Talk:Dana Delany

message: It's getting tiresome seeing Tags slapped onto articles with no explanations, especially when the tags themselves require just that. If someone chooses to rate this article, please indicate the reasoning, or leave it to someone else. Granted there is an article that explains the general idea of the ratings, but then it's a guessing game as to how it applies. And if the response is "It should be obvious", well, assume it's not. x 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags and Ratings

message: This isn't about Animaniacs -- but the list of film credits omits one of her guest performances on Cheers. Dana Delany played a kindergarten teacher, a love interest of Sam Malone. It must have been in the 1980s but I don't know the name of the episode. But I definitely saw her as a guest star on the situation comedy Cheers. I don't know how to put this in the credits since I don't have the full information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.86.208 (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion page is not really meant to be used as a diary for edits, or instructions on Wiki syntax. It's meant for discussing how the related article can be improved as a Wiki article, or to present a case for an edit that might be questioned. Just adding more items to a Filmography would not normally need to be explained. x (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment; I'm a neophyte editor just learning the ropes. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography 

message: I've removed this sentence:
Dana's great-grandfather John J. Delany founded the Coyne & Delany toilet valve company in 1879.
as it's not really about her personal or public life, it's more a trivia item about her family. Maybe a trivia section is needed? x (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coyne and Delany

message: I've removed this:
Delany, along with the cast, was nominated at the 14th Annual Screen Actor's Guild Award for Best Ensemble in a Comedy Series.  Because she has received such critical and commercial acclaim for her role on the show, it is widely speculated that this role will earn Delany yet another Emmy this year.
It reads  more like a news item than as enclopedic content, is a bit gossipy, refers to present and future tenses which is preferred to be avoided in WP articles, and some of it is POV.x (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: News about Desperate Housewives

message: I've removed this:
In 1990, she was featured on the hard to find China Beach soundtrack album "Music & Memories" singing the song "Far From Home."
It's kind of a digression where it was placed, maybe it could be added as trivia in a separate section? Also, make it less POV. x (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: China Beach Soundtrack

message: *She doesn't look like that anymore ... I had trouble recognising her
--Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Photo?

message: I'm thinking there should be more in this article about how Dana looks at film-making, television, success. Right now the article only lists her accomplishments (she starred in this, she did this movie, etc.) But the article could be improved (in my view) with her thoughts about being an actress, about technique; and this stuff is out there. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Stuff to include in the article

message: Marital/Family history and current status is missing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.89.7 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I removed several paragraphs from HERE (on this Talk page, not the article) about DD's brother, sister, past relationships, as editors such as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & Tabercil have convinced me it's irrelevant, uncheckable, lacking good sources, (and Xtramental likes less reading). Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Marital/Family history

message: In the "early work" section, there was no information about her appearances on TV soap operas or possibly early Broadway work -- rather, after college, it jumps right into 1988 (10 years later) with her first big big break -- getting the role on "China Beach". I think there should be more information about how she learned how to act (did she take lessons with Stanislavski) and how she made the transition to television in Hollywood. Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Work

message: I was wondering what to do when some of the movies listed appear in red. This means as we know that the movie (for example, Baby For Sale) doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Should we (1) leave the movie there in red with the hope that somebody in future might create a Wikipedia page for this movie or (2) remove the brackets (and leave the single-quote mark symbols) so that the name of the movie appears in italics, but not in blue (or red). If somebody knows what to do here, please advise. Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:REDLINK.  They should stay if there is a chance that they are notable enough for an article.  As for TV movies, they generally are not notable enough for an article and therefore would remain red for all time.  In that case, it's best to remove the brackets.  And as far as their inclusion in filmographies, many editors would say to take them out of there as well citing the fact that we aren't IMDb.  Personally, I'm on the fence about that.  Dismas|(talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, magnificent Dismas. So I'm thinking that I'll probably remove the brackets from the TV movies so they no longer become redlinks (but keep the two apostrophes on either side so it remains in italics). Trouble is, I sometimes forget which are the TV movies and which are "real" movies, so I may be somewhat hesitant about this, (probably do only the TV movies I'm sure of) and the distinction is somewhat blurry because some movies made for cinemas get moved to TV, and vice-versa. I'm agreeing with you about being on the fence about what to include in the filmography, although I lean towards keeping everything in, so that possibly wikipedia will be seen as the most thorough source around (and better than IMDb). Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update the excellent Tabercil removed the redlinks and the article looks SO much better. There were even pink-link thingies in there which are now gone. (Pink? What's with that?) This is hard work to get these out and it's appreciated, as well as handling disambiguations and spacings (I'll try to get references spaced tighter in future -- I've been working on article about Vanuatu.)  Wondering how we can get better pictures in the article because text and charts are so boring by contrast, particularly when we have a great looking subject like DD. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pink links?? My guess? They might have been redlinks you tried clicking through on. As for pics, well that's one of the harder jobs going, and part of how I managed to snag admin rights on Commons as I've had some luck sweet-talking others into providing images. Tabercil (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think you probably tried to click on some of them.  I know that when I click on a red link, it will appear as pink-ish when I go back to the original article.  And the blue turn purple after visiting them.  Dismas|(talk) 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I noticed how Eva Longoria had an awards and nominations section and Dana didn't, so I copied Longoria's and updated it with Emmy, Golden Globe and Q award information. I bet there are other awards Dana has won. Does anybody know what they are? If so, please add them. It's a little tricky to modify the box, but just remember to copy a whole chunk, beginning with the first vertical line to the left, and which ends with a vertical line followed by a minus sign. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards and Nominations Section Added

