vandalize.  The burden was on you to assume that in all my edits I didn't just suddenly lose my mind and vandalize this one article.


 * For instance, in your last edit to this talk page, you removed the "r" from "December" in my time stamp. I could accuse you of vandalism, but that would be unconstructive and failing to assume good faith.  It's much better for Wikipedia for me to just assume that you unintentionally disturbed that one letter.  Chicken Wing 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

''The burden isn't on me to prove I didn't vandalize. The burden was on you to assume that in all my edits I didn't just suddenly lose my mind and vandalize this one article.''

Which is why I didn't call it vandalism after the first edit though I thought it might be  Garda40 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"became engaged" vs. "were engaged"
I changed the verb here since "to become engaged" means "to become involved with", which implies nothing about betrothal, willing or otherwise, which is what was the idea intended to be conveyed by the text. "To become", in English, as far as I'm aware, outside the contexts of religious conversion and sexuality, never involves matters of conscious choice. "He became a eunoch", "She became pregnant" [which even there is very touch-and-go with "conscious choice"...as though a woman can will conception], "He became Catholic", etc. In matters where the Will is involved, active verbs are far preferred in matters of a change of state or status, and even when they're put into the passive, middle or reciprocative voice, the verb is almost never "to become"; the verb itself implies a change of state over which the subject has no willful control. A caterpiller becomes a butterfly or moth. A boy becomes a man, etc. To say people "become engaged" when referring to betrothal implies it was "destined" or "written in the stars", as it were. Some people may think of it that way, but that's not WP:NPOV writing. Let's leave the constellations out of this, shall we, and stick to dry prose, eh? Thanks, Tom e rtalk 09:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Salary Speculation
Just explaining my reasons for removing the salary figures being posted

The figures posted are direct copies of the figures posted on IMDB ( which doesn't give sources ) including what I call the Grudge mistake

Initially I recall a figure of $600,000 being mentioned  on some sites and combined with comments she made saying she was doing The Grudge more for the experience than the money would seem to imply that the $600,000 figure was more accurate.I also saw the studio website and the budget listed for the entire movie was $10m which was consistent with what various websites reported.

