Talk:Alyson Hannigan

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


Alyson has been getting not-so-good reviews for her part as Sally in When Harry met Sally in London. Need to add something about this some time. --Phil 14:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have a pic of Alyson that I took and will gladly donate to the public domain. Not sure if it's too silly for Wikipedia though; see the original at[dead link] (if it is used, I would crop it to remove the other visible people). Mike 06:44, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

$250,000 Salary[edit]

Is there a source for her having a $250,000 per episode salary? That sounds really high. I realize Buffy was fairly popular, but in its latter years it wasn't exactly a ratings juggernaut, it was even dropped by its B-Network (WB), and picked up by an F-Network (UPN), neither of which even exist anymore.

Seinfeld stars Jason Alexander (George), Julia Dreyfus (Elaine), and Michael Richards (Kramer) never even made that much, and they were the costars on the highest ratted show in history.

Dude, check your facts on the seinfeld cast. they were recieving multi-millions an episode by the end of their run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I added a line (which was removed) about Alyson Hannigan and Alexis Denisof appearing in costume as Tigger and Eeyore at the West Hollywood Halloween parade in 2001 because I saw them personally when I was there. I thought it was a nice tidbit; maybe someone would find it interesting. Is a personal observation not considered an official source? I didn't think it was controversial or libelous. If my witnessing them (and the crowd of hundreds of other people who also saw them) is not official enough, then I guess the comment should be left off. Otherwise, would someone create a trivia category and allow me to place the entry there? I just wanted to share what I saw. --Cheeriokole

Wikipedia requires sources, usually the written kind. I'm sure hundreds of people saw them, but unless there's a written source, or a photograph, it should be left out. And starting a trivia section just for this seems like overkill anyway.

Duribald 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Belongs on a fan site or something like that. And you should see some of the crazy random stuff people add about celebrities. Like, someone would say they saw Paris Hilton wearing a blue shirt so that means her favorite color is blue. That's just an example, not actually posted. I doubt she would actually wear a shirt, covers her up too much, just kidding. --Cheeriokole

Could anyone get a decent photo of her?[edit]

I think Aly is beautiful and the photo does her no justice. Could anyone change it? I know some of you know better than me how the copyright thing goes. I don't want to upload or place the wrong image. But you get the idea. Abaraibar 09:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--She holds a flute, there is nothing ironic about that. Pat yourself on the back for "clever innuendo", but it adds nothing to the site.

Just wondering would it be possible to get a flickr picture of Aly with her new hairstyle and hair color like this one, you can keep the picture of her with her husband.RandMC (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the photo of Alyson you point to looks like a promo pic offhand, and as a result can't be used to replace the existing photo. But Flickr's a good place to look for photos. I would suggest reading this essay for advice on how to snag a free use photo for use here. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabercil, Thanks for the suggestion, I think the image looks promotional now that I look at it. RandMC 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current image looks candid, and is probably one of the best we have on Wikipedia. I commend the photographer. — trlkly 08:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree could someone PLEASE change this picture. She is a beautiful woman and this picture not only does her no justice it is barely recognizable as her. I thought the point of having a relevant picture at the top of the page was so people can easily look and see they have found what their looking for but I was not convinced I was on her page just by simple glancing...If I knew how the processed worked I would have already changed it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsiekb (talkcontribs) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I've read that she bought a house in LA, not Sacramento, and it was reported incorrectly, but Google is littered with sites saying she bought a house in Sac. Can anyone back Sacramento up? What's the source? StargateX1 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to you, Google is littered with sites that say Sacramento. Where did you read LA? JackO'Lantern 23:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she bought a house in Sac, but she lives in LA, so she doesn't actually live in Sac? StargateX1 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian Sex Scene[edit]

I've seen every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and never saw a lesbian sex scene. There was a scene which Joss Whedon wanted to symbolize it, but it still wasn't a sex scene. I think this comment in Trivia should be revised or removed. Paulistano 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)paulistano[reply]

So you never saw "Once more, with Feeling" I suppose? The "Under your Spell" section is pretty explicit... of course, it's not really trivia, and doesn't belong here, but still... JustIgnoreMe 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're of the impression that suggestive (whilst fully clothed and singing) is the same thing as explicit -- are we on the same Internet? (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also "Vamp Willow"... the bisexual Vampire Willow from an alternate dimension, appears twice in the series, first appearance caused Willow to remark "And I think I'm kinda gay..." -- (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lesbian sex scene that everyone talks about is from Season 7ep20, Touched. It is a scene between the characters of Willow and Kennedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepkep (talkcontribs) 05:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

Where is the information regarding her personal life (ie marriages, children, etc)? Missjessica254 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now includes mention of her daughter and their birthday being the same. --RandMC (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text says that she is 'of Irish descent on her father's side and Jewish on her mother's' => That doesn't make any sense. Jewish states her mother's religion, not her ethnicity. She could be of (Jewish) Russian, (Jewish) German or whatever descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Irish father and Jewish mother' part is really odd. It reminds me of this 'my mother was Russian, my father was a laywyer' guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. One can be both or either. Hence Woody Allen, an athiest, is an ethnic Jew but not a religious one; and his children are ethnically half Jewish and half Korean.Patapsco913 (talk)

Sex Tape???[edit]

What about the alleged home (well, hotel) sex video?

