Talk:Miranda Sings

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

Infobox, etc.[edit]

I have reverted the edits. Three kinds of edits were made: Infobox, images and external links. First, this article does not need an infobox. The infobox is redundant and emphasizes unimportant information. See WP:DISINFOBOX. Second, the image added in the Lead is not as good as the one that I have restored and is essentially the same. Finally, we just had a discussion about ELs above. If you want to discuss them further, discuss them here. Do not simply delete them. My opinion is that there are not too many, and that all the ones that are there are of interest to our readers. Per WP:BRD, please discuss here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for letting me know, and sorry for my previous edits. HĐ (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind response. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the dreaded infobox has reared its head again. I thought it had been agreed previously that we would not put one on this article as they are unnecessary and redundant. Jack1956 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have blinked and missed this latest info-box. It was, now I look at the affected revision, completely pointless clutter for an article like this. (IBs are useful in the right place, of course, but this isn't it.) I cordially support its rapid removal. Tim riley talk 15:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this: it's a rather pointless addition, and I think we have, again, a consensus not to include. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey why do some people edit this like daily? It's a bit obsessive. I notice that a few people on this wiki are a bit possessing and delete edits that they disagree with, even if the edits make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.233.169 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also Oppose an infobox in this article, as it would not add anything helpful. UWS Guy (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Miranda Sings
"Miranda Sings" at VidCon 2014
Personal information
Nationality United States
WebsiteMiranda Sings
YouTube information
Also known asColleen Ballinger
Years active2008–present
GenreComedy
Subscribers9.3 million
(August 1, 2018)
Total views1.7 billion
(August 1, 2018)
100,000 subscribers
1,000,000 subscribers2015
  • Wouldn't an infobox be helpful? E.g. the YouTube personality infobox, this would give the reader a summary of her YouTube channel and all the practical information. It's a nice overview because all the YouTubers have it. I don't get it why she can't. Also, people these days actually like an infobox so they don't have to read the whole article. Here's an example. Kind regards, SeppeV (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Lead section gives a much better summary of the important information about the character and YouTube channel. In fact, I doubt that the character is a "YouTube personality", since it is a character, not a real person. You are entirely wrong that "all" the YouTubers have an infobox. Also, much of the information in your proposed infobox is just wrong. The character is not "also known" as Colleen Ballinger. Instead, Ballinger is the actress who plays the character. Why is the nationality of the character important? Why are "play buttons" important? Also the assertion about play buttons is unreferenced. The proposed infobox is not helpful at all, and in fact it is highly misleading. Moreover, we *want* people to read the article, not just read the infobox. This is one of the best reasons not to have an infobox. Please read the discussion above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. SeppeV (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If needed[edit]

HĐ (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first of these is already referenced in the article. The second is used in the Colleen Ballinger article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too long.[edit]

This article has 170 references. This is ridiculous. Yes, I know who Miranda sings is, I am a fan, but this article is way too long and repeats the same info over and over. The wording or descriptions need to stop as well. For example I see tons of adjectives like endearing, etc. there is also a use of ellipses, which doesn't read well at all. This article should be cut in half. Does this article really need a review from every entertainment website for every single performance? 76.123.200.158 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally considered a good thing to reference content thoroughly. Per WP:LEAD, material in the lead section is expanded upon in the body of the article below, but I don't believe that any information is repeated "over and over". Can you be more specific? Several reviewers, including The New York Times, called the Miranda character "endearing", even though the character is designed to be comically unpleasant in many ways, so the description is, IMO, very helpful. Ellipses are used to condense direct quotes, per our guidelines. See WP:ELLIPSES. Please specify if there is any information in the article that you do not think is helpful to our readers. Finally, Evans has given hundreds of performances as Miranda. We do not attempt to include a review of every performance; indeed, we do not even give a list of performances. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with you 76.123.200.158, this article is just packed with unnecessary information. It's filled with too many quotes from so many different entertainment websites. It's just a generally messy article. And hey, fellow Mirfanda/Cookie! KHBritish (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to start removing some things from the article. It's way too long, it now has 182 refs! I don't feel that Wikipedia has to list every aingle thing that the Miranda character has done. Does anyone want to help me trim down this article? per policy: WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evans name change back to Ballinger[edit]