Somewhere along the line the $600,000 figure appeared to get changed into $6m which is what IMDB currently lists .Garda40 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
It should be moved to Sarah Michelle Prinze, she has changed her name. See article for references. --Zimbabweed 06:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See "Examples" at Naming conventions (common names). It doesn't matter if her legal name is Sarah Michelle Prinze. The page should only be moved if she will start to be billed as "Sarah Michelle Prinze" in her film roles (and there's no evidence of that yet). Wikipedia pages aren't named after legal names, but rather after the public name of a person (for example, Bow Wow is surely not Shad Gregory Moss's legal name, and even Courteney Cox's page wasn't changed to "Courteney Cox Arquette", even though she has been billed as that in film credits). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Common name. I have dealt with this topic too much concerning the fictional character articles, such as the Gabrielle Solis article. Anyway, All Hallow's Wraith is exactly right. Her article should not be titled Sarah Michelle Prinze. The world does not know her as Sarah Michelle Prinze. I'll be shocked if she starts wanting to be called such publicly. Her legal name may be Sarah Michelle Prinze, but we don't know if she's using that as her name for her career as well. Her career name (stage name, as it is called) is still most likely Sarah Michelle Gellar. And even if it isn't, that is the name she's mostly known by world-wide. I don't see this situation as the same as when Jada Pinkett took Will Smith's last name or when recently Eva Longoria took Tony Parker's last name, considering that their well-known names are still a part of their new names. With Sarah Michelle Gellar, we'd be taking out an important part of her name by having her article titled Sarah Michelle Prinze. However, if she were to start publicly having herself called Sarah Michelle Prinze, then there might be more weight to renaming this article to that. But then again, we could keep it at her common name, and have the opening (lead of this article, where her name would be) state, in bold, Sarah Michelle Prinze. Flyer22 07:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as for that part, about listing her as Sarah Michelle Prinze in the lead, yep, you guys already took care of that. Flyer22 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe a better idea would be to list her as "Sarah Michelle Gellar (born 33 xx), legally known as Sarah Michelle Prinze, is an American...." ? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know. But it's not that bad of a suggestion. Flyer22 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even that, until and unless the rumor turns into a documented fact attested by reliable sources, rather than anonymous claims in gossip mags. -- Orange Mike 14:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * References in article are good. The article name must still reflect most commonly known name which will be "Sarah Michelle Gellar" unless and until she gains more renown under her current legal name. See WP:NAMES particularly WP:NAMES and WP:NAMES and the examples used in the discussion. --NrDg 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources there in this article validating her name-change are not from gossip mags. Rather one source is from the New York Post and the other is from SFGate.com, both reliable sources. And if they were from gossip mags, as long as they are reliable gossip mags, as some people might consider People magazine a gossip mag, then I'd go along with those sources. But as has been pointed out in this discussion about the importance of common name, her article should stay titled Sarah Michelle Gellar...until she is just as well-known or close to as well-known as Sarah Michelle Prinze. I'm still not quite sure how I'd feel if she started insisting on being called Sarah Michelle Prinze publicly. I'm not sure if we should still as passionately object to changing the name of this article to that then. -- Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a point of interest she had an interview in the October issue of Self magazine which called her Sarah Michelle Gellar .However the journalist conducting the interview said she wrote thank you's to the people involved from Self   magazine and signed SMP .Scans here and it is the second picture .All the publicity interviews she did on November 1st for Southland Tales she was called Sarah Michelle Gellar .From this it seem she is using Gellar as her professional name even if she is using Prinze on offical documents .-- Garda40 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Garda40. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus so far from above discussion is to keep the article name as "Sarah Michelle Gellar". The page is move protected for a month to allow additional comments for those who might disagree and head off moving against consensus. --NrDg 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change
I feel that we should include something in the Personal life section about Gellar having legally changed her last name and why. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is already there. --NrDg 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I totally missed that while skimming over that section, which is weird when taken into account that I have photographic memory. I mean, jeez. I must really be sleepy. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. I'd probably have found out by recalling that part (though I didn't even recall it earlier) or by looking over it again. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather one source is from the New York Post and the other is from SFGate.com, both reliable sources In checking those two sources I noticed that SFGate.com credits Us magazine directly and that the text in the New York Post is word for word the same as Us magazine.They are not actually independent sources .Garda40 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's still truthful that she changed her last name, though, if both of those sources are reporting it as well. Us magazine may be called a gossip magazine by some, but it's not as though it's the most inaccurate. If it's preferable that we use other valid sources instead of the ones that are reporting what Us magazine is saying, we can look for some, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that tracing the information back from the references we are using is that the source is "unnamed" by US Magazine. The entertainment/people sections of otherwise reliable sources are basically gossip sheets too. So far we have two mentions in the article about the name change and have verifiable sources. I worry that our references might not meet the requirements of WP:BLP though. I would be just as happy to revert back to before the name change stuff got added but practically that would not be stable as people who KNOW the facts will just keep adding it back. I think it is best to leave it as it is now and watch out for better references. --NrDg 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not actually in this case, as there has been indications of her using Prinze already , so I agree with NrDg to leave the article as is but I'm more thinking as a policy question how reliable do we consider reliable sources , apart from issues of WP:BLP , when they are quoting less reliable sources .Garda40 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Name Change Update
People magazine in the current issue have confirmed the legal name change to Sarah Michelle Prinze but have also confirmed that professionally she will be known as Sarah Michelle Gellar   .Garda40 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew she'd have to be wise enough to continue to go by Sarah Michelle Gellar (professionally). Thanks for the update, Garda. Flyer22 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for the name-change
This is probably overkill, but using Lexis-Nexis editors may be interested to learn that the following 37 newspapers (below) have reported on the name-change. Strangely, many of them seem to source their comments from US Magazine. Best, J Readings 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sun Herald (Sydney, Australia), December 2, 2007 Sunday, TELEVISION; Pg. 3, 416 words, Natalie Hambly ... husband's surname to become Sarah Michelle Prinze. After being known as ... Calgary Sun (Alberta), November 25, 2007 Sunday, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. E12, 197 words ... Gellar has changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze. Yawn.CELEBRITY REAL ... Edmonton Sun (Alberta), November 25, 2007 Sunday, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. E10, 197 words ... Gellar has changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze. Yawn.CELEBRITY REAL ... The Ottawa Sun, November 25, 2007 Sunday, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. E8, 197 words ... Gellar has changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze. Yawn.CELEBRITY REAL ... Sunday Tasmanian (Australia), November 25, 2007 Sunday, SUNDAY; Pg. A03, 473 words ... Michelle Gellar is now Sarah Michelle Prinze. The former Buffy star has ... The Toronto Sun, November 25, 2007 Sunday, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. 67, 197 words ... Gellar has changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze. Yawn.CELEBRITY REAL ... Winnipeg Sun (Manitoba), November 25, 2007 Sunday, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. E11, 197 words ... Gellar has changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze. Yawn.CELEBRITY REAL ... Newcastle Herald (Australia), November 24, 2007 Saturday, H2; Pg. 10, 1638 words, with Amy Edwards and Anita Beaumont ... officially changed her name to SarahMichelle Prinze,' an unknown source ... MX (Australia), November 23, 2007 Friday, GOSS; Pg. 22, 210 words ... MOVIESThe newly renamed Sarah Michelle Prinze in The Grudge 2 and ... Sydney MX (Australia), November 23, 2007 Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 22, 591 words ... MOVIESThe newly renamed Sarah Michelle Prinze in The Grudge 2 and ... The New York Post, November 22, 2007 Thursday, All Editions; Pg. 35, 1013 words, LOU LUMENICK, Post Movie Critic ... MOVIES: the newly renamed Sarah Michelle Prinze in "The Grudge 2" and " ... The New York Post, November 21, 2007 Wednesday, All Editions; Pg. 12, 81 words ... actress changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze in honor of their fifth ... Herald Sun (Australia), November 20, 2007 Tuesday, CONFIDENTI; Pg. 20, 197 words, Megan Miller & Luke Dennehy ... wedding anniversary, making her Sarah Michelle Prinze.On their anniversary, she showed ( ... Newcastle Herald (Australia), November 20, 2007 Tuesday, NEWS; Pg. 12, 360 words, with Amy Edwards and Anita Beaumont ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," an unknown source  ... Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Texas), November 19, 2007 Monday, B; Pg. 12, 392 words, Staff and Wire Reports ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze, taking the name of husband  ... Hartford Courant'' (Connecticut), November 19, 2007 Monday, LIFE; Pg. D2, 130 words ... Gellar has changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze.In baby news, " ... Windsor Star (Ontario), November 19, 2007 Monday, ENTERTAINMENT; CelebNews with an attitude; Pg. B5, 309 words, Doug Camilli, CanWest News Service ... legally changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze, "On their anniversary, she showed him her ... Contra Costa Times (California), November 18, 2007 Sunday, GOSSIP; Entertainment, 915 words, Contra Costa Times ... officially changed it to Sarah Michelle Prinze, and showed her drivers license to ... Edmonton Journal (Alberta), November 18, 2007 Sunday, CULTURE; Gossip; Pg. B2, 556 words, Doug Camilli, Montreal Gazette ... ROLE AS PORN STARSarah Michelle Prinze, tells Maxim mag ... The Gazette (Montreal), November 18, 2007 Sunday, ARTS; Doug Camilli; Pg. A21, 516 words, DOUG CAMILLI, The Gazette ... legally changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze, "On their anniversary, she showed him her ... The Houston Chronicle, November 18, 2007 Sunday, A; Pg. 2, 290 words, From Internet and wire reports ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," says an unidentified  ... MUG: SARAH MICHELLE PRINZE Sunday Mail (South Australia), November 18, 2007 Sunday, FEATURES; Pg. 107, 143 words She officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze, an unknown source ... The Vancouver Province (British Columbia), November 18, 2007 Sunday, E-TODAY; Pg. C9, 107 words, BANG! Showbiz ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze.The former Buffy the Vampire ... ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze in honour of the occasion." ... Buffalo News (New York), November 17, 2007 Saturday, LIFESTYLES; Pg. C3, 557 words ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," an unknown source  ... ... wine all night." - Sarah Michelle Prinze Ray: Love and a ... Manolo for the Brides, November 17, 2007 Saturday 12:30 PM EST, 228 words, Twistie ... will now be known as Sarah Michelle Prinze, which is a major step  ...
 * 1	Inside the box; news, views, gossip and more from the world of television
 * 2	In case you were on Mars the past week ...
 * 3	In case you were on Mars the past week ...
 * 4	In case you were on Mars the past week ...
 * 5	Hot gossip
 * 6	In case you were on Mars the past week ...
 * 7	In case you were on Mars the past week ...
 * 8	the word; the word
 * 9	Talking turkey
 * 10	mX Goss & glam
 * 11	AND THE GOLDEN TURKEY GOES TO ... KIDMAN, WILLIAMS GET PLUCKED; THEY LAID AN EGG
 * 12	SIGHTINGS
 * 13	StarWatch
 * 14	SMALL TALK; the word
 * 15	PEOPLE WATCH
 * 16	THE DAILY GRIND: CELEB HOOKUPS, BABY
 * 17	Hugh Grant makes $20-million profit
 * 18	People week in review
 * 19	Gossip
 * 20	What are you going to play? Ghostbusters; If Heather writes, does anyone read it?
 * 21	POTPOURRI
 * 22	STARSTRUCK; Gellar's Prinze charmed
 * 23	Gellar officially Prinze
 * 24	The daily dish ...
 * 25	Trivia From the World of Marriage, Real and Imaginary

