Jump to content

Talk:Jennifer Aniston: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 260: Line 260:


On [[Justin Theroux]]'s page it says divorced, on Jennifer's article it still reads ''separated''. Status? --[[User:LS9974|LS]] ([[User talk:LS9974|talk]]) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
On [[Justin Theroux]]'s page it says divorced, on Jennifer's article it still reads ''separated''. Status? --[[User:LS9974|LS]] ([[User talk:LS9974|talk]]) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:: They are divorced it has been updated. [[User:Datamaster1|Mr. Awesome, PhD]] ([[User talk:Datamaster1|talk]]) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019 ==

Revision as of 19:06, 22 February 2020

Former good article nomineeJennifer Aniston was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 7, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
December 21, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
November 5, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Filmography

SNUGGUMS, who is one of my most respected colleagues, and I are having a difference of opinion and I would like other editors to weigh in.

When we have a "main article" link, as we do to List of Jennifer Aniston performances, then the editing guideline at Wikipedia:Summary style states that, "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." I don't believe that having her entire filmography here is a "summary," which by definition is less than entire. A summary would be a prose paragraph saying, in context, what her most objectively notable films would be (i.e., first films, critically acclaimed role, box-office hits). Indeed, we do this very thing with "Accolades" — we don't list her awards there. Placing her entire filmography here is not summarizing, and it's redundant with the main article. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to having a paragraph or two talking about her roles or even moving the link to "Career" section, though the summary style guideline would advise against having a blank section with only "main article:_____" link. MOS:PARAGRAPHS states Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points. It therefore would be ridiculously short to have a blank section only consist of "main article:_____". Such a link by itself wouldn't exactly be informative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like we're of like mind. I actually had misconstrued our practice with main-article links, so you were right that my initial edit was in error. If you want to take a whack at a prose paragraph or two, or I could give it a go when I have more time, that sounds like a plan! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add one more movie which is missed in the list 'Friends with Money' in 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archana7490 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

2003:57:E663:53E9:2141:6426:F610:6152 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) real name "jennifer linn anastassakis"[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources that explain how her family name was changed by her parents from Anastassakis to Aniston as suggested by Jennifer's godfather Tony "Kojak" Savalas.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

156.204.63.116 (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kenardoorlando pattie

h face book me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.180.98 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Adding photographer's credit to a photo caption

Hi NicoScribe! I see no problems or harm with giving credit to photographers of any image on any Wikipedia article page. Of course I know that all copyright licence agreements and authors name is on archive at Wikimedia Commons, but that is a different section from Wikipedia articles. I think adding a photographer's credit to photo captions provides acknowledgement, recognition and exposure to the photographer's work upfront and may encourage more professional photographers to give permission to use their work on Wikipedia. Most fan photos are often poor in quality but great in quantity yet most uploaders choose not to use fan photos. It is clear that Wikipedia article pages with images have more page views that ones that do not. If you are a professional photographer would you not want your name displayed on a Wikipedia page especially after you gave permission to use it on Wikipedia? Cheers! (KittyLover (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hello KittyLover: I think that there is no photographer's credit in the WP articles due to the Image use policy, in the part WP:WATERMARK. Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

yes Sloppoperking (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sloppoperking: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Aniston. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Aniston. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cuts and what to cut

I reverted Hillbillyholiday on these removals because they should be assessed on a WP:DUE and WP:PRESERVE basis, not on an WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. For example, the idea that Aniston and Pitt divorced because she did not want to have children is very widely believed, which is why Aniston gave that interview with Vanity Fair to clear up the matter. That interview is very much WP:DUE; so it should be retained.

When it comes to past relationships that Aniston had, I did make some cuts, such as this "temporarily dated" stuff, but we include past relationships in some cases, especially when they were significant. Past relationships should not automatically be removed simply because they are in the past. Aniston's relationship with Vince Vaughn, for example, was widely reported and may be something we should retain.

As for Aniston's wealth, I feel that the Wealth section is pretty much nothing but a list and should be redesigned to put Aniston's wealth in better context. If not, the entire section should be removed.

SNUGGUMS, I see that this is yet another celebrity article you watch. Any thoughts on what should be cut or retained?

And so that Hillbillyholiday is aware that I did not follow him to this article, I want to point out that I've had a sporadic history with this article for years. It is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut some more short-term relationships, but I might re-add one or two later, after seeing how significant they were to Aniston. And by that, I mean if she commented on them and what impact they apparently had on her life. I know that she commented on her relationship with Vince Vaughn, and it was reported on a lot; so I left that in. Similar goes for John Mayer, but, to my recollection, it was mainly Mayer speaking out about his relationship with Aniston. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't an article I watch all that often, I will say this: Any engagement (even if broken off before the wedding) is clearly worth noting as it stresses how serious a couple is/was involved with one another. It could however use better sourcing. We shouldn't use godawful gossip rags like Us Weekly in articles, especially for contentious/personal claims in a BLP. Not sure what to say about other relationships you restored. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, looking at the Personal life section, I see that all of the Us Weekly sources are removed. I personally don't have much of an issue with Us Weekly since I don't see it as much different than People magazine and since it seems that celebrities trust Us Weekly like they trust People magazine, but I do think it is best to use better sources when available. I'm really not seeing the Wealth section as nothing but a list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course other sources should be used when possible. Regarding wealth, a section being a list isn't necessarily a bad thing, plus things like her net worth and being among the year's highest-paid actresses are definitely worth noting. If you can think of any better ways to include it, though, then feel free to mention them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to Us Weekly, I see that this The New York Times source is included in the Us Weekly article and reports that Jann Wenner stated his intention to keep the magazine "celebrity-friendly" in contrast to the more gossipy character of its competitors. So I'm thinking that this (among among things) is why celebrities trust the magazine. As for a Wealth section, I know that such a section is not automatically a bad thing, but the one in this article is simply a list at the moment. A prose list, but a list nevertheless. It needs work -- prose work -- to not focus so much on the rankings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jennifer Aniston. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Aniston. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

Change "MyEyeLove Campaign" to "eyelove Campaign" because the campaign is actually titled eyelove as you can see on their website https://www.myeyelove.com/chronic-dry-eye-diagnosis and in the Jen Anniston's video located here https://www.myeyelove.com/ Cjb234 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nihlus 21:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove other actors?

