Jump to content

Talk:Melissa Joan Hart/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wikipedia is dominated by a click

Wikipedia is becoming dominated by a click

The three revert rule is NOT being violated, because friends at my school are helping me. It is 3 per person, not 3 per listing.

It's "clique", not "click", and if you can't get any actual Wikipedians to agree with you about the merit of the link, perhaps you should be taking a lesson from that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is what I mean. We are all SUPPOSED to be equal on WIkipedia. Anyone can be a WIkipedians. You need to have respect for others
Don't shift the issue from you to me. If you truly believed in that principle, you would start by honoring it yourself. You would say, "Gee, at least three Wikipedians who have substantial experience (including two who actually had to pass a vote indicating that the community thinks they have enough experience and have shown trustworthiness) are all opposed to my inclusion of this link. Maybe I should stop trying so hard to get my way on this and look at their view again with respect, to see why they think it's inappropriate to link this article. Instead of shifting into personal attacks against the people who are opposing me and recruiting my friends from offline to enforce the way I think things should be!" Yes, anyone can be a Wikipedian. That does not mean that everyone is just for showing up, particularly not those recruited just to get around the three-revert rule. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admin de facto control what is on WIkipeidia

A small group of admins de facto control what people can cany and read on WIkipedia. They are like the pigs in "Animal Farm" that took over. They say people cannot use other people to revert, yet they contact other admins to revert all the time. They often gang up in groups of three.

Yep, that sounds familiar. Ollieplatt 17:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The old familiar "conspiracy" gambit. "Everyone is disagreeing with me! I must be right, and yet I can't find anyone to agree that I'm right and they're all saying that I'm wrong! Could... could I possibly be mistaken? No! It must be that they're in a conspiracy against me!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The admins and the little people

The admins are no different than the 8th graders in our school that push us around just because we are 6th graders. They control Wikipedia by only allowing what they permit to be said or read.

Just like your school, Wikipedia has rules. One of them is to sign your contributions to talk pages. Please get a username and sign your comments. Thanks -Willmcw 20:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're making up the "rules" as you go along, dude. What's wrong? Afraid that you'll be wrong if you don't have a rule that says you're right?
Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages -Willmcw 00:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you'd like to believe that, just as you'd like to believe that your English teacher gives you bad marks on your research papers just because she doesn't like you. Unfortunately, it has far more to do with your unwillingness or inability to stick to facts, and not mingle them with personal opinions and conclusions you've jumped to.
And there really isn't a need to create a brand-new page section every time you make another complaint. Especially not when it's the same complaint over and over. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest the last few sections be moved to (a) user talk page(s) since it really doesn't have anything to do with this article? - dcljr (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

MJH on SNL

Was she really on Saturday Night Live? That doesn't seem right. Adam Bishop 21:52 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed the statement about her being on Saturday Night Live. Firstly SNL doesn't have a lot of requirement for nine-year-old actors. Secondly the Internet Movie Database doesn't mention it, either on Melissa's page or on the unbelievably detailed page which lists every guest on every episode of SNL all the way through the seventies and eighties. In fairness there are a lot of MJH fansites which do say the same thing. There doesn't seem to be an official MJH web page. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Geez... Just because it hasn't been added to the IMDb, doesn't mean it didn't happen. She was on Saturday Night Live during the 1985-86 season... multiple times. They were very minor "extra" type appearances, that's all. I have taped and digitized two of them. Here's one at my website (warning: 307MB AVI file). - dcljr 21:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Shameless plea: BTW, if anyone wants to try to do something with that AVI file (namely, reduce the file size without losing too much of the already crummy quality), please do so. And let me know on my Talk page. My computer isn't powerful enough to do video editing... - dcljr 09:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People should not be removing relevant external links, especially when there are only 3 links. Each topic should have at least a dozen external links. -- unsigned comment by 204.193.6.90

You speak as if the only criteria for an external link was "relevant to the subject" and such factors as "accurate", "balanced", "verifiable", et cetera, never needed to be considered. The linked article is less about Melissa Joan Hart than it is about "bullying in Sayville", with plenty of authorial value judgements. I'll extract a sample here for the benefit of the readers:
Melissa also was a vandal in the school district where she was mistreated. According to the Chicago Tribune, Sunday 12th May 1996, Melissa said, "In 5th grade I broke a thermometer and didn't tell the teacher..." She had a right to do this, as she was mistreated. Her favorite cartoon was "Ren and Stimpy." The Sayville cartoonist was one top artists on that cartoon, and he wrote the "Happy Happy Joy Joy" song. Chris was one of the hated outcasts of Sayville also. They both did shows for Nickelodeon at the same time.
This is right after we're treated to the questionable revelation that, on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the town is named "Sunnydale" not because Joss Whedon, the creator of the show, thought that the juxtaposition of "sun" and vampires was ironic, but because Sarah Michelle Gellar regarded Melissa Joan Hart as "the 'Chosen One' who led the fight against evil in [Sayville]" and "Sunnydale" sounds like "Sayville". One would think from the linked article that Sayville was somehow the bullying capital of the world.
In short, there is no reason for Wikipedia to be linking to someone else's poorly researched and highly biased speculation and that is exactly what that article is. We have no policy saying that external links with poor-quality content should be accepted if there are fewer than a dozen links already. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "We?" You are giving your own personal opinion. The fact is, you just personally do not like what it says, so you deleted it. The story about the thermometer was cited as coming from the Chicago Tribune. Look it up. You act as if you own Wikipedia. The page needs links and they will be added.
Yes, it is my personal opinion that the link is crappy quality and not worth linking to. Just as it is your personal opinion that the link is of value. The difference between those two opinions is that I can support mine with reference to the content of the link (BTW, the Chicago Tribune may confirm that she broke a thermometer; it will not confirm the value judgement "she was right to do so") while yours is supported by "we have fewer than a dozen external links and every article should have at least that many", which is not a Wikipedia policy but one you seem to have yanked from ... some portion of your anatomy. The difference between those two opinions is that at least two admins are agreeing with my opinion, as they have removed the same link before, whereas no one except yourself keeps restoring this link. I don't act as if I own Wikipedia, I just act as if I understand its policies and standards a little better than someone who seems to think that "if there's less than a dozen links, we need more!!!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


These are the Wikipedia guidlines for external links:

avoid sites requiring payment, registration, or extra applications Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article.

The Melissa Joan Hart early life biography page does follow the above guidelines.

I see nothing there about "each article should have around a dozen external links", nor "the standard of quality for external links should be significantly lower than for the information we'd allow in the article itself." In the meantime, you are not only breaking the three-revert rule, about which you were warned, you are breaking one of the guidelines that you yourself cite: "Adding links to one's own page is discouraged." I don't think there's any question whatever that this page you've been adding to this article is by the same person as this one you've repeatedly added to The Amityville Horror and I think it's stretching the bounds of credulity to think that you are not that person, especially given your edits to Sayville, New York. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And what is wrong with the archive link?

And what is wrong with the archive link? http://www.obkb.com THis keeps getting removed too.

(above comment left by anonymous user at IP address 204.193.6.90 - dcljr)
Does anyone have objections to the link? I've given it a once-over; it looks amateurish, but not actively objectionable (unlike the other article). However, that is after giving it a quick glance, not an in-depth examination, so there may be things wrong with it that I didn't see. I won't be lifting a finger to add the link into the article if it gets removed (funny how you tend not to do such things for people who bad-mouth you behind your back) but I don't actually see anything harmful about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why, thank you. It looks amateurish because it was created by an amateur (me). - dcljr (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I NEVER did a revert

I never did a revert. A revert is different than just doing a reedit. A revert is a specific process in Wikipedia that brings a page back to a prior point. All I ever did was re-edit.

I did not introduce my friends to Wikipedia.

Whoever you are, please get a username and sign your comments on "Talk" pages. Otherwise it is very difficult to follow the discussion. Thanks -Willmcw 19:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Revert:
A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page.
The kind of change you are talking about is listed on that page; however, that page makes it clear that a re-edit which has the effect of a revert is a revert, even if:
  • You make other edits at the same time;
  • You're only reverting some of someone else's edits;
  • Other people have made other edits in between.
I'm afraid that there's no support for your belief that simply re-inserting a deleted link manually is somehow not a revert. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Teen forever?