Biz of Show Biz, November 16, 2007 Friday 10:17 PM EST, 136 words, Gary Bourgeault ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze in honour of the occasion." ... ... in September 2002.Sarah Michelle Prinze doesn.t sound too ... BreakingNews.ie, November 16, 2007 Friday 07:56 AM GMT, ENTERTAINMENT, 93 words ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze in honour of the occasion." ... The New York Post, November 16, 2007 Friday, All Editions; Pg. 142, 140 words, Don Kaplan ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze" in honor of the occasion. " ... Newsday (New York), November 16, 2007 Friday, NEWS; Pg. A12, 168 words "She officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," a source said. " ... The Record (Bergen County, NJ), November 16, 2007 Friday, NEWS; PEOPLE IN THE NEWS; Pg. A02, 593 words, Compiled by Raymond A. Edel, North Jersey Media Group ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," an unknown source ... UPI, November 16, 2007 Friday 9:47 AM EST, 94 words ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," a source close to the ... Defamer, November 15, 2007 Thursday 2:20 PM EST, 64 words, Mark ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze as her five-year anniversary  ... Gawker, November 15, 2007 Thursday 2:10 PM EST, 72 words, Jen ... officially changed her name to "Sarah Michelle Prinze." And Us Weekly readers  ... WENN Entertainment News Wire Service, November 15, 2007 Thursday 4:15 PM GMT, MOVIE, 92 words ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze in honour of the occasion." ... zaptoit, November 15, 2007 Thursday, ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, 259 words, Zap2It, Chicago "She officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," an unknown source ... zaptoit, November 15, 2007 Thursday, ENTERTAINMENT NEWS, 755 words, Zap2it.com ... officially changed her name to Sarah Michelle Prinze," an unknown source ... The Daily News of Los Angeles, September 8, 2002 Sunday, Valley Edition, U; Pg. U8, 925 words, David Kronke, Television Critic ... Sunnydale High, where Buffy (Sarah Michelle Prinze, er, Gellar) takes  ...
 * 26	Sarah Michelle Gellar Now Sarah Michelle Prinze
 * 27	Gellar takes Prinze's name
 * 28	FRESH PRINZE; 'BUFFY' TAKES HER HUBBY'S NAME
 * 29	Gellar takes Prinze's name
 * 30	PEOPLE IN THE NEWS
 * 31	Actress is now Sarah Michelle Prinze
 * 32	In a moving display of uxorial devotion, ... [Freddie Prinze]
 * 33	As a fifth anniversary "gift" to hubby Freddie ... [Femiladyism]
 * 34	GELLAR TAKES PRINZE'S NAME
 * 35	BRIEF: Report: 'Buffy' Star Changes Married Name: Sarah Michelle Gellar changes for her Prinze
 * 36	Television news briefs
 * 37	PARDON THEIR DUST; WHEN SHOWS STAY, ACTORS COME AND GO