message: I noticed Marcia Cross has an "additional achievements" section with things like being one of the most beautiful people in a certain year, a magazine naming her "woman of the year, etc. I think Dana needs one too. So I lifted the format from Marcia Cross's page (I hope she won't be cross about this -- sorry very bad pun) and we should put stuff about Dana in there, plus have a note at the bottom about the references. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Achievements Section Added too

message: Since you, Tomwsulcer, seem to be using this article as a learning experience, I thought I'd just pick a few nits for you by suggesting some small corrections.  And maybe you'll learn a bit more as you go...
* External links should be either references or in the external links section.  They should not be links within the text similar to internal links to other articles.  This is point #2 from the Important Points to Remember section of WP:EL: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.  So when the article says that person X founded "such and such foundation", the name of the foundation should not be linked to their homepage.
:I'm still not sure what is meant by avoiding "external links" -- I looked over the external links thingie on the Wikipedia page and got the basic idea to avoid external links in the text of the article. But, in terms of references, external links are okay, is this right? So in my recent editing, I removed many of the duplicate references, and tried to put references at the end of lines and not right after the name of a TV show or movie. So, I don't think the article currently has any external links in the text (possible exception: Scleroderma foundation -- is this okay?). Also, in a reference to the "Knowing Her" episode of Moonlighting, one of the references is a link to YouTube (showing part of this TV show). So I'm not sure if this is okay, if this constitutes a "reference" or an "external link", and what the wikipedia policy is. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I removed many duplicate references, or put them at the end of the line. When I thought there might be controversy, sometimes I kept multiple references. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, did this all at once, as per your suggestion, thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, changed many "Dana" references to "Ms. Delany" or "Dana Delany" as per your suggestion; hopefully all the unattached Dana words are removed. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you excellent Dismas for the excellent advice. I reread it several times to try to learn. Thanks for the italics and "quotes" conventions so TV show Moonlighting with episode "Knowing Her", (practicing). I'll remove unnecessary citations (the excellent Tabercil agrees there are too many). The first name usage was there before me but I didn't edit it out and perhaps thought it was permissible to keep using this convention (I'll change to last name). Not sure about external links point but I'll follow that link to see what you're getting at. And I'll try to do more editing at once using the in-use tag template (thanks). I am hoping in a day or so you might look over the Dana Delany article after I edit it and make sure it's up to wikipedia's standards? I'm planning to re-order it somewhat (but keep what's there basically), improve it along the lines that the excellent you and the excellent Tabercil and the excellent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz suggest, possibly add some new stuff with references. But after that I'm probably not going to fuss with this any more since I have other stuff I should be doing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few nits to pick 

message: I've been researching newspapers and reputable sources for good critical commentary. It's always positive. I have yet to come across a critic who said Dana really screwed up a role but I keep searching (and if I find it, I'll put that in, because I'm trying to be balanced and fair). Note: one unofficial critic described DD as "seriously bad" in Tombstone but I didn't think this reviewer was associated with a reputable newspaper or magazine. What happens is this: Dana tends to go for complex, dark, multi-faceted roles with good writing, but these TV shows don't hit the mass market -- the shows are liked by critics, but the public can't follow them, and they get canned. Or, the show screws up, or the director, or any number of factors screw things up. Many projects she's worked on have not panned out, but this is how the business works I suppose (I don't think it's her fault). But China Beach was one of the critically-acclaimed TV shows which tried to find an audience -- it lasted for 3 years surprisingly -- and then went down the tubes (perhaps by bad choices by the producers in the third year?)  Ditto, Pasadena -- great TV show, too intellectual for the public, but Dana was great in it. Then, she'll appear in mass market fodder like Desperate Housewives which tends to be dumbed down (but Dana still does a good job of acting). But this stuff gets her lots of attention and helps her keep acting -- and that I think is the dominant principle at work -- she loves acting -- that's it -- I don't think she's in it for the celebrity or money or fame -- rather, she loves the process of acting, and she's VERY good at it, not just a pretty face. What do other editors think about this? And does this article convey this? I think there was one TV show where I thought she was miscast -- something about her playing an FBI agent -- I remember seeing it myself back in the 1980s and thinking "hey, she's not an FBI agent", but I can't find critical commentary on this. But I'm looking for more interview like stuff in which she describes her thoughts about acting, celebrity, show business, and such, and I think this will help improve the article. Right now, I'm doing Google searches within a newspaper's site (so hopefully whatever I find will have a reputable source) and then see if any of it is worth putting in the article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical commentary