It should probably be noted that she played a teenage girl for quite a long time. She must have been at least 23 or 24 before she quit being a 16 year old. Captain Jackson 04:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

  • Can recite pi to 341 decimal places.
  • Nicknames are Mel, Halfpint, and Sa (from MelisSA and ClarisSA).
  • Collects paintings and owns 3 Picassos.
  • Likes to snowboard.

Reciting pi to 341 decimal places seems extraordinary to me. Can someone cite the source of this information? junyor 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a refernce cited for that... if she can, that would be very impressive... - Adolphus79 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
She denied knowing pi in a recent interview. This was an accident or a manufactured myth. Elizium23 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the entry that had become "Has a lazy eye" to "Her right eyelid 'droops' slightly lower than her left". She most definitely does not have amblyopia, which is a condition that affects ones vision. Her problem only affects the eyelid itself (a fact confirmed in the past by her assistant). I have not linked this to the article Ptosis, the possible medical name of the condition, since I don't have any medical training and have not verified that this is the actual condition she has. - dcljr (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with that eye? Is it real? Is it glass? Can she see out of it? How'd it get that way? She's never really tried to hide it/cover it up but has she ever talked about it? 203.146.247.71 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You might consider to choose your wording more carefully. Agreed, this is not a chatroom for elderly nannies; nevertheless, we should try to keep a minimum language level.Lost Boy 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Heritage

Does anyone have a reliable source that she is of Irish ancestry? I couldn't find anything except wiki-mirrors and similar sites. Also, a few cheesy-looking sites say that her maternal grandfather was Jewish, does anyone know if that's true either? It all seems like the usual web-junk. Mad Jack 06:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a large number of the trivia bits were unencyclopedic and none were sourced, so I moved them here pending source (at which point they should be re-inserted into the actual article, rather than an individual trivia section) Mad Jack 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Favorite subject in school was math.
  • Nicknames are Mel, Halfpint, and Sa (from Melissa and Clarissa — her association with Sabrina came after the nickname).
  • Collects paintings and owns three by Pablo Picasso.
  • Likes to snowboard.
  • She is on dexedrine pills because she's hyperactive. She is......
  • Her right eyelid droops lower than her left.
  • Prefers to be called an actor rather than actress.
  • In a London bar frequented by celebrities, an avid fan named Alan Lazaro tried to sexually assault her, but she defended herself with mace. Charges were pressed and Lazaro was sent to prison for 6 months.


The last one seems especially crazy, since Mace is illegal here and so MJH would have been arrested and in very serious trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.128.32 (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hart sounds German. In fact, Hart is (also) a German surname. But could be British, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation name

Regarding the statement that her full name is Melissa Joan Catherine Hart, I don't think that most Catholics consider their confirmation name to be part of their "full" name. It's definitely not part of your legal name, and I don't know anyone who uses it. Tulane97 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So you removed the sentence on a hunch that she doesn't consider it part of her full name? Without that sentence it doesn't even make sense to mention the name Catherine at all. Great. Now I'm going to have to look through old e-mail to see where the idea that it's part of her "full name" came from. (I'm pretty sure it came from her.) - dcljr (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the theory that she does consider it part of her name is more of a hunch, unless you have some objective evidence that she does, in which case I apologize. Having come from a large Catholic family in a predominantly Catholic area and attended 12 years of Catholic school without ever knowing a single person who used their Confirmation name as part of their full name, that's what my "hunch" was based on. I think the burden of proof is on your side. Besides, even if she does consider it to be a part of her name, it still isn't, in a legal sense. It still makes sense to mention it though, since it's a fact. Tulane97 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required for medical claims

I have deleted some potentially libellous information from the article and from this discussion page. Please review WP:RS and WP:V and follow them, particulary when it comes to claims about Hart's medical history and use of medications. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?

I am removing the following text from the section "Controversy". The closest thing I could find to a cite was a Lifetime TV chat transcript. Needs better citation, in meantime removing because I also question whether it is encyclopedic content. It's unclear whether or not said controversy actually affected her career or made any noticable lasting impact on entertainment culture.