 * Interesting list, but these articles never answer the question whether she will keep "Geller" as her stage name, which is the primary issue of dispute under WP:NCP. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's unfortunate that there aren't any more useful details. Also, I don't know what to make of the following quote that is repeated over and over again in the above publications: "Her name will be the only change to her married life for now." Are they just talking about children, or is it a subtle hint that she will be changing her stage name? I've read all the articles and I'm still confused. Any other articles that clarify the situation would be greatly appreciated. Best, J Readings 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

SMG off Alice ?
Pagesix.com is reporting that she is not going to be starring in Alice anymore.However I think we should wait for a few days or if the Hollywood Reporter or an equally reliable source reports it to delist it .Any thoughts .Garda40 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed a link
...which does not actually refer to the content it's supposed to substantiate: > Ethan Mitchell (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph is the paragraph you should be looking at .That together with the other link are being used to verify the statement in the article.For that reason I am going to revert the deletion .Garda40 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the last paragraph, and I don't see the application. The interviewer asks "Were you happy with the way Buffy ended?" and she responds "Yes and no. I believe the finale of Buffy should have been two hours. I think a lot of the characters, specifically Xander, didn’t get enough screen time."  This is being used as a cite for the claim that "During the show's later years, Gellar expressed dissatisfaction about certain aspects of the show."  In fact, it's very mild criticism of one episode of the show, offered on one occasion, after the show was over.  There's another cite for the claim that is much more reasonable.  We don't need to grasp at straws.  I'm reverting the reversion.  Ethan Mitchell (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The interviewer asks "Were you happy with the way Buffy ended?" and she responds "Yes and no. I believe the finale of Buffy should have been two hours. I think a lot of the characters, specifically Xander, didn’t get enough screen time." This is being used as a cite for the claim that "During the show's later years, Gellar expressed dissatisfaction about certain aspects of the show." 
 * Well if that isn't certain aspects of the show I don't know what is.
 * We don't need to grasp at straws.
 * Yes, in that case it refers to one particular episode but as I said taking it in conjunction with the other citation it strengths both of them.
 * after the show was over.
 * Can you tell me precisely when she was going to make criticism of the final episode other than when the show was over.


 * I am puzzled by your reluctance to have multiple citations and believe that this is the first one I have encountered that  .Garda40 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

too POV
What on earth does that mean in the edit summary here to remove the material that the IP editor  added about SMG and what she has said about various roles. Are we now to scour the internet to find negative comments about a role and if no such comment then we can't add a positive comment.

Or if by POV is it being said an editor shouldn't add "nice things" about her without finding "nasty" things to add. Garda40 (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Eureka
Iv'e seen this in different parts of the Eureka and related articles that Douglas Fargo, a character on Eureka, wanted her to do the voice on a futuristic smart house, or something of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.71.160 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All My Children Episode Count
She appeared in FAR more then 24 episodes of All My Children. People need to stop taking a count from imdb and putting it on here. IMDB does not even have a fraction of all the episodes a soap opera has produced over its run. Sarah Michelle was a central character on that show during her 2 years. 06:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.217.84 (talk)

Film/television/magazine titles in this article
These MUST be italicised which is done by placing two ' marks either side of the title.

E.g.

Use Cruel Intentions to produce Cruel Intentions

not

Cruel Intentions which will produce Cruel Intentions

Same applies to the titles of magazines. Exxolon (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Alice
My reasons for re instating it are it was an project that was mentioned in many interviews and articles for the 3 years she was attached to the project and indeed she made a statement about her attachment to it in January 2008 http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=47511&type=0 Garda40 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Own stunts
The website http://www.yuddy.com/celebrity/sarah-michelle-gellar/bio says that Gellar performed her own stunts in Buffy, which, given the nature of the role, would be a very significant skill set and worthy of mention. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the claim, but it is worth noting that a stuntwoman performing all the stunts, including fight scenes, would have been on screen for significant proportion of the filming. Qlangley (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Typical publicity fluff. Sophia Crawford did the Buffy stunts for the first 78 episodes. This is well known and documented. Gellar might have performed really minor stuff, but not the major stunts. --NrDg 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That Yuddy website is over egging the amount of stunts she did .Joss Whedon said she sometimes went past the point where she would be entitled to use a stunt women so that may be where they are getting the idea from but he or she never claimed she did major stunts .Garda40 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I thought the claim was doubtful.  It does make you wonder which of the two was on screen more. 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlangley (talk • contribs)

Own stunts response
I know what your talking about but I worked on Buffy (as an extra in two episodes) and the way it works was that Sarah did some of the more basic fights but stunts like intense falls, wire work, hard core fights such as the fight with Eliza Dushku's character Faith in the two episodes where they really fought. Buffy was a show with a lot of stunts there for a stunt double for everyone was needed characters who hardly ever got hurt needed them such as Kristine Sutherland, Michelle Trachtenberg, Azura Skye's characters all had stunt doubles because they can't have Sarah being physically thrown out a window a stunt double is needed. James Marsters who played Spike did a lot of his own stunts but in episodes such as The Gift when he falls from the tower a stunt double jumped ten feet to make it look believable because you can't make James Marsters can't jump ten feet and land on foam bricks because he's the actor that's the way of Hollywood. I've been in B-Movies for nearly 21 years now and two episodes of Buffy as extras the business isn't easy now if every film and television show were like a B-movie nearly everyone would have to do their own stunts but thats not the case. And yes Sophia Crawford did do a lot of Buffy's stunts still Sarah had to do the basics. Buffyfan882 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