Internet hoax, it's some adult actress. Garion96 (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a very convincing actress —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convincing enough to convince me. 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked a lot like her... it really did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the fact is that it isn't her. No need to include it the article. (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly it's Luna Lane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleeasternfilms (talkcontribs) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very young Alyson Hannigan in the clip maybe 18/19 years old - girls do mature physically quite a bit between late teens and mid-late twenties from whence we all know her. No-one can say for fact that it isn't her and she sure damn does look like a young Alyson Hannigan in several clips, even the smile. Mabuska (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules are clear in this instance: we need reliable sources before we even can begin to say anything about it, and nobody's pointed one out yet. Sorry. (And for my money, it ain't her). Tabercil (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is not Hannigan, but indeed its Luna Lane. Hannigan is a little too old to have been in the 18-19 range when the clip was shot (very late 90s or 2000), and was already well known. Great video, though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you wonder how a bot can rate an article? I do. David Spector 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Hines? How?[edit]

How was she in a Duncan Hines commercial in 1978 when she was born in 1979? Was there ultrasound footage or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the birthdate listed is in 1983... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteV1der (talkcontribs) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old vandalism that didn't get caught. Corrected it to 1974.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Didnt she once do a cameo appearance on Angel? --Stripy Socks (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the picture[edit]

Seriously? This is a horrible picture of her, she's a beautiful woman, and you oput a picture of her witt teeth, gums and all on the wikipedia page? Im looking if there is anything else on commons that has a better picture of her, or if i can find one with the correct license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a lovely picture.--EchetusXe 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is a touch... odd. (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current picture File:Alyson Hannigan at HIMYM.jpg is too blurry. File:Alyson Hannigan 2.jpg seems like a better choice, as it's clear and better shows her face, including her eyes and smile.
  — Jeff G.  ツ 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone change the damn picture from what it is currently, she's way hotter than portrayed on Wikipedia, having that picture on Wikipedia is like having false facts on Wikipedia. It shouldn't be happening.


I can't find any information about her appearance in the twenty-second season premiere. It's not included in her IMDB article and the wikipedia article for the episode in question. Can anyone confirm her guest role on the Simpsons? Otherwise I'll remove it from the filmography list.

Elnauron (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's in the episode Flaming Moes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better photo[edit]

Just anything but the current one. It's awful — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a horrible picture79.112.117.1 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording query.[edit]

Just a query relating to the line which says 'as a teenager she babysat for suchandsuch Sagel'. How can this be possible since she is about 15 years his junior? Should it not read something like 'she babysat for his children'? (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The connotations are that she babysat his children for him -- she worked for him, babysitting his children. The way you state it above isn't incorrect, but it's fine as it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


We shouldn't be using a fair use photo in the article when we have others we can use. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Stalker[edit]

The consensus is to delete the section, which has been done here. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I'm raising an RfC question about the appropriateness of including information about a subject's stalker in a biography, in all cases. I see two issues:

  • First, are we giving unwarranted recognition to the stalker?
  • Second, are we inflicting low-value trivia on the reader, if there is no unusual or noteworthy content to relate, beyond the basic existence of a stalker?