Hart appeared in lingerie in a series of photographs featured in the October 1999 issue of the men's magazine Maxim, as well as in similarly revealing pictorials in Bikini and Movieline magazines around the same time. This caused problems for both Hart and ABC (the network broadcasting Sabrina the Teenage Witch at the time) since the copyright holder of the Sabrina franchise, Archie Comics, regarded the series as a show for children and pre-teens, and believed that the Maxim photographs and the accompanying article hurt the show's wholesome image (Hart also discussed her sex life and alluded to a Sabrina drinking game that could be played while watching the show). The chairman and co-publisher of Archie Comics, Michael Silberkleit, demanded that Hart either apologize or be fired from the series. She neither apologized nor was fired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lansys (talk • contribs) 10:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The contraversy is legitimate. This was a fairly big deal at the time. It did raise the bar in terms of younger celebrities and magazine photo shoots and it did cause considerable consternation among industry leaders. I think the topic should be there with a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] as opposed to being removed completely. If the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] is there, maybe someone will be more likely to research appropriate references. --207.145.105.170 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The current picture is horrible

69.180.16.5 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The color values were a bit extreme. I tried to improve on that. Is this version any better? — MSchmahl… 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Were the twelve images that made up the composite all your own, per chance? - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's more the fact that's it's a digital composite and not an actual photograph. It looks like some kind of creepy painting.

Is there any evidence that she is now known as Melissa Joan Wilkerson professionally, or that she wishes to be known as such? This would certainly be unusual for an actress. Glancing at the external links, it appears not. PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)\

The article should talk about the candy shop she has and if she's quitting acting to run it. Oh and the picture is actually not that bad since she lost something like 100lbs of weight since the year before and has a much better figure. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Vagina

Why no vagina monologue broadway mentions? she was one of the launching actresses in the production. someone should update this, i vote not me, you do it. --72.72.119.54 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Spellman/Sawyer

The role is called Sabrina Sawyer in the original TV movie. Please refer to Sabrina the Teenage Witch (film) for confirmation. I have reverted this twice. It's not Sabrina Spellman, that comes later, for the series. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gender of Mackenzie?

IMDb claims that Mackenzie is a half-brother. Some other Internet sources, and an anonymous editor, are claiming that Mackenzie is female. I am attempting to get confirmation of this from MJH on Twitter. Anyone else who has insight here is welcome to comment. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

She has confirmed that Mackenzie is her sister, so the edit will stand. Elizium23 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Article seems adequately sourced now

I think it's about time we killed the BLPsources template on this page. It's a short article with 108 footnotes; I don't see much that's unsubstantiated or libelous here. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What else needs to be done to kill the template? I am satisfied with the reliability of sources now, and I don't see much that needs a citation. Except I was having trouble finding a source that specifically said she finished in ninth place on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 9) - except the DWTS article itself. --Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:RS

This article was recently edited by User:Active_Banana to remove the Dancing with the Stars template and insert a 'BLP sources' tag. The template was removed because it supposedly violates the WP:UNDUE policy, which surprises me, because Hart has explained that being on the show was a very important milestone in her life, something she had wanted to do for quite a while. Her appearance was accompanied by a media blitz on Twitter and Facebook, as well as her own community website. Which brings me to the next point, WP:RS. As User:Active_Banana so eloquently put it, "While the quantity of "sources" is impressive, the [[WP:RS]] quality of most leaves much to be desired." I would ask how this editor, who has not contributed constructively to this article, intends to rehabilitate this condition. It is not a lengthy article. Much is drawn directly from her own community website (above) however the article is not based on that website. Another prominent source is imdb.com, which has served reliable information about films and TV shows for many years. The questionable sourcing might be in numerous industry gossip-rag websites, but the majority of these as I have checked seem to be direct interviews or press releases from the source. However, none of this may be relevant to an editor who seems to have trouble contributing anything constructive to any article, with a history indicating deletions and reverts. Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN (and I might also add WP:NPA)Active Banana (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Easter Sunday birth date