Trivia about sword gift
I removced this trivia, but it was readded. Any good reason? TIA Tom (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)ps, I removed acclaimed and icon from 1st year material as well. Tom (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't trivia. And even if it was trivia
 * 1 Trivia isn't prohibited even if it is in a trivia section
 * 2 If you want to get rid of a trivia section you are recommended to incorporate it in the article .Garda40 (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And also it was readded with an edit summary Garda40 (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Non reliable sources and content creep
It looks like there are some unreliable sources and the article could use some help? Any other thoughts? TIA Tom (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seeing what you edited out I am puzzled how they are unreliable sources and as to what you consider content creep I am also puzzled since no other editor appears to have noticed it .But since you appear to want to edit it I will not intervene in your edits .Garda40 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It just seems that the article goes into to much detail about the different shows and other parts of the subjects life. Like I mentioned above, do we really need to know about the sword she bought as a present? Also, I removed peacock terms describing her show and talk about her being an icon/star ect. I know this stuff and inclusion/exclusion is very much POV, but it seems that bios can sometimes become "unmanagable" and "overboard". Right now I would guess that her bio is longer than Obama's, not saying that it shouldn't be, or that they are comparable, but pointing it out :) Anyways, I will try to use the talk page and get other input as well, thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a proper reference to the Esquire UK quote. The article, and quote, are available online, for example at. -Duribald (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is the part following the citation about her voice soucable as well?--Tom (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The preceding sentence, about her voice not used in video games, is unsourced and can be removed at ay time according to BLP. You could do a check on Google for sources though - if you want to. -Duribald (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be very ironic to use BLP to remove the item about her voice in the Buffy game since the article would be then by omission appearing to tell a lie about the video game.
 * to much detail about the different shows .How on earth does that happen in an actors BLP  ?.
 * and other parts of the subjects life .  How on earth does that happen in an BLP ? .Garda40 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of caption from infobox
Any good reason the caption was removed from the info box since now you can't see when and where the picture of her was taken without clicking on the picture itself.

And before any one says you can TRBE are the letters that appear beyond her and I if you realise that line is meant to be part of the spelling .So all you can gain from looking at the picture was it was the TRB FLM STV  whatever ,where ever and whenever that was.

Is this a new policy I haven't heard about to make people guess about the origins etc of the main photo ? Garda40 (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I put it back. -Duribald (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, I reverted myself and will bring it here. I am trying to get clarification at Wikipedia talk:Captions. Per that it reads Other images (especially within standard info boxes) where the purpose of the image is clearly nominative, that is, that the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information - no caption needed I guess the further information would be the time frame of when the photo was taken. I think somebody thought using the subject's name in the caption was redundant. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "no caption needed" doesn't mean you can't have a caption. It's not per se a reason to delete it. And the infobox template does have the option of adding a caption... :-) -Duribald (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In a bio article where people have a long notable life it is important to at least give some indication of when a picture was taken. This is her appearance at a specific point in time. --NrDg 14:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I guess it isn't needed in say, political bios, where it is a "standard" profile photo ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and if we should remove it, we should have some kind of consensus on the matter.-Duribald (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good examples being Winston Churchill and Elton John. Politicians usually have an official portrait meant to be nominative. Entertainers change appearance all the time and unlikely any one picture will be fully nominative. --NrDg 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from film critics need to be removed
The section on her film career (I haven't even looked at the tv section) is just plain unreadable because after every brief, factual sentence the describes her role in a film, comes one or two lengthy quotations from critics that tell us nothing at all. 76.236.153.232 (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * lengthy quotations from critics that tell us nothing at all
 * Strange I see the quotations telling us why they liked or disliked the film concerned or aspects of the film mostly concerned with her .Don't see how that is nothing at all . Garda40 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of picture
I requested removal of this picture on the basis of it appearing to a photo agency picture .I realise that it seems to say it has permission but there has been a history on this article of false licenses being used.

If I have erred in the way I requested it to be deleted ( I am not used to making deletion requests )and also if the license is real I apologize but I thought it better to err on the side of caution .Garda40 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Material in need of sourcing
I've moved the following unsourced material here until it can be properly sourced. The first paragraph was in the Early life section, and cited no source. The second was in the Early career section, and the source it cites makes no mention of her. Nightscream (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Gellar attended New York's Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School on a scholarship, and the Professional Children's School. Gellar held a straight-A average and became a competent figure skater. Her best friend was Melissa Joan Hart, who later was the star of the series Sabrina, the Teenage Witch. She also became close friends with Lindsay Sloane, who became Gellar's bridesmaid at her wedding in September 2002. [This led to a lawsuit] against Burger King, ad agency J. Walter Thompson, and child-actress Gellar herself, who appeared in court as a witness for the defense. The dispute was eventually settled out of court.

Clarity needed
This is not important but as written is a bit unclear. ''As a child, Gellar modeled for magazines.[6] At the age of four, she was spotted by an agent in a restaurant in Uptown Manhattan. Two weeks later, she auditioned for a part in An Invasion of Privacy,... She subsequently appeared in a controversial television commercial....'' How old was she when she began modeling? 74.109.33.112 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Her major modelling work was after the McDonalds case to my knowledge but I've never heard an exact age but it definitely shouldn't be at the start of the paragraph
 * Her first interaction with showbusiness was the agent spotting her and then the audition for An Invasion of Privacy.So the placement definitely should be after those two items and probably after McDonalds .I will move it there if anyone doesn't object .Garda40 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now moved that info about modelling to the end of the paragraph .Garda40 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SMG also appears in the Stone Temple Pilots video for "Sour Girl" circa 1999. There is no mention of this in the article. 216.162.30.132 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Chris R.216.162.30.132 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The editing war continues
I don't really even care to know what is going on between two editors on this page, but I do know that I have reached just about my tolerance level for it on this article. If one of you has conclusive proof that the other is operating two registered accounts concurrently, take it to WP:SSP. If you have disagreements about editing issues, take it here. Otherwise, I'm going to open a WP:RfC or invited adminstrator involvement, because this has become disruptive on both parts. There is nothing wrong with combining work into one filmography table. There is also nothing wrong with the awards being incorporated into the filmography table, and that, in fact, is the proscribed way to display awards according to WP:ACTOR. If you disagree about other aspects, either discuss it or stop edit warring over it. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is going on is simple in that I believe Saa19952 ,SMG055 ,Sebas1955 and 200.116.62.13 are the same editor based on similar editing patterns and form of english used on my talk page ,, .Most of their edits have not been great and have been reverted by other editors including yourself.