The alternative POV is that including stalker info is generally appropriate, based on precedent and custom. It is not disputed that stalker cases that result in serious crimes or other notable consequences, including wide public notice, may be appropriate content.Regionrat1234 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the stalker section there? Any special reason why the stalker individual should get named on Wikipedia? Strikes me this might be perceived as rewarding his activities, a way of 'counting coup' on his target. Will delete unless there is good argument against.Regionrat1234 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but that's not the intent. We add any significant details that might've happen in their lives to further enhance the biography, like if Hannigan was awarded a signficant humanitarian award or if Hannigan was arrested for possession or something. If it's significant it's added in. Rusted AutoParts 20:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I then challenge the significance of this item. It is not something Hennigan has done, in the first place, like some achievement or behavior on her part. It is hardly unusual, alas, for celebrities to be stalked, and thankfully, at this point, no significant harm has been done, AFAIK. So I see this as a gossip item at best--and as I said, a wiki trophy for the stalker at worst.Regionrat1234 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern, but it doesn't fall under gossip when its an actual true event that happened to her. We've noted stalker issues on numerous articles. It's info to contribute to the biography. Rusted AutoParts 03:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, that sounds a bit rude and patronizing, 'ol bean. I was expecting collegial talk, not a decision by some 'boss of the biography.'Regionrat1234 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more or less blunt, never trying to be purposely rude. Seeing as we're not face to face its hard for tone to be established. And I'm not making a "my decision is final" declaration, I'm just applying what we typically do with all biographies on this site. Rusted AutoParts 05:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, don't mean to be prickly. Still see issues here--the Stalker Section in a case like this my be inflicting trivia on the reader, as well as giving undue recognition to a named stalker. Can you suggest a venue for raising this issue in a more general way, and considering modifications in the regular practice you describe?Regionrat1234 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm responding to the RfC, and I have not otherwise been involved with this page. I would say either delete all of it, or at least delete the stalker's name. We could just say that she got a restraining order against a stalker. Giving the name of an otherwise completely non-notable person has the effect of giving a stalker some free publicity, while not providing anything useful to our readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also responding to the RfC I would also say either delete all of it, or at least delete the stalker's name. Endorse everything else Tryptofish says. Why does anyone need to know this and if they do, why the name?Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As RfC originator, I thank Tryptofish and Pincrete for their input. Others are encouraged to comment; any action I take will be consensus-based after the 30-day RfC period is up.Regionrat1234 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the info; also responding to the RfC. The only thing I could see passing for being notable is the existence of the incident, and even that's dubious; almost every public figure has had a stalker, what makes this incident notable? Did it receive significant media coverage or public discussion other than simple reports of the restraining order being issued? But even if a case is made for notability of the incident, the stalker's name is most certainly not. Jhugh95 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The information on the stalker does not add value to the page. As Jhugh95 stated, almost every public figure has at one point or another had a stalker. This is no different and isn't significantly notable. Also, the fact that the content has its own subsection is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Policy ref appreciated, Meatgains. It further looks like the subsection WP:BALASPS is relevant here, as it addresses how including recent news items can give them undue weight.Regionrat1234 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Regionrat1234: Agree 100 percent. It does not belong. Meatsgains (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was a much reported on incident, with TMZ, Entertainment Weekly, E!, The Hollywood Reporter, The Los Angeles Times amongst the tabloids that reported on it. This type of info is seen in various other celebrity pages, like Steven Spielberg. I believe in consistency, so we post one's stalker history, we should for all. Remove the name if you'd like, but I feel like the info is useful. Rusted AutoParts 22:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the name. as a blatant violation of BLP policy, to the extent that I'm prepared to rev del or possibly oversight. Since the matter is a crime, we cannot say anything further without an conviction. As he's a private individual, the existence of sources with the name does not over-ride this. Otherwise, since she is not a private individual, the report of the stalking should be included. I've removed the name, and I will consider it a blockable violation of BLP policy to restore it without consensus. If there should be consensus here to restore, I'll discuss this with another oversighter. Local consensus cannot over-ride basic BLP policy. but in that sort of situation I do not want to act alone. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Since the sources give the name, its not really possible to cite the incident without providing links to the name.  Although Google news is active, I don't see any hits on Google books, so maybe this should fall into WP:NOTNEWSPAPER until the sources show enduring interest.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to fall in WP:NOTNEWS and the name of the individual should definitely not be linked. Many celebrities have been stalked previously and we don't include every small detail. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not significant to the subject of the BLP, and per DGG a local RfC cannot override policy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete It can be libellous for the stalker, and, if true, dangerous for the subject of the article. Stalkers tend to be immature emotionally, such that any attention at all can make the situation worse.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It trivia and kind of a WP:DONTFEED situation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all commenters. Based on fairly overwhelming consensus I feel confirmed in my judgement that the stalker section can be deleted, and I will now do that. A number of policies have been referenced, all pointing to the idea that this is not notable information that needs to be in Wikipedia. Regionrat1234 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alyson Hannigan. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal explanation[edit]

Once again for the third time, here is my explanation of my removal:

  • There is no support for Hannigan being "Ashkenazi". None of the sources are that specific. They only say her mother is Jewish. WP:EGRS does not permit us to go outside the sources.
  • The source I removed does not even mention Hannigan. It is irrelevant to this article. I do not know why it was included, but the publisher may have replaced the original with a completely different story. (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: where does the article mention Hannigan? She's not even in it! Nor does it say anything about ANYONE being "Ashkenazi"! Why did you restore it? (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had said that in your edit summary, I probably wouldn't have reverted you. "Irrelevant" just is not very clear. Cymru.lass, you said "unexplained", but the edit you reverted did in fact provide an explanation. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article from October 17, 2003 discusses Jack Black and William Steig. Where does it mention "Alyson Hannigan" or "Ashkenazi"? Please let me know! (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put the URL into the Internet Archive and sure enough an article about Hannigan was replaced at the same URL. Here it says that Hannigan is Jewish "on her mother's side" and there is zero mention of "Ashkenazi", so this source is similarly useless at supporting the category y'all are trying to shove in here. Please provide a WP:RS for the category per WP:EGRS. (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: yes, that was totally my bad; I don't know how I missed the edit summary. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 15:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's OK--thanks for your response, cymru.lass. After reading the IP's comment I wish I had looked over the article history., thank you for commenting on the talk page, and for not a. taking this lying down; b. choosing all-out warfare. I appreciate you, Drmies (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Why did she leave Penn and Teller? (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]