Although Ballinger married Joshua David Evans in 2015 and briefly used Evans professionally, she has returned to using Colleen Ballinger as her professional name, as reported today in Variety. She also changed her social media accounts back to Ballinger. See this (at the top), this and this. I have asked an admin to move her article back to Colleen Ballinger. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring over the serial comma[edit]

An editor is edit warring over the use of the serial comma in this article. The article's editors have, to date, consistently chosen not to use the serial comma, and, per MOS:SERIAL, the article omits it consistently. There is no consensus to add it. It clutters up sentences. Please stop WP:Edit warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the serial comma should be omitted in this article. I agree that it generally clutters up sentences with embedded lists. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the serial comma is unnecessary in articles and clutters up sentences. Jack1956 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

182 refs![edit]

This article is out of hand. It's full of adjectives, reads like fan cruft, and is ridiculously long. An article about a fictional character that has 182 refs is ridiculous. Does anyone want to help me remove the adjectives, fluff and trim down this article? Per policy: WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Miranda Sings. 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) 04:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Biography?[edit]

Now that Miranda has 2 seasons worth of background story in Haters Back Off, should there be a character box along with a fictional biography for her? I think that will be great to treat that section as a television character section. 192.5.215.225 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Miranda is still primarily an internet character and a touring act (also the subject of a best-selling book). The Netflix show is less popular than the YouTube videos and is still a comparatively minor incarnation of the character; also, some of the backstory in the Netflix show is not really consistent with the videos. In addition, there is little independent discussion of the "biographical" backstory of the character in independent secondary sources, other than the names and general characteristics of the family members. I think it is better to describe the highlights of the "biographical" backstory in the narrative section devoted to the Netflix show, as we do, and leave the details of the Netflix plot to the Haters Back Off article itself. This is consistent with how a similar situation is handled in, for example Pee-wee Herman. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Miranda Sings. 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. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Miranda Sings. 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. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019[edit]

I suggest that you change the part where it says she dances badly. I myself watch her videos, and i know she dances bad but that is an opinion. I bielieve that there should not be an opinion in an article about someone because that is your opinion and somebody else might disagree. So other than that I think this is a very informational article. Emma's Heart (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the comedy of the Miranda Sings character involves purposefully bad dancing, so it is essential to describe that in order to understand the character. Also, this is not an article about "someone", it is an article about a comic character. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Dancing badly is part of her character. That she dances badly is not an opinion, but a literary character analysis. Either way, there are plenty of sources in the article supporting this.  DiscantX 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone possibly add a protection or semi-protection to this page?[edit]

After a long observation I always notice this page is being vandalized and people add things without citations. Maybe a protection could prevent future vandalism? KimmyChan13 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing[edit]