 * So when another editor completely reformats the filmography Gats59 (a newly formed account 3 of which their 5 edits have been to SMG related articles ) and then Saa19952 reverts the reversion I did then I am suspicious of those edits especially since none of these edits are being done with an edit summary (something I always provide and which you used to point out my rationale was wrong ) .Incidentally the piece of info I was referring to when I said removed was the "Lord of the rings spoof".


 * Can I have conclusive proof of any of this and which account(s) may be linked ? No since I don't have admin tools to do that.


 * Please do open an WP:RfC or send it to WP:SSP .I've had little success in sending reports to various places on Wikepedia in the past with reports being ignored because of format errors or simply apparently being ignored . Garda40 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not the person who has more than once stated there is a sock puppet at work, I have no inclination to open a WP:SSP when I don't have the information to do so. Nor did I say I would open the SSP. If you truly have enough evidence to present for a sock puppet investigation and request for checkuser, follow that link and file it. You don't have to have adminstrator tools to logically lay out your evidence regarding similar edits, similar writing styles, whatever else on which you are basing your decision that there is one person at work. I don't really think you want an WP:RfC opened, my comments about opening one are in relationship to the ongoing edit wars going on with this page, and if investigated, will likely be elsewhere. Personally I want them stopped. I've read the talk page posts that have been made and really, adminstrators will look at conduct on both sides. Whatever is going on behind the scenes, it always seems to end up on this article and that is going back a few months, to my awareness. Just as in the past, there was factually nothing wrong with the change in filmography tables. Either format is acceptable, with the exception that the revision just done incorporated the awards into the filmography table and that is absolutely acceptable and in fact, is what is recommended. If memory serves, I made a point before to you about an edit that was, itself, fine. It is just that it seems that the reverts are done whether the edits are fine or not. That is what has to stop. Make a report to WP:AN/I, file the WP:SSP case, whatever you need to do, but please stop handling this in this way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * when I don't have the information to do so.' I gave you the information I have .Probably I could collect more edit differences to put across the point but that is about it.
 * If you truly have enough evidence to present for a sock puppet investigation and request for checkuser, follow that link and file it. I not sure if I do anyway ( a vandal I reported was rejected on basis of not enough evidence and the vandal I reported a few minutes later went on a vandalism spree ) . I don't believe it was on this article but as far as I recall it was a sockpuppet case I reported ( which turned out to be true ) which was rejected because of formatting problems which has also given me no faith in those reporting process ( at least when they are done by me ).
 *  If memory serves, I made a point before to you about an edit that was, itself, fine And I pointed out on your talk page I had made a mistake when reverting that.
 *  It is just that it seems that the reverts are done whether the edits are fine or not . Previous to today the reverts done to edits by SMG055 on Sep 30th were done Elizabeth Bathory and on Sep 26th by you . I actually had no problem with those edits since in the first case I thought the info inserted was more helpful ( Ep names ) and the second one reverted by you they moved a paragraph around .I see by Saa19952's talk page that you were the first one to have problems with them about editing filmography tables for no stated reason.
 * Whatever is going on behind the scenes I've been quite upfront in saying I believe there is sockpuppetry at work in this article so I have no idea why you appear to think anything else is going on ( at least on my part ) .Garda40 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is, I don't really care to make a sock puppet report when I don't have the specific diffs to show the relationships. Because various editors have less than stellar English skills doesn't automatically equate to the same person. I see similar writing all the time. If you think you see a similarity, report it. You should use diffs that clearly show posting identical content or reverting in tandem. If you don't, it can't be investigated and I honestly don't want to do the work for you. My point to you is that because you have issues with this editor, or a group of editors, whatever is the case, is that there are certainly times when it appears to me that you revert them whether they are valid edits or not. It means someone has to check both the edits to be sure. What is going on behind the scenes is the myriad posts to one another's talk pages that involve the sock accusations, etc. That is accomplishing nothing and only serves to make the stress higher and is not productive. All I see is what is on this page and honestly, it comes down to being disruptive. I'm not just posting to you, I'm posting to you, Saa19952 and whatever troops accompany you. Work it out and please stop fighting it on this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Harvard Man quote
Editor Lawrence King has removed this Blockquote three times and I reverted twice whle claiming it is not about censorship but about notability. Rolling Stone said, "Yes, that's our Buffy, Sarah Michelle Gellar, playing a cheerleader who is not above sneaking off to the woods with her boyfriend, hiking up her skirt, sitting on his dick and bumping and grinding without missing a beat in the conversation. Gellar is a long way here from Scooby-Doo – thank the gods – and James Toback's Harvard Man is an even longer way from the Hollywood drool that pretends to take on issues – sexual, ethical, criminal – that often come with a college education".

but in their edit summaries using terms like "explicit details " ( a term I have only ever seen used in relation to sexual material ) but not term "excessive detail " which is term I have seen other editors  use if they believe article or section of article is overdetailed.

Making use of "Rolling Stone" quotation and why they think in particular it helps her shed her "good girl" image even more apparently serves no purpose that isn't already served by the previous sentence despite fact that "Cruel Intentions" had sex scenes so what therefore is there in "Harvard Man" according to "Rolling Stone"   that helps her shed her "good girl " image  even more. It is the fact that scene(s) in "CI" were not to degree that she did in "Harvard Man".

Makes mention again in their last edit summary that it is a sex scene and saying it is not notable because she has done thousands of scenes yet ignoring fact that Reliable source, in this case , Rolling Stone , is the one that singled out that scene.

Editor is free to find quotation(s) about other scenes in this or her other work in Reliable sources, if they exist , but if they don't or can't find such quotes that doesn't mean this quotation should be removed for purposes of "balance" because it is about a sex scene which seems to be editors problem with quote .Garda40 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. The salient point of the reference is that she was shedding a teenybopper/good girl image. There is really no need or point in including a lengthy quote that in no way expands the point. That it includes too much detail is obvious. We aren't Wikiquote, where this would still be unneeded detail. It lends undue weight to one role, while the citation itself is sufficient. As an aside, it's non-productive to edit war over such things, which is something both of you were doing. Please read WP:BRD: be bold, which apparently you were, revert which the other editor did, and discuss, which you've failed to do until it begs WP:3RR. It's overkill to include the lengthy quote. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the fact that this turned into an edit war. I didn't cross the 3RR boundary, but I got pretty close.  I should have started a discussion on the talk page instead.  Garda40, thanks for moving this discussion on the talk page!  I won't make any more edits to this page until this discussion is resolved.


 * Also, I agree that I should not have used the word "explicit" in my edits. Although that word's primary meaning is "excessive level of detail", it is very often used in a sexual context, and therefore my first edit explanation could be interpreted as a kind of censorship, which was not my point.


 * My main concern has been described very well by LaVidaLoca above, and I agree with everything he has said.


 * I also have a secondary concern, which is the overall proportion of sexuality-related information to other information in this article. I agree that Wikipedia is not censored. We should not ban information from a page because it is sexual in nature.  But neither should we should give undue weight to "Sarah Michelle Gellar as a sex symbol" and ignore "Sarah Michelle Gellar as an actor", especially because her profession is listed in this article as actress.  Let me explain exactly what I mean.  (1) In the second paragraph of the page, the article lists all nine of SMG's films.  It gives their names, but does not describe the roles she plays in those films, with one exception:  it says she plays "an ex-porn star" in Southland Tales.  (2) The In the Media section ignores the dozens of times that she has been interviewed in sci-fi and fantasy magazines about Buffy and The Grudge, and instead focuses on how many times she has been voted "sexy" in various magazines.  Not only is this out of proportion, but it misleads the reader about what SMG has been doing in the magazine media.  When she is interviewed for a Buffy magazine, she herself has to take the time to meet with an interviewer, but when a magazine declares her "sexy", that reflects a choice made by the magazine, not by SMG.  (3) Three sentences in this article describe her clothing:  in one movie, she "looks great in a corset"; on a magazine cover, she was "Wearing a black lace brassiere"; and on another occasion, she "wore this skintight Herve Leger dress".  Of all the different clothing ensembles that SMG has worn in her life, on screen and off, are these really the three most important?  I've seen quite a few things that SMG has appeared in, and these three clothing examples are not representative of what she usually wears.  On the other hand, I believe that some of her male fans might remember these three outfits especially well -- but that is not a criteria for Wikipedia notability.  (4) Of all the scenes she has been in, in her television shows and movies, the only one described in detail is a sex scene (the Harvard Man scene that we have been disputing).  I understand that a porn actress' most important scene might be a sex scene, but is SMG's most important scene really a sex scene?  If not, why is it the only one described in detail in this article?  Many magazines and articles and even books have praised her emotional work in The Body, but that isn't even mentioned in this article. (5)  Many critics have commented that the role of "Buffy" was an important role historically, since it was a strong female lead who was physically strong and yet (unlike, say, Charlie's Angels) did not primarily use her sexuality to defeat men -- she hit them and outsmarted them instead.  Yet this article barely even hints at that fact.  Each of these five things is acceptable by themselves, but taken together, they give undue weight to SMG as a sex symbol, and not enough focus on her as an actress.  &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 18:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep on saying it is not an issue of censorship but your problem with the article and again I'm seeing it mentioned here is sexual on the talk page and your solution is not finding material to "balance" it up but to pull material out of it.


 * In relation to the "In the Media" section you are free to read through any of those interviews about BTVS or other films and include such relevant information as there might be in any of them .Is it a sad commentary on the magazine world that they will use words like "sexy" or magazines like Maxim will vote her "sexy"  ? Yes it is but that's the way the world is and not the  way we would like it.


 * While it was a reviewer who used she "looks great in a corset" and editor of Wiki (I think) who made mention of "black lace brassiere"" it was actually SMG herself in an interview that brought up the fact that she   "wore this skintight Herve Leger dress" and pointed out it wasn't something she would have been comfortable wearing previously ( So SMG herself appears to think that dress was an important clothing choice )


 * And again it might be a sad commentary on the world that the only scene that is described in detail in a magazine is a sex scene.
 * Many magazines and articles and even books have praised her emotional work in The Body, but that isn't even mentioned in this article


 * So mention it yourself . I don't believe any editor would stop you including such information .But the solution you appear to be using is that if there isn't a quotation about "The Body" or whatever other episode/film then there shouldn't be a quotation  of "Harvard Man" as if that somehow now balances out the article


 * As with all your points including the fifth one you say the article is unbalanced as regards to SMG as a sex symbol but your solution is not to add material to "balance" it up as regards SMG as an actor but to remove material especially of a sexual nature.