In the section "2012–present", in the third paragraph about the movie "Life of Crime", I’d like to delete the last sentence mentioning the other authors in that movie. You know, if they were people Aniston has worked with often, it might be relevant to this article (and then that fact should be mentioned here). But just as a loose add-on sentence, it’s not really adding anything to the article, I think.

The same in the next paragraph about the film Cake.

And maybe in the last paragraph – but there the other actors are mentioned more concisely, so it doesn’t seem as necessary there.

Any thoughts are welcome about why the above would not be a good idea!Geke (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

I recently tried replacing the infobox image to a more recent and IMO more flattering photo of Aniston but was reverted for having not gained consensus on the talk page. So, which image do other users prefer? In the existing photo, she has a blank stare in her face and isn't smiling. The proposed photo is more recent, has good lighting, and she's smiling. Appreciate the feedback in advance. Meatsgains(talk) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT Aniston during a tour of the Inova Breast Care Center in Alexandria, Va. in October 2011
PROPOSED Aniston at a ceremony to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in February 2012

RfC on infobox image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to change the photo. Meatsgains(talk) 02:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, which photo of Aniston should be included in the infobox? Meatsgains(talk) 02:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT
PROPOSED

Survey

And it was the lead image until recently changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed The current image doesn't even look like her, the proposed one does. BTW, regarding the editing history on this, the "proposed" version is the long standing version. It was taken out November 5th with no discussion and then when someone reverted to the long standing version on November 17th they were reverted saying that there was no discussion. This is sort of in reverse. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Discuss what ? See edit summary - FlightTime (open channel) 22:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the response I suggest just changing it right now. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jennifer Aniston's NET WORTH IS $240 MILLION ? Riggggght !!!

Share Jennifer Aniston American Actress Jennifer Joanna Aniston is an American actress, film producer, and businesswoman. The daughter of actors John Aniston and Nancy Dow, she began working as an actress at an early age with an uncredited role in the 1987 film Mac and Me. After her career grew successfully in the 1990s, Aniston has remained a well-known public figure and established hers…

Wikipedia

IMDb Born: Feb 11, 1969 (age 50) · Sherman Oaks, CA Height: 5' 5"


Net worth: $240 million USD (2018) --> WHAT ?


I've never done this before (add a comment to Wikipedia) BUT THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT SHE IS WORTH QUOTE " $240 MILLION DOLLARS " If you saw the cover spread in a recent "tired" ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST MAGAZINE, her skimpy living room furniture, not to mention the "obvious to anyone" SPARSE FURNISHINGS IN HER NEW BEL-AIR MANSION, HIGH UP IN THE HILLS, ALONE TELLS YOU THAT SHE IS NOT WORTH THAT KIND OF MONEY.

Don't get me wrong - I like her, but her day really ended back with the cancellation of "Friends". She is just as television actress, and NO WAY DO THEY MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY.

She is NOT - NOT - NOT WORTH EVEN CLOSER TO AN 'ESTIMATED $240 MILLION DOLLARS" That previous quote is from the "downwardly mobile " BING " REWARDS QUIZ ".

They get most so-called "Star BIOS COMPLETELY WRONG - ESPECIALLY THEIR INFLATED (if not BLOATED) " Net Worth ".

She's pretty, she can be funny, but I've also heard she can be a "real one". Hollywood drains any given actress, especially now, with HDTV and constant shows going on about their "lifestyles".

Frankly, I don't know how she keeps her sanity in such a CRUEL BUSINESS. There are too-many actresses (and actors) too.

And most of them DO NOT MAKE ASTRONOMICAL SALARIES - they make a good living, certainly, but not in the multi-millions.

It's a corrupt business, people. Thank you. The End Italic text(more than you know)Bold text Peterwhite94928 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites Forbes for the estimate, which is certainly a reliable source.
If you think Forbes is wrong, you will need to supply a reliable source directly contradicting it. This would allow us to cite both figures. (To remove the Forbes info, you would need to locate a reliable source that directly challenges this specific information and casts substantial doubt on the figure, or a published correction from Forbes. That seems unlikely to me.)
If you feel that Forbes is not a reliable source for this figure, you should probably familiarize yourself with their established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and compare that with Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If, after doing so, you still feel it is not a reliable source, you will need to take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Forbes is widely used as a source and you will need more than the local consensus you would be trying to build here.
The rest of your comments are irrelevant. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Text and references copied from Daniella van Graas to Jennifer Aniston, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

I would prefer this image over this one to be the image in her infobox as I feel it shows her face more clearly — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuchAdoA (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing one is fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 07:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Theroux

On Justin Theroux's page it says divorced, on Jennifer's article it still reads separated. Status? --LS (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are divorced it has been updated. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019

Jennifer Anniston also plays in Murder Mistery (2019) 2001:1C00:2504:5500:B28B:A3D4:1334:BE94 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources for any information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L'Oreal

change ((L'Oreal)) to ((L'Oréal)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:91d2:8010:7815:f6a6 (talk • contribs)

 Done: see Special:Diff/922867255. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Adjust her relationship status to its complicated with Brad Pitt Acngirl1010 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include that sort if information in infoboxes. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennifer_Aniston&oldid=942122889"