Dear User:Active Banana, I have provided a source, as requested, and justified relevance, as Hart is Catholic. It is a fact that she was born on Easter Sunday. Please do not violate WP:3RR to prove your point. Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is purely your original research that because Hart is catholic the fact that she was randomly born on a date that happened to be the holiday is somehow important to her. And what we care about is what is providing facts to the reader - many of whom will not know anything about Easter. Just because something CAN be sourced, does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. WP:IINFO. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You will notice that I am not the one who added this fact to the article. The source provided is her self-published biography. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of her audience is Western and Christian, due to her longtime affiliation with ABC/Disney. Many people are aware of Easter because it is more important than Christmas. Your first revert merely asked for a source. You seem to have a more deep-seated problem with Easter than just that, because when I provided a source you provided a flurry of reverts and excuses. You should have stated these up-front, and I should not have had to start a discussion on the talk page about this. Elizium23 (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The biggest problem is that you are deleting the actual date when you insert it. I wouldn't have the foggiest clue as to when Easter fell on any given year. I agree with Active Banana that it's a trivial point, but could live with it being mentioned. There's a big difference between mentioning something and overwriting data with it, though.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't deleted anything. The date is quite clearly available in the lede and in the infobox where it always has been. Only information has been added to the Early Life section. Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You deleted it from the main body of the article. The lead and infobox summarize information from the article, and aren't supposed to contain information that isn't in the article proper.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not that I don't believe you, but where is this style documented? This article seems to imply that that is not the case. It seems to me from an aesthetic viewpoint that someone's birthdate should not be duplicated in three places (not that it is likely to change) but perhaps unwise to delete it from any location. A survey of other biography articles tells me that the vast majority of them are deficient in this regard. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead_section) states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Basically, the lead summarizes the article, which means that information in the lead has to be present in the article. WP:Manual of Style (infoboxes) states that the purpose of an infobox is to "summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. Once again, since the infobox summarizes the article, the information in the infobox has to be present in the article.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That contradicts what I am being told over here, and if you browse any random sample of biographies, you will see that it is the exception rather than the rule -- even for WP:FEATURED articles. I stand by my edits, because with the exact date already in the lead and infobox, User:Active Banana's insertion was an unnecessary novelty. Elizium23 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Elizium23L: If you can cite a reliable source indicating that Melissa Joan Hart has stated that her Easter birth is of special significance to her/her family, that can be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, the timing is irrelevant trivia. —David Levy 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Easter Sunday is specifically mentioned in the first sentence of her self-published biography. I assumed that the fact is relevant to her. She also mentions receiving her Catholic confirmation so her faith is relevant in this way. Is that an acceptable source? Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No, your assumption is insufficient. Publications of that nature often include such wording as a means of livening the text's mood. Encyclopedias do not. —David Levy 23:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Melissa Joan Hart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I plan to review this article for GA.Monkeymanman (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to pass Quick Fail criteria so will proceed to an in depth review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Hold Reasons

I dont believe the article meets GA just by a brief overview. I will give some pointers to how it can be improved over the next 7 days. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The inro does not summarise the full article. It should be between 2 and 3 paras in length. As per WP:LEAD. Done
  • Audition for halloween 4 needs a source.
  • Why 4 sources after the first sentence on the second section? If one of them covers it then that should do the job. Also big hit during its four-year run. The show made her a household name among American teenagers and brought her four consecutive Young Artist Award nominations, of which she won three. Her role in the series also led to her starring in the FMV video game Nickelodeon's Director's Lab as a tour guide that takes the player around a movie studio. In 1992, she and Clarissa cast member Jason Zimbler appeared on the game show Nick Arcade as contestants, she is one the few people who played the beta version of Sonic The Hedgehog 2 on the Video Challenge. Has no ref.
  • In 1999, Hart made her directorial debut in an episode of Disney Channel's So Weird called "Snapshot" which starred her sister, Emily Hart. She later directed an episode of Nickelodeon's Taina in 2001. In 2001–2002, she directed 6 episodes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, including the season 6 finale.. Has no ref.
  • Be careful about MOS, much of the article has numerous sentences with refs inline. They should be at the end of the sentence where possible. Also be careful not to have over sourcing, for example 2 or more sources when 1 would do the job. Done
  • Again numerous sentences in the section titled Post-Sabrina and comeback (2004–present) unsourced.
  • many of the sources could be in doubt of being reliable. For example what makes cinemablend.com, tradingmarkets.com, ninedead.com, videoeta.com reliable. Done
  • could perhaps expand the article slightly with critical review of her more famous work.
Okay i have decided that the article does not meet GA status and has to fail nomination, sorry. Some pointers for the future.
  • Try to expand the article slightly by perhaps adding ctitical reviews / appraisal of her most famous / best work. Also make sure that everything she has been known for / done is included.
  • Tidy up the references. By that i dont mean add more refs for stuff already sourced but find refs for stuff that hasnt a source. Make sure that future refs are in the MOS that is currently in use.
  • make sure all refs are from reliable sources that wikipedia accepts as being reliable. Good examples that could be used are included here. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The new March of Dimes photo

That new photo is awful! Her hair is bad and she looks like she has a triple chin. I suggest removing it, even though it's free. I'm sure we can do better. Elizium23 (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That photo is not her in 2010. Could we dig out a current one?--109.149.60.104 (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

grammar/logic

"Hart has been married to musician Mark Wilkerson since 2003 and together they have had two children." sounds strange to me. As far as I know they're still married and the kids are still alive, too. So shouldn't it be: "Hart is married to musician Mark Wilkerson since 2003 and together they have two children." or something like that?! -- 194.95.117.68 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it as suggested. Next time, you can go ahead and change an article right away, if you feel you can improve it. Elizium23 (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comeback Section?

What is she "coming back" from? Did she have some kind of large downturn in her career? Or is it simply saying "Melissa Joan Hart has not been in a tv series for more than a year, so her career must be ending." I find this wording very out of place and insulting to the idea that an actor can take some time off without it being seen as a negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.170 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed this, and someone has reverted it. Please, explain it. There is no reason why it says "comeback". Comeback implies some kind of fall. She is not "coming back" from anything. It is not as if she disappeared from television either. It is insulting to have this on her page. Explain why it is being changed. Because someone else wrote it, and now it is set in stone? I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.170 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I didnt revert you but i agree with your decision. It seems you are passionate about Ms Hart. The article recently underwent a GA review which i failed it due to various reasons explained above. It would be great if you could help find refs and expand the article in the areas highlighted. If your unfamiliar with wikipedia please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Post-Sabrina" is an equally poor description that downplays the importance of her work since the series, since she has done so much that is important to her and her fans. How about a mention of Melissa & Joey or something? Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Its a fair point. The fact that the Sabrina the teenage witch section has more detail than just that one show says to me that perhaps that should be given an individual section on its own and the rest of her career split into decades? How about, Early life, Clarissa Explains it all, Sabrina the teenage witch, 1990-2000, 2000-present Monkeymanman (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The "pi" myth has cropped up again

There is a persistent myth that Hart can recite pi to 400 decimal places. This has been picked up by various unreliable sources such as IMDb. It is untrue because Hart herself has denied it. Please see her official website: http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/page/triviafun-facts where this is addressed. If you want to add "fun facts" about Hart, then take some from there, because it is authoritative and correct. Elizium23 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Atlantis?

I remember her also being in a TV broadcast special about Atlantis. I believe it was on ABC just prior to the Atlantis Disney movie being released. This isn't listed in her filmography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atownballer (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 January 2012‎

Correct, she was the co-host of The Voyage to Atlantis: The Lost Empire. I'll add it. Elizium23 (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarissa Now?

As far as I can tell, the pilot from the second series was titled simply Clarissa (IMDb link here), does anyone have an alternate source that says it was actually called Clarissa, Now? Elizium23 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No source has been provided. The title card for the series reads "clarissa" (stylized lowercase). I will continue to revert the addition. Elizium23 (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating based on new information

I have updated the mention of her candy shop to note that she no longer owns it. If anybody knows any information regarding new information or changed information, this article may need an update. Awwhiteman (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@SweetHartsweets is not a Verified Twitter account. I doubt it can be used even as a self-published source. Elizium23 (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

director

She has directed several episodes of Sabrina and melissa&joey. this should be noted.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is already noted in the article that she directed six episodes of Sabrina, but this needs a citation, and so does any statement about her directing Melissa & Joey. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I found a video interview where she mentions that she directed one episode of Melissa & Joey in the second season. I added it with a reference. I also tried to copyedit and separate out the paragraph about Melissa & Joey because I feel it deserves prominence, without other roles tacked on to the details there. It should accumulate more information in the future as the series goes on, God willing. The video made passing mention of her directing in Sabrina but not exactly how many episodes were done, so I would like to find a better source for that assertion. Elizium23 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Born in Smithtown