message: Editors might notice that sometimes there are three or four references following a line. I put in lots of references because I thought this was the only way to get the Wikibots to remove the tag which complained about lack of references -- and the tag or flag stayed there (and I kept adding references) until I finally realized that I, myself, could remove the tag (which I did). Not one of my more brilliant moments, sorry. The excellent Tabercil suggested that some references can be removed, so other editors might want to do this, hopefully keeping the BEST references, and when there's a controversial quote, or something which may be disputed (especially like DD's decisions to turn down big roles) I think it's better to leave more references in, to back up what the article is about. But the excellent Tabercil suggests references may not be needed when it's just a line about "Delany made such and such a movie in 1991". My bias is to kind of reference everything but I'm probably overdoing things. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References -- too many?

message: Clicking on "Choices of the Heart" leads to the incorrect 1983 "Choices of the Heart" movie, not the 1995 "Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story". There is a Wikipedia page for the 1983 movie but none for the 1995 movie. Not sure what to do here -- is it worth creating a wikipedia page for the 1995 movie? Or remove the brackets around the words "choices of the heart" in the DD article? Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The best option is to create the article, and correct the link. Second best is to remove the link. x (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Wikipedia page for "Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story" (1995); plus I fixed the link in the DD article; so now it points to the right place. I'm not sure how to do the disambiguation stuff -- there are two movies with pretty much the same title. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Movie Link -- There are two "Choices of the Heart" films 

message: General problem with Dana Delany pictures is pictures don't show her acting but are posed after-event celebrity shots or getting awards. There are only eight (8) shots of DD on the Commons. And I think the posed shots are misleading because DD's career isn't about celebrity or awards but acting. Removed address/phone of DD's talent agency. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures -- General problem

message: Wondering if anybody minds. I tend to type too much and want to cut out much of my former junk. If nobody objects, I'll whittle down my OWN (nobody else's) stuff so this talk page doesn't get too long. Okay? Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I want to slim down my wordy comments from this talk page -- OK?

message: I know there are some editors who love DD's voice-work and relate to it; but I don't think "Work on Lois Lane" deserves its own sub-subsection -- if we add one sub-subsection, and it's the only one, it looks odd -- possibly we'll have to add more sub-subsections (which I advise against since it doesn't add more information and I don't think it will help readers find stuff). I advise removing the "Work on Lois Lane" header. I'm a writer. Please trust my thinking on this. My bias is towards making this article better, hopefully a "good article", maybe someday a "featured article". If we can make it a featured article, then possibly more readers will look at it. If the interest of other editors is helping DD gain more exposure, and tell more readers about the Lois Lane stuff, then things like editing for flow will help.  Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lois Lane stuff

message: Generally, I think we have limited choices here about how to organize this article -- chronological or by type of work (TV, movies, stage, voice). The format now is mostly chronological (with subsections -- 1980s, 1990s, 2000s etc), except the voice work is somewhat out of sequence chronologically. So, some of the voice work from the early 1990s, as well as later 2000s, is in a clump around the later 1990s -- somewhat out of sequence; in addition, her cause-related work is in a clump of its own at the bottom. But this structure is similar to what many other celebrities have, probably helpful for readers, I think, to find information they're seeking quickly. I don't think there are any great organizational alternatives here. I lean towards the chronological structure because it makes it possible to put in interesting stuff like DD's initial turn-down of her D.Housewives role, or her initial attempts at the China Beach role. I tried organizing it by type of project, but then it didn't look right to my eyes. And I don't think acting on a stage is that different from acting on TV (that is, enough to merit separating the two). What I'm saying is -- let's stick with one structure (I favor chronological). Further, another benefit of the chronological structure is that it makes it easy for future editors to add new stuff as DD does new projects -- they put it at the bottom. If an editor wants to totally rewrite the DD article by type of project, this is a lot of work, but I'll consider serious changes, but to do this well one would have to be a fairly good writer I think; ,I think we should stick with the chronological structure that we've got. The exception is if a future editor feels the whole article is too long, and wants to cut substantial portions of it, then considerations of topic-related organization might be feasible. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of the article

message: I've included these two in a sentence. But couldn't provide proper reference. Could anyone please help me?
ANUbOMB (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danimals and International Dana Delany Day 

message: She starred in Tombstone.  Missing from the 90s. filmography  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.176.160.26 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the Tombstone Role 

message: There. I said it. Before doing your own research, be advised that, while tasteful (in a "Bettie Page" kind of way), the images are certainly NSFW. Viewer Discretion is advised!  2003:CA:3F18:46E4:F59C:3DE8:9C45:F01C (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being cheeky. It's "super easy, barely an inconvenience" to see you are referring to an ordinary topless "model", boobpedia.com/boobs/Delany_Decolleur.  WurmWoodeT 04:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dare ask it: Has she modeled as "Delany Decolleur"?