In reference to the changes made by Ssilvers, this article has serious problems with puffery and descriptions provided in wiki voice that are just repetition of reviews. XeCyranium (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is in need of serious pruning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Us Weekly called the segment 'the most hilarious game night ever'.Entertainment Weekly called it 'a riveting game', and People magazine wrote: 'It's the most wonderful trainwrecked game of Pictionary you'll see this holiday season'." This specifically is such unwarranted pointless trivial praise that it reads like paid promotion more than anything encyclopedic. We might as well include the TV Guide description of the episode and any Twitter reaction gifs made from it. XeCyranium (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should give the media reactions to her appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. This is what these major outlets' reviewers said. This is not TV Guide, it is Us Weekly, EW and People. Also, as I said in an edit summary, "Genesis of the character" is the appropriate heading for the description of the beginnings of the character, and describing the character as "endearing" is exactly what at least three reviewers said specifically in describing the character, including The New York Times. It is not editorializing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must attribute subjective qualities like "endearing". The character is not endearing, whatever outlet has simply described them as such. XeCyranium (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the character is endearing. Have you watched all of the videos? We describe characters on Wikipedia based on how the reviews have described them, and in this case there is clearly a critical consensus for this description. Let's focus on things we can agree on: lets start with the sentence in the article that you think is least justified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy in that case. Subjective qualities like whether a character is cool, funny, bad, good, cute, endearing or anything similar cannot be described in wikivoice. As a side note, you should never add information to articles based upon your impressions from having "watched all" the videos of a certain entertainer. Given multiple editors have removed this content and you are the sole supporter, please start an RFC before restoring it. XeCyranium (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with XeCyranium and Hemiauchenia. The tone of the article as it stands feels promotional Gbgg89 (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific about what language you identify as promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where to start - 200 references for a fictional character of relatively low notability is questionable to begin with. This article is not concise. Furthermore almost every quote and portrayal of the character’s reception in the article as it stands is purely positive. Try to take a step back and read this article with fresh eyes and you may see why myself and others have this perspective Gbgg89 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with one example of something that you think should not be in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources used in this article such as BroadwayWorld Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_398#Concern_regarding_Broadway_World and WeTheUnicorns are low quality sources that should be removed and replaced. There also seems to be some WP:OR, like the statement Since 2013, Miranda has frequently collaborated on videos that other YouTubers display on their channels, often accumulating millions of views, which is directly cited to the youtube collaborations themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments made by Ssilvers above: the quotes in question are from major outlets and should be left in the article. Jack1956 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hemiauchenia about the phrase "often accumulating millions of views" -- it's trivial, and I have removed it. As for the fact that many of her videos were collaborations with other prominent YouTubers that are posted on their channels (rather than the Miranda channel), we can cite the primary sources to show this, and they are backed up by the People article cited in the next sentence. I also removed the word "frequently", as that could be considered OR. BroadwayWorld can be cited for non-contentious facts, though if you can replace any of them with higher-quality sources, please do. If you can replace the unicorns one with a better source for this fact, please do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree with the "editorialising" claim: providing a range of reviews from reliable sources is what I would expect from an article like this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Character description[edit]

Rather than continuing edit warring, please leave the WP:STATUS QUO in place and discuss, per WP:BRD - preferably without the needless insults of "ownership"? I'm seeing WP:STEWARDSHIP of the article at the moment, so maybe we just focus on the wording of the article, without letting it get personal? - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the character actually universally described as endearing by critics? I can find sources that descibe the character as polarizing [1] or equivalents to that effect [2] [3]. Part of the whole character's shtick is that there are viewers who aren't aware that it's a fictional character who send her hate mail, which Sings later reads aloud. Endearing is also different from the other descriptives given to her as it isn't really a personality trait per se. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In many of the videos, and especially in the Netflix show Haters Back Off, Miranda gets into an awkward situation and something disappointing or publicly embarrassing or romantically crushing happens to her, and she shows a lot of pathos. In many of the videos, you think that Miranda will do something annoying, but she surprises the audience by doing something sweet or supportive or spares someone's feelings. In many of the videos she is vulnerable or begrudgingly kind somehow. That's why she is annoying *yet* endearing. If you read what all these critics say and put it together, you will see that the character presents various aspects of her persona depending on the situation. In the Netflix show she is particularly emotionally vulnerable at times. Early in 2009 (and before), no one knew if Miranda was a real person or not. People compared her to Florence Foster Jenkins. It was many months before it was widely known that she was a character. Ballinger has said in many interviews that, while she was still forming and finalizing the character, she would read the hate mail and negative comments on YouTube, and would then emphasize whatever people criticized as weird or annoying about her. Her early fans were mostly from the musical theatre community, and she would often perform in NYC with Broadway stars, whole Broadway casts, or popular singers like Ariana Grande, who she pretended to give a voice lesson to and criticized sharply. Even then, the character displayed a kind of insecurity that one might have found endearing in a way. Around 2013, when her audience was blowing up, she began to add more endearing qualities to the character to round it out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your evaluation of the character is your own, you shouldn't be including your personal beliefs about the character or its development in the article. XeCyranium (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is a better way to sum up in the lead what you've written here other than saying that the charater is endearing? I think "evokes pathos/pity" would be better summary than endearing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it concerning that you have stated on the separate Colleen Ballinger article's talk page that you've been editing her articles since the late 2000s, and yet seem to simultaneously be a fan of her unable to separate your personal opinions from your writing. 136.32.120.214 (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just seeing this section now, but I have to ask how a personal evaluation subject to never being universal can possibly qualify as being stated, unattributed even vaguely, in wikivoice as factual? XeCyranium (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two sentences together, the descriptions in the previous sentence cover narcissistic (egotistical) and eccentric (quirky). I've removed "endearing", since it appears that there is a WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs something