Talk:Kristin Chenoweth

Links

An IP has been attempting to change the orthography, altering the established spelling of internal links to WP articles, which is probably not a good idea. Our article is called Musical theatre and there is no obvious advantage in spelling it otherwise when linking to it, especially as even the most patriotic American must agree that both "theatre" and "theater" are current American spellings, as Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries of American English confirm. If the editor demurs we can discuss the matter here. Tim riley talk 18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. In fact, American theatre professionals (I was one) usually prefer the spelling "theatre". This was, long ago, discussed at length at the Musical theatre article and at the musical theatre project. In addition, the IP's extensive edit warring and failure to use the WP:BRD process is troubling. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at what's going on over the past day's group of edits, it still appears edit warring is definately still going on when I looked at the article editing history. About time this article should be protected if this sort of thing continues. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes

Hi! User talk:Ssilvers said I should come here with suggestions. I think there should be changes to the lead and body of the text so it should have some sense of flow and organization to it.

As a reader who wanted to look at her career the lead looked incredibly overstuffed. I think there's a way to condense it so it's easy to read. I personally think it would make more sense to have a section of theatre, mention her Broadway debut, Tony Award win and nominations, followed by notable Broadway roles. Then a section for her television roles, Emmy win and nomination, and for film roles. Also, it also doesn't make sense to list all 8 of her studio albums here.

As for the body of the article I would definitely suggest having dates to break up her career instead of just labeling "Theater", "Film", and "Television" repeating the sub headings already in her credits section. For me with the text as is, there doesn't seem to be a flow or progression.

Also why is there a separate article linked titled "Kristin Chenoweth credits" and then all the credits are repeated in the Kristin Chenoweth article? I think we should either do away with her credits on this page since it's redundant being in the separate article or at the very least remove the non-Broadway stage performances on this page since it's already listed in the "credits" page.

Here below is a condensed cleaner suggestion of what her lead could look like:

• • Kristin Dawn Chenoweth (/ˈtʃɛnoʊwɛθ/; born Kristi Dawn Chenoweth; July 24, 1968) is an American actress and singer, with credits in musical theatre, film, and television. Chenoweth sang gospel music as a child in Oklahoma and studied opera before deciding to pursue a career in musical theatre. She has earned numerous accolades including a Tony Award and a Primetime Emmy Award.

• • Chenoweth made her Broadway debut in the musical Steel Pier (1997). She won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Musical for her role as Sally Brown in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown (1999). She was Tony-nominated for her roles in as Glinda in the musical Wicked (2004) and Lily Garland in On the Twentieth Century (2015). Her other Broadway roles included in The Apple Tree (2006), and Promises, Promises (2010).

• • She starred in her NBC sitcom Kristin (2001) before portraying Annabeth Schott in NBC's The West Wing (2004–2006) and Olive Snook on the ABC comedy drama Pushing Daisies (2007–2009), the later of which earned her a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series. She also acted in shows such as Glee (2009–2014), Trial & Error (2018) and Schmigadoon! (2021–2023).

• • In films, she has played mostly character roles, such as in Bewitched (2005), The Pink Panther (2006), RV (2006), Four Christmases (2008), and You Again (2010). She has played roles in made-for-TV movies, such as Descendants (2015); and voiced roles in the films Rio 2 (2014) and The Peanuts Movie (2015) and the animated TV series Sit Down, Shut Up and BoJack Horseman. She hosted the 69th Tony Awards with Alan Cumming in 2015. Over her career Chenoweth had released eight studio albums and wrote a memoir, A Little Bit Wicked (2009).

The One I Left (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating this Talk page discussion. Your suggestions are thoughful (and some might ultimately prove useful), but I believe that they are mostly based on your relative inexperience with the encyclopedia. I will try to respond to your suggestions in turn, but please note that I am basically impressed by your presentation, even though I do not agree with the bulk of the specifics. (1) Currently, the Lead is 3 reasonable-length paragraphs, which is not unusual or disproportionate to the length of the article. It is also organized in a typical fashion as follows: Paragraph 1: major achievements. Paragraph 2. Early training and theatre roles. Paragraph 3: Television, film and other major endeavors. So, let's start with the fact that it's not bad. As to your specific suggestions, see below. (2)The proliferation of headings every paragraph or two in some articles is a bane on Wikipedia's existence and are an example of dumbing down the encyclopedia. Our readers can be trusted to read through a heading of a screen or so that contains dates along the way without needing further subheadings. So I disagree with your proposal there. (3) I agree that we might be able to remove the Credits tables, if the text gives adequate discussion to her key credits, and leave those to the sub-article per WP:SUMMARY. We should cross-check the two to be sure that the subarticle is accurate and up to date. However, we most definitely should not remove WP:NOTEWORTHY non-Broadway stage credits from the main article. (4) Now, as to your suggestion for the Lead: (a) You've broken it into 4 stubby paragraphs instead of the 3 substantial ones. This is another example of dumbed-down writing. If you are suggesting adding bullets before each paragraph, please note that Wikipedia discourages bulleted lists, and they certainly do not belong in Lead sections. (b) You start off with the trivia about her name change as an infant. This is barely encyclopedic information, let alone lead-worthy. Also, her early gospel music experience as a child and education are important, but not important enough for a lead paragraph. They should go in the 2nd paragraph. Then you have paragraphs on theatre, one on live-action TV and one on films and other endeavors. You add in her one-off hosting gig at the Tony Awards, which is not particularly important to the career of a major actress. I think it is better as is. I am sure it could be improved, but I don't think these changes, as a whole, are an improvement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my suggestions. I will respond to each point

* (1) Oh I totally agree with the number of paragraphs, I just think they list credits that aren't entirely essential, feel overly wordy and are repetitive at times. Ex. Listed in the first paragraph is GCP and Trial and Error. I wouldn't described these as major first lead worthy credits. Also I think some theatre credits are mentioned multiple times in the lead.

* (2) I strongly disagree re: headings within the body of the paragraph. With an extensive history of stage and screen, it's worth breaking up for the sake of readability. It's silly to have repetitive heading names like "Television" and "Film" in both the "Career" and "Credits" section. Dates are useful especially at a glance.

* (3) If there is already a separate article devoted to her credits, her extensive credits should not be duplicated in the article. This makes sense to me. Especially her minor off-Broadway roles. I'm definitely not suggesting bullet points lmao I just added them here for readability sake.

* (4) Yeah I think you don't need overly wordy and repetitive phrasing. I think what I wrote is a clean easy to read crisp list of essentials that you need to know about the person. I think it's worth noting that she hosted the Tony Awards, as it is now it says "hosted several award shows" (??). This is inaccurate as far as I'm aware. I know she co-hosted the 2015 Tony Awards but Idk what "several award shows" means as it is not specifically cited or referenced.

*These changes as a whole to me, seem like a major improvement. I would sum the lead for Chenoweth as it is now, as being long-winded, repetitive, and inaccurate. [Added by The One I Left]

(1) I would be OK with moving GCB, T&E and Schmigadoon out of the 1st paragraph and into the 3rd. Cheno was the most important character in GCB -- it was her show. She also got a lot of attention in Schmigadoon, and was in the main cast of T&E, so I think they are Leadworthy, but I agree that they need not be in the 1st paragraph. (2) Again, we are going to remove the Credits section, so it will not be repetitive. I reject the "at-a-glance argument. This is an encyclopedia bio. We should not repeat ourselves -- let others weigh in. (3) Again, I said I agree with deleting the Credits section, once we have done what I specified above. I will not repeat myself, but I explained above what approach we should take, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Broadway performances are not the only noteworthy performances for theatre actors. See WP:NOTEWORTHY and try to stop repeating yourself -- let others weigh in. We don't need bullet points here. Per WP:TALK, please keep your Talk page comments concise -- a sprawling Talk page is not helpful. I try to keep mine to one paragraph for conciseness (4) As I already said, I disagree. You didn't read the article carefully enough if you think she only hosted one awards show, as I just stopped counting at 3. I disagree with your other points, and I am pretty sure there is nothing inaccurate in the Lead -- like what? What do other editors think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

(1) Thank you this is exactly what I was suggesting.

(2) Yes agree credits need to be removed since there is a separate credit article

(3) I'm definitely not trying to repeat myself, I'm directly answering the questions you are posing. Also I don't need you to nitpick in how I respond. You definitely are writing these lengthy paragraphs and I'm writing concise bullet point responses. Thank you.

(4) They may be hidden in the article, but you need to be specific in which shows she has hosted. Also are they prominent or notable ceremonies? I definitely don't think you can say she's known for hosting award shows but if you have to include it in lead mention the 2015 Tony Awards only since that is a notable ceremony.

(5) Other editors do chime in please! The One I Left (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Jasonbres and User:Flami72 have been the most active editors of this page after me. Do either of you have any opinions about the proposals either way? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ssilvers asked me to weigh in here. It seems that there is a consensus above to split credits off to a different article once that has been cross-checked, which seems like a reasonable solution. There also seems to be consensus for this change, although please revert if you disagree. I've also removed a little bit of repetition. I don't think it's necessary to specify in the lead which particular award shows she's hosted, particularly if there is a concern about wordiness, and I think a thematic structure for the article as a whole is a valid approach at current length, with the option to revisit if it expands significantly. (I'd also suggest you both focus on discussing the article content rather than each other). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting off credits

Per the previous section's discussion, I have now gone through the theatre credits to make sure that they are mentioned in the text with refs. (I had to add some) and also contained in the sub-article, which they all were. Therefore, I have removed them. I still need to do the Film and TV credits. One problem with what we are doing, however, is that the refs are in Chenoweth's text, but not (mostly) in the credits tables, which someone copied into the sub-article, so the sub article does not have adequate referencing. I would appreciate if User:The One I Left or someone would copy them into the sub-article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Now done with film credits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And now also done with TV credits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Tinker Bell

She just keeps voicing Rosetta in Tinker Bell…but she never stopped until Megan Hilty was hired to take over. 2600:1009:B10A:74BD:5598:F8F1:78D7:1740 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell us. What changes to the article are you proposing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Genetic testing

I thought this edit didn't require a link myself, but I started thinking people might not understand what was going on if they hadn't seen the show Finding Your Roots. I don't think it helped much, after I went to the article. If they want to know more I link to the video and the exact time the pie chart appears, though explanation of what they do is early in the video.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe that English speakers know what "genetic testing" is, so it is not necessary to link it per MOS:OVERLINK. People who "want to know more" about genetic testing are not looking for that on Chenoweth's page. If you disagree and wish to argue the point, raise it on her talk page, not here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If someone has not seen the TV series and does not know what they do on the series, of course the person might want to know how they learned that Chenoweth is 4 percent Native American. I don't know if the genetic testing article explains it. Going to the video that I link to will give some idea of what takes place because each episode starts with explaining what the researchers do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

You can link the series (and we already did so in the ref), but linking "genetic testing" would not add to anyone's understanding at all. BTW, one should not link terms on Wikipedia talk pages the way you just did above. Use a colon before the link to avoid it showing up in What Links Here, like this: genetic testing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I would only agree because the article doesn't explain things. But there needs to be a way for anyone who doesn't understand what is going on.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, no one has ever told me not to link on talk pages.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Read MOS:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because I still think there could be someone who hasn't watched the show and would like to know more.

The article about the show has three links.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen the show and understand the concept of genetic testing. If I want to know more about the subject, I know where to look, but I'm not going to leap to there from here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

But that's the entire point of links.

At this point I don't thank there is a satisfactory explanation anywhere on Wikipedia that can be linked, since there isn't a good way to link the three articles that explain what the show does.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: I added an explanatory note for the notes section. This is where notes can help in contextualizing content. I agree the a link to genetic testing isn't needed per overlinking policy. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought of that possibility. I still disagree on whether this constitutes overlinking but there's not an ideal article to link to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Would a link to Genealogical DNA test be helpful? Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It might, but consensus seems to be that we don't need a link.

Previously, it said "she stated" her belief about her ancestry and that she met her biological mother. I'm not sure what it should say now. It seems like the DNA results should go with her belief, but then how to we describe her meeting her mother? Of course, Finding Your Roots went into great detail about their relationship.`— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think a reasonable compromise is to add a link to Genealogical DNA test in the explanatory note. This prevents over linking in the body section of the article, while simultaneously allowing for navigation for clarity. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

[left] Not necessary, and we don't need to say this three times. We have already linked the show (which article explains what they do). Trimmed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

We came up with a reasonable compromise hat addresses some of the issues. Why do you not want to help people?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't personalise comments - focus on the edits, not the editor please. Suggesting another editor doesn't want to help people is uncivil given we're all volunteers on an encyclopaedia. In terms of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristin_Chenoweth&diff=next&oldid=1341722476 this edit, I would say this is an improvement. We don't need to know in a footnote about a historian in a programme (that's too tangential to be of use here) and much of the information is duplicated. The only real difference between the two is the link, so best to focus on that rather than impugn people's rationales for editing. - SchroCat (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I made my response more civil after thinking about it, but I see your point.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we really think that encouraging readers to click away from Chenoweth's article to read about genetic testing is helpful?  That is classic MOS:OVERLINK.  We should focus the reader on what is important about Kristin Chenoweth. That is how to help the reader. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with the current footnote and the earlier one. Both are acceptable. I don't think having a link to Genealogical DNA test in a footnote buried down below the body of the article is going to lead editors to leave Chenoweth's page before they have read it. The concerns of MOS:OVERLINK are overstated in my opinion. On the other hand it isn't absolutely necessary to have it either which lends strength to Ssilvers point of view to chop it as being extraneous. This seems like such a silly thing to fight over as it is a very minor content issue that essentially boils down to editorial preference. 4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder how to find information online and sometimes Google is no help, and it is helpful to have a link in an article that describes exactly how to find the information. I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone asking, "Who said Kristin Chenoweth is 4 percent Native American? What does that pie chart [if you click on the ref and figure out how to get to the pie chart] even mean?"— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

And I'll just be happy to have one person supporting me even if that person says it's not necessary. I'm giving up on this and hoping me provided enough information.16:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)