It doesn't matter if sources differ, because the ones which say she was born in Sayville are incorrect. She was born in Smithtown and grew up in Sayville, as is stated by her official biography. If you believe that a source has greater or equal authority compared to her officially maintained biography then I would be interested to see the credentials. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is: I put Smithtown as birthplace and cited it to her official bio. We're all good. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I wrote that after only the first edit. All is good now, thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Lazy eye

Does anyone think that her lazy eye/eyelid should be mentioned? Euchrid (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please cite its notability by providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no :) Euchrid (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable minor children

As it has been an ongoing issue since the birth of Tucker, I feel I must raise it here for discussion. In general, it is not good practice to record the full names and dates of birth of non-notable minor children in the articles of their parents. These children have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and just because their parents are famous does not give us the ability to break that. If the children should become notable in their own right and merit their own Wikipedia article, then these details can be added, but until then we should use some caution. Elizium23 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As a parent, I share this as a visceral concern. As a journalist, I'm often called upon to write biographical material about stars and their families, and Wikipedia does do a useful and encyclopedically appropriate job of giving names and birth dates that I can then either a) use as Google terms in order to seek verification or b) go to the linked articles from which that information comes. Ambivalent as I about celebrity's children's names, that's basic information for which a reporter or researcher would turn to this reference work.
As well, when Time Inc.'s People and Entertainment Weekly and Wenner Media's Us Weekly, among many other reliable sources. make this content available, it seems odd censorship not to include it here. When information appears in publications totaling a readership of millions, I'm not sure closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out makes much sense. (I realize this may be better suited to a broader discussion at the guideline page, but since comments are being solicited here, I thought it alright to respond.) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up (as much as could be) --Musdan77 (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

TV retrospect

Sometime during the run of Sabrina the Teenage Witch in the 90's, didn't Hart host a TV documentary special on the history of the portrayal of teenagers on TV- something like Growing Up on TV?67.122.211.175 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Family is notable

Hart is quite notable for her marriage and family. For starters, her wedding itself was recorded in a made-for-TV documentary, as mentioned in the article. She subsequently embarked on what she describes as her most important career ever, that of a mother, and scores of news articles document her pregnancies, childbirth, and associated struggles such as weight gain and loss. Particularly mentioned in the article itself are the article in People magazine introducing Braydon to the world, and her diary for Huggies Pull-Ups as she potty-trained him. Here, for example, are six articles about her third son, Tucker: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the mention of three children for which I have already established the notability and due weight in WP:RS. Mindy Dirt is free to comment here and disagree, but not free to edit-war over this on the article without discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit is ridiculous and WP:POINTy, and I see @Mindy Dirt: still refuses to discuss changes before making them. Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Relax, cowboy. Nothing pointy about it. You kept sticking husband and children back in the lead without even giving a reason for it in the text. I provided that reason for you, so you should thank me. And the potty training: clearly you're no mother. It's huge, and for Ms. Hart it was so important that she had a video documentary made; surely that makes it worthwhile mentioning in the lead. "Ridiculous"? Verified, relevant information? From someone who just said that for the subject motherhood is so important? Go potty-train a child, Mr. Elizium, and you'll see how not-ridiculous it is. Mindy Dirt (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
One more thing: you confuse "notable" with "should be mentioned in the lead". Mindy Dirt (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right about notability. It is the wrong policy to use for inclusion in articles. The correct one is due and undue weight. I have demonstrated how well-covered Hart's family is in WP:RS. Due to this high amount of coverage, and coupled with her personal assertion that being a mother is her most important career yet, her family rates inclusion in the lede. What you do not seem to realize is that the lede should be brief and to-the-point. Adding pointless details about the wedding documentary and the potty-training does not help to summarize the subject of this article. I am tired of edit-warring with you, so I will simply propose here that the clause be returned to its original form: "Hart has been married to musician Mark Wilkerson since July 19, 2003; together, they have three children." Elizium23 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:
I agree with Elizium23's version of the article. All the information that Mindy Dirt wanted to add seems like it would flow better in the body of the article iteslf rather than the lead (btw, Mindy, the comments about Elizium not being a mother and suggesting that s/he go potty-train a child really weren't appropriate). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Melissa Joan Hart. 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) 22:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melissa Joan Hart. 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) 04:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melissa Joan Hart. 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) 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melissa Joan Hart. 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) 08:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melissa_Joan_Hart/Archive_1&oldid=1137002695"