 * That's just censorship operating under a fancy name ( balance ,undue weight) but it doesn't stop it being censorship . Garda40 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Prinze
Shouldn't the article be changed to Sarah Michelle Prinze with a redirect from the Sarah Michelle Gellar page now that her name has been legally changed? --194.125.112.67 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Sarah Michelle Gellar is her name under the Screen Actors Guild of America - one she will use for TV and movie roles. Sarah Prinze is her married name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.190.65 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally prefers the stage/professional name over the current legal name. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live - hosting date discrepancy
There is an error of sorts regarding the hosting of SNL. Is it 2000 or 2002? The following is from the Wikipedia page "Sarah Michelle Gellar"

Breakthrough (1997–2003) Gellar has also hosted Saturday Night Live a total of three times (1998, 1999, and 2002)

Filmography section - 1998 Saturday Night Live 1998, 1999, 2000 (3 episodes)

Ozjeremia (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB credit
Has there been a rule change that an IMDB credit for a past project in which the person appears in the entire episode eg Grosse Pointe is not accepted as a source.

Because if that's the case there is a fair number of past projects that needed to pulled out of this bio and other bio's because their only source is IMDB Garda40 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule change, IMDB is not an acceptable source, period. If the appearance is actually notable, it will be mentioned in some reliable source or another. We just don't accept IMDB willy-nilly. Everything on it is subject to user input. 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IMDB is not an acceptable source, period.
 * IMDB is not an acceptable source, period.


 * Which appears to contradict this answer that I got the other day about Amazon on the Reliable source noticeboard in which someone mentioned IMDB "Ottobib and WorldCat are exceptional for books, while Allmusic and IMdB are great for music and film "


 * And this answer from 3 days ago here IMDB_as_a_source From Erik ( who does a lot of work in the Films Wikiproject ) "IMDb can be used as a resource to find credits, which are typically not disputable by anyone, but caution should be used when the film is less mainstream." or this "Credits should be sourced to the film itself, since that's where IMDB supposedly gets its information from anyway. A supplemental source to IMDB (for ease of viewing by the reader) would be nice, but there's no reason to cite IMDB by itself when the most reliable source is the film's own credits " .Robot Chicken though is a case where the reliable source, the show credits , are wrong since she is listed in every episode ( The same as Mila Kunis ) ,it seems to be a running joke,  but IMDB is the only source I've ever seen listing the actual shows her voice appears in.


 * BLP:IMDB where I think the most revelant quotes are "A good rule of thumb is that IMDB credit listings are generally reliable" ,"For credited cast & crew on widely released films, IMDb achieves a high degree of reliability"


 * The rule seems to be be link to the film or in this case show first but you run into a problem then with Grosse Pointe or some of the other projects which are not generally available and since it's even less acceptable to link to a copyright infringing copy of the show then the consensus seems to be that IMDB is acceptable for credits.


 * If the appearance is actually notable, it will be mentioned in some reliable source or another
 * Except in one case I can think of involving SMG herself the NY Times (?) review of one of her two early career theater appearances doesn't mention her but there is ample evidence she was in the play from the theater programme and in a photo from the set . Garda40 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment in your first link is highly discussed and the essential is that we try to avoid sourcing to IMDB because of questions. Your second link goes on to explain why we should not rely on IMDB, due to noted errors. In fact, all of those discussions are widely split on the validity of IMDB and the bottom line is that another reliable source is preferable. I bet you could find sources for this series appearance. Surely one of these would render a reliable source. We just don't tend to link to IMDB for sourcing, as was noted in those discussions you linked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * People need to stop submitting Gellar's episode numbers for All My Children. Gellar appeared in way more than 25 episodes during her time on the show as she was a popular contract series regular.  My estimate is she appeared in 200-300 episodes.  IMDB does not have all the episode submitted for daytime shows.  If you look at the shows episode list you will see it has roughly 1500 episodes when over 10,000 have been produced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.231.4 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing role
She appeared in an episode of Murder She Wrote, sometime before Buffy. William P. Watt (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would need sourcing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Martial arts
Why is it whenever I put down anything about Sarah Michelle Gellar knowing taekwondo and/or kickboxing, it gets deleted? I had exact sources for those claims and everything! Smijes08 talk, 11:28, 21 December 2009

Small addition
She had a cameo role in the internet musical Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog. In the 2nd to last scene, she's in the audience wearing a black wig and sunglasses while Captain Hammer gives his speech to the community center. She walked onto the set (Guest of Whedon) and they put her in the audience during the filming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.255.110 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Main Image
I hoping someone might be able to find a new picture of SMG for the main image. She is now blonde again now and has been for some time and thought a more recent picture might be more relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.115.236 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Trim "Personal" section
I have trimmed the Personal section of the article. It read like a magazine article, not an encyclopedia. --BweeB (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny Farm
Apparently, her scene was removed so maybe this should go on her filmography as such!78.148.98.129 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gaming
I seem to recall that she appeared on Call of Duty: Black ops zombies: Call of the Dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.196.92 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Prinze?
I was bouncing around on Wikipedia today and noticed that on the Freddie Prinze Jr Page it says that SMG changed her legal name to Sarah Michelle Prinze on their 5th wedding anniversary, but nowhere on this page does it reflect that. Don't know if that's a problem with this page or the Freddie Prinze Jr page, but thought it should at least be mentioned.

Atotaldumass (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was once mentioned on this page, but was removed due to poor sourcing. I'll see if the page for her husband as any better sourcing. If not, it will be removed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was just as poorly sourced. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)