Talk:Bernadette Peters/Archive 1

Eternal Youth
Just saw her on Regis and though she is 60, she looked like she was still 34. Quite impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.194.169 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Goodbye Girl
The Goodbye Girl link in this page links to the 1977 movie, not the 1993 Broadway Musical. Peters played Paula in the Musical Yalith 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out Yalith. There are several links that are inaccurate. I will get to work fixing them. MarnetteD | Talk 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Husband's Occupation
Regarding today's edits to the item on the marriage and the death of Michael Wittenberg. In all but one of the articles I can find he is called an "investment adviser", not "investment banker." I really don't know if this matters much, but for the sake of accuracy, and because there are numerous citations for the "adviser" rather the "banker", I'm changing this.

Actually, it makes a WORLD of difference. A banker is the person who actually instigates transactions, an advisor can only "advise" you on the best way to do things, and set it all up for you to be sent to the banker.-65.122.209.139 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources are: Item in the "Times-Picayune" (New Orleans, LA), July 26, 1996, and the "New York Times", (probably many more) announcing their wedding; article in the New York "Daily News", September 28, 2005, reporting on his death; item on playbill.com announcing Mr. Wittenberg's death, Sept. 27, 1995 (http://www.playbill.com/news/article/95366.html); article in "Playbill", March 1999, "Lost in Her Charms"; article in "Vero Beach Magazine", April 2005 (names him "investment couselor"). There is one mention of the "banker"--"Parade Magazine", November 27, 2005, in the "Personality Parade" column. . Well, there are more I could cite if asked. JeanColumbia 19:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Company
Mr. Wittenberg was working for Wachovia at the time of his death; he had worked for Smith Barney previously. References: []; []. JeanColumbia (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" section
A "See also" section is a useful thing but it can be misused. Links that are already in the text of the article do not need to be repeated again in a "See also" section. Two good questions which should also be asked about such links are: If "no" is the answer to either of the questions above for a given article, then that article should probably not appear in the "See also" section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a single-step relationship between the two subjects?  ("Bernadette Peters appeared in Shelly!" is a single-step relationship between Bernadette Peters and Shelly!.  "Bernadette Peters appeared in Shelly!, which was written by James Lipton" is not a single-step relationship between Peters and Lipton.)
 * 2) Could all subjects that share this relationship be incorporated into the See Also section without overwhelming the article?  (A list of all the television shows on which a popular actress has made an appearance would be overwhelming.)


 * Since I added most of the "See also" links, I thought I'd take a stab at following Antaeus Feldspar's advice/directions about proper use. I may have completely misread how and under what circumstances to show "See also" links versus showing a link in the text, but I tried. The muppet link has me stymied, I'll leave that for later.JeanColumbia 13:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits dated May 3, 2007 @ 19:23
The article was edited extensively with what appear to be logical, "good" adding/deleting wiki (blue) links, and other non-substantive "cosmetic" edits.

But then I see that the entire section on her Broadway career is deleted. That does not make sense to me--she is known primarily as a stage performer, why delete all of the work she is known for. I shall not put the section back as I do not wish to get into an edit war or do a revert-revert-etc., and can only hope that someone finds my logic and reasoning sensible and restores the Broadway listing to it's proper --and obvious, to me--place in this article. Should this be an error, my apologies (I suspect -and hope-as much.)JeanColumbia 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Broadway section was deleted only because every production listed already had been cited within the framework of the article, which had become far too long . . . so long, in fact, that the TOC (table of contents) was as lengthy as the infobox, leaving an unsightly white gap running down the page between them. Fortunately Ssilver's edits to the opening eliminated that problem.
 * Had there been shows not mentioned previously within the article, I would have amended the subhead to read "Additional Broadway credits" and listed the missing data. As it stands now, I believe all of Peters' Broadway credits are cited. If I overlooked one, mea culpa. SFTVLGUY2 11:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Goodbye Girl" (1993) Gah! How can we overlook that one? (Thanks for responding-I thought that, if it weren't a simple error, it may have been that)JeanColumbia 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it to the Theatre section. Thanks for pointing out the omission! SFTVLGUY2 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro; Trivia
The introduction should contain an overview of the article per WP:LEAD. I'll do a little bit, but it could be a couple of paragraphs long for an article of this length. Also, the material in the "Other" section should be integrated into the other sections per WP:TRIVIA. -- Ssilvers 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed the title (not meaning to be silly, but that IS one way to get rid of "Trivia")--was able to integrate the Kennedy Center Honors (except for Mary Martin), but can't find a place for the Playboy article. I'm not sure, at this point in her career, it's relevant or important. If this is better, can we remove the "Trivia" tag? JeanColumbia 12:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't notice I removed the trivia tag five hours before you posted this! Re: Playboy, I think it's irrelevant. This article already is one of the most cluttered celebrity bios on Wikipedia. Thanks for cleaning it up as much as you have. SFTVLGUY2 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work moving the trivia/misc stuff. A couple of things: Feel free to take the Playboy reference out again if you like, but I just put it in the place where it at least makes the most chronological sense. Peters has been much photographed, and I am sure there must be references somewhere to her rather unique looks, so there really could be a paragraph somewhere saying something about that and including the Playboy reference, but it's just a thought. Secondly, the article needs a couple more images. I note that old versions of it had some other photos, so if those don't have copyright problems, I suggest they go back in. I really don't like the photo we have currently in the infobox. It is not very flattering and could go down further in the article next to whatever it's from. Lastly, I'm going to combine a few of the shorter paragraphs, which should help reduce the "cluttered" look. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Playboy-considering how many magazines she has been in, and how widely photgraphed she has been (and still is) the reference does seems a bit irrelvant to me. On the other hand, putting it in context--showing the "glam" side of her image, I guess I'd call it, does show a facet that is otherwise missing. Images--I don't care much either for the image in the info box (by the way, it was taken during Broadway Barks in New York's Shubert Alley last July). I'm not good about finding acceptable images, but I'll look around.JeanColumbia 11:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "Personal" and "Misc awards" sections might be combined to reduce clutter and a heading. And, the "See Also" heading could be eliminated by moving the Muppet wiki link to where the emmy nomination is mentioned and by moving (to film? tv?) or deleting the other cross-reference: It would come up in the "what links here" button. -- Ssilvers 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at deleting the rest of the See Also section-the muppet reference fit neatly, I think.JeanColumbia 11:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would very much like to see the "Personal" section remain separate. There is so little about her personal life that whatever the article does have is easily found this way. (I am not suggesting that the article contain more about her personal life.)JeanColumbia 11:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the POV comments included with the Playboy reference. Descriptive phrases such as "peaches and cream complexion" and "pouty lips" do not belong in an encyclopedia article.
 * Am I the only one who finds all the reviews cited within the article to be excessive? I don't recall seeing any other celebrity articles in Wikipedia that quote as many critics as this one does. It definitely reads more like a fan magazine puff piece than it does an encyclopedia article. SFTVLGUY2 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Just to [belatedly] respond--I added those quotes, looking to add legitimate critical voices to what otherwise might be too "gushy" -sorry you didn't like them, perhaps I went overboard. Of course, she does have some nice reviews and a long career, lots of choice bits to cite. I removed some, left the pertinent (to me) quotes. I much prefer a quote from a legitimate critic or writer to an anonymous poster/editor, but I'm new here and am learning!)JeanColumbia 10:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Amercan Idol Gives Back
Peters was advertised as being on this charity event on April 25, 2007. However, she is not listed in the final line -up Ref:[]. And, although this is original research, I watched the show and did not see her. Could be she was in a group and I just did not spot her, or her presence was cut. Further commen/verification would be helpful.JeanColumbia 10:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A note on references for the Carol Burnett Show
I had included references for 2 separate Burnett shows: one was for the Carol Burnett Show which ran from 1967 or so until 1978, and one was for the one episode that Peters appeared in in a later Burnett show, titled "Carol & Company", episode titled "The Jingle Belles", aired Nov. 14 24, 1990. An editor consolidated references and deleted the reference to the 1990 episode--I don't really think it matters, I am just documenting what I did and why I did it. It is always there should someone need it, because if one counts the number of episodes from Peters' appearances in the remaining reference, we come up with 10. The deleted reference gives 11 --there is still one more that I can't document (The twelfth is a 1991 appearance: referenced by "New York Times", December 13, 1991, "The Carol Burnett Show", CBS, 9:00pm-10:00pm, page C 39 ["Thelma & Louise II", "Diner", more]).JeanColumbia 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC) addedJeanColumbia 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was my bad I think. I was doing some other minor clean-ups and didn't notice the immediate difference. Feel free to add the second ref back if you like. —scarecroe 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, it was kind of awkward, anyway, and, if I didn't make it clear that there were separate references for a reason, then my bad. At any rate, I am able to document, if need be, so I think I'll let it be. (Thanks again for the clean-up, it got me looking at the Muppet item and I found the date for Peters' appearance in this article was in error, so...it ends well.)JeanColumbia 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerts
What is the difference between "Major concert appearances" and "other concerts"? They all seem pretty major, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference--well, to a fan, they are all major :) . There really are no differences, I just used the word "major" in the heading to keep editors from including each and every single concert in the list, and turning this into another fan site. 3 differences for me: 1)Radio City Music Hall=5,933 seats; Craterian, Medford, Oregon=732 (size matters) 2)location location location Destin, Fl or Johnstown, Pa vs New York City or London; 3)occasion: major unveiling of a new/significant concert (Carnegie Hall, Radio City) vs another stop in another town (Naperville, Il←no offense).
 * It would be very easy for me to add the venues for the other concerts for the past (oh many) years, but that would strain "notability" at least (or the principal: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information") and probably get me one of those little warning hand-things for bad taste. It would also be very easy for me to add the yearly concert numbers, say 19 (including benefits/private appearances in 2006), or to name every orchestra she has sung with, (from the Boston Pops to the Alabama and Colorado Symphony), or to write that she often appears at University venues (State U of NY @ Stoney Brook, UConn, U of Texas, etc)
 * She has had a major concert career for years, but this has been her major work activity since leaving Gypsy. Sorry to be so long winded, a subject I seem to know something about! JeanColumbia (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand me. I am talking about the three concerts that you list under the subheading "other concerts": My question is: Why are these listed separatedly from the "Major concert appearances"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sondheim: A Celebration At Carnegie Hall (broadcast on PBS Great Performances in 1993) — June 10, 1992
 * Hey Mr. Producer! The Musical World of Cameron MacKintosh — June 7, 1998
 * Hollywood Bowl Sondheim Concert — July 8, 2005
 * OH! They are listed separately because they are not the completely one-woman concerts listed in the other section. Each of the concerts you asked about and that are listed separately under "Other concerts" were concerts where Peters was one of a number of performers, and sang only a few songs. In other words, the concert itself may have been major (definitely) but Peters' participation was as one of many. (I don't mean in any way to disparage Peters' participation in any of these "Other" concerts nor to suggest in any way that her particpation was not...stellar.) ("Sondheim: A Celebration At Carnegie Hall" = 2 songs; "Hey Mr. Producer!" 4 songs + the finale); "Hollywood Bowl Sondheim Concert" 2 (?) songs + a brief appearance with others.) JeanColumbia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried to clarify the headings. See what you think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, sorry for the confusion :).JeanColumbia (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article advancement
Why don't you nominate this for GA? Even if it doesn't get advanced, it will get a bunch of useful comments by the GA reviewer. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. I've been perhaps too close to this article, I'd like to take a step back and look at it with fresh eyes. (But, I must admit that I have no head or patience for minutae so I may not be the best one to make any requested changes. And, I will be taking an almost month-long wiki-break in June.) I also think the chronology of 1 or more of the lists is backwards, I'll have to check. Anyone else interested in doing the nominating? JeanColumbia (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to be involved with the nomination, because you need to be available to respond to the comments when the GA reviewer makes/his her comments, which is usually a list of 10-20 or so comments. The GA review usually happens 3-4 weeks after the nomination, so I suggest that you nominate it either now or just before you go away, and be prepared to respond to the comments when you return. Clearly, you are the editor with the most interest in and knowledge about this subject, and so it'll be up to you as to whether or not the comments are addressed. I would be happy to put up the nomination for you at your convenience (It's pretty simple, really), but I will be helpless when the comments come back). Questions?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I jumped the gun: I reformatted all the refs, and as I did so, I realized that the article needs a lot more citations - at least one in every paragraph if it is to go to the GA level.  Also, some of the refs are missing either the author's name, the article's title or the publisher's name.  So, it is up to you whether or not you want to push for article advancement at this time.  The article is so nicely organized and written, though, that the referencing is the main obstacle.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good progress! There are now only nine paragraphs that have no ref at the end of the paragraph. If you have a listing of all of Peters' stage credits, that ref can be used at the end of all the theatre paragraphs; a listing of all her TV and film appearances would do for the ref at the end of the TV and film articles. Then, you would need a ref for the concerts. So, I think you probably have all these refs; they just need to be put at the end of the paragraphs so that readers can see where the credits described in the paragraph come from. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added new cites from MusicianGuide.com (actually that article has more information that you may find useful) that filled in several gaps in the citations. I also added tags to a few places that still need citations.  Finally, I moved the film section, which deals mostly with the 1970s, above the theatre section, which starts with 1982, to help the beginning of the article flow a little more chronologically, even though the later sections backtrack to earlier work.  The film section is short enough that I don't think it stops the reader from getting to the key theatre section, but if you disagree, feel free to switch them back.  We are making progress.  Of course, one could expand the article quite a bit, and there are scads of reviews that could be quoted, but I think the once some good cites are added where the cite needed tags are, that the article will be ready for GA nomination, if that is what you'd like to do.  The other alternative would be to request a peer review and see what other readers think ought to be done to improve the article.  Take a look at Elaine Paige, which recently was named a Featured Article.  The history there will give you an idea of the article's path and what sort of comments it got.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added references where requested. I won't be available to respond to the GA review, so I will not be requesting GA nomination. Nor do I wish to request peer review. Up to anyone else, of course, to do as they wish with the article. So long as the article is factual and up-to-date I am satisfied. JeanColumbia (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick note on the ref format: The refs are all in this order: Last, First. [web URL "Title of Article",] Publisher, date, p. no. Then, if it is a web cite, say "accessed...." Accessed, means that you accessed the internet. Are there any refs for this article that are available on the internet but are missing the URL? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article keeps getting better and better. Nice work, Jean!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you add any more detail to footnote 52? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a bit, but not really very much is there. Another source for the fact that she has the star is here: . I didn't use this ref. because it doesn't show the date that she received the star.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, looks good, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New photos by Shankbone
Hey guys - I uploaded three photos of Peters (I have more, but time constraints). I put up the one I liked best, but if regular editors like another photo better, feel free to put it up: Commons:Category:Bernadette Peters. Happy editing! -- David  Shankbone  14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Succession boxes
Emerson removed the succession boxes. I'm not a big fan of succession boxes, but is this standard practice now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also am not an advocate/fan of succession boxes; it looks like Emerson7 replaced that with the "TonyAward MusicalLeadActress 1976-2000". Looks like he or she also has done a similar replacement (or just deleted the succession box) in a few other articles (Heather Headley, Natasha Richardson, Gertrude Lawrence for 3). I have no opinion on this, but, as a general statement, when an editor makes a significant change, it's always a courteous gesture to note same on the talk page.JeanColumbia (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GA nom
I nominated this article for a GA review. Usually, a reviewer comes by after a few weeks and leaves an assessment showing what, if anything, he or she thinks needs to be done to get the article up to GA level, and often also leaves other helpful comments. Then the editors of the article can respond and try to satisfy the comments. Often, after a few days, the article passes GA if the article's editors respond to the comments. I anticipate that this article will be able to pass GA without too much difficulty. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image
(This is a comment that I previously made on Ssilvers' talk page in response to a question on my talk page about the new addition to the article made by David Shankbone. I've been asked to copy my reply/suggestion here, but I can't say I'm heavily invested in the matter one way or another. :))

As for Peters, I agree with you -- David's pic is (unfortunately) not flattering in the least. .... I personally don't believe that the newest photo always has to be in the infobox/lead, although other editors apparently do. IMO, that's where the best quality pic should be, to better highlight the article and draw readers in. There are no guidelines on this sort of thing, however, so I think it should be up to the primary contributors to make this decision. Perhaps the newer photo, although it's unflattering, can be moved elsewhere? It could replace one of the Broadway Barks pics, for example. María ( habla con migo ) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can try to upload another photo you consider more flattering, but I don't see why you think that's the case. The previous photo is very low quality.  First, it is highly overblown to a degree her face is whited out; Second, it is oversatured so that everything is over-oranged (I've seen her in person just a few days ago, and she doesn't look like that); third, the resolution is very poor, it's a low size both in KB and dimension, and when clicked on, is not crisp.  I don't see why that photo would be considered superior to the recent one? -- >David  Shankbone  20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DS, your photos are generally excellent, but Peters looks very pretty in the 2008 photo (whatever you think of the photo quality), and she looks haggard in the other two. The first image much better illustrates her famous "peaches 'n cream" appearance, IMO. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Just to be clear, I'm in no way invested in this matter, so my opinion is just what it is: my opinion. Ssilvers and I apparently agree that the image you recently added to the infobox leaves a lot to be desired.  When I first saw it, I literally said aloud to myself "ew".  Although I don't doubt that it's of a high, professional quality, the middle image simply makes Peters look attractive: frizzy hair, pinched face, circles under her eyes... it may be true to life, but I'd rather see Peters look her best in the lead.  First impressions, etc., etc. :)  There are other photos available that are more flattering than your recent shot, so what I suggest is that this one be moved to a later spot, and another put in the infobox.  Again, this is all just my opinion, which I was asked to share by one of the main contributors (perhaps because I reviewed and passed this article for GA).  BTW, between the two you took, I much prefer the third photo from 2008.  María ( habla  con migo ) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @ssilvers - the only reason she appears better in the first photo is because you can't actually see her skin; you're seeing a flash bounce of her porcelain complexion that bleaches out all of her features, and is a little Ronald McDonald-ish. @both - I will see what other shots I have to see if there are any more suitable.  @maria - I agree, the 2008 Tribeca is probably the best of the three.  I was surprised when it was taken off (completely) and the over-blown and over-saturated one was used in its place (although I think if the 2008 Tribeca was cropped it would be better).  I don't take any of this personally, by the way.  It's just the first shot is poor by almost any measure of photography. -- >David  Shankbone  23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. I think, however, that if you showed the first photo to people who are not photographers (that is, the vast majority of our readers), they would almost all like it and think that BP looks nice.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for all of our readers, but I think the same could be said for the 2008 Tribeca shot. -- >David  Shankbone  23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Image alternatives Part II
Do any of these pass muster:

I would vote no. Jean? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadway Barks
Can we say more about Peters' ongoing involvement with Broadway Barks itself? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, just copy or paraphrase what is already in the Broadway Barks article. I have no idea how much time she and Mary TM spend on the event, I do not know what ongoing activities the ladies are involved with with respect to BB, nor can I think of anything else to say about it.JeanColumbia (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Add: Oh wait, I suppose we could say that Bernadette has done a lot of readings/signings (and yes, she sang too) for the first book, and is probably going to do the same with the new one. JeanColumbia (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that book signings/readings/singings/ are notable. But I'd like to say, if it's true, that Peters attends B'way Barks annually and, if she does any other work for it, describe that.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, she doesn't exactly just "attend", she is the hostess with MTM, she starts out the event, greets the crowd, talks about the goals of the charity, and she and MTM introduce the celebrities who then introduce the animals. She is always on the stage (at least since maybe the July 2002 BB) and completely interacts with the presenters and, of course, the animals. She also announces the special give-aways, the auctions, and if there are any special things happening (like a big donation from some group) she is there to accept.

I'm not sure what it is you want here, she does various promotions for the event, like appearing on Regis & Kelly, or one of the morning talk shows. I do not know what else she does for BB that might be useful or encyclopedic. (Already mentioned the Nov. 2009 concert.)JeanColumbia (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's what I was looking for: Do you have a source that says that she and MTM host the event each year?  Sure, we should also say that she promotes it on talk shows, and that she has given concerts to benefit it.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's 1 reference that says they co-hosted for all of the BBs. I believe we already have the Nov 2009 concert, will just repeat it here. I will add the talk show stuff, should be able to get that ref easily. But, not all right now, but will do at various points this evening. (Wikibreak is approaching!).JeanColumbia (talk)
 * Wikibreak, schmickibreak. Muahahahahahahaha!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chart of stage roles
I don't think this chart is complete, so I restored the word "selected". Let me know if I'm wrong. See: http://www.bernadette-peters.com/cgi-bin/timeline.pl?cat=4&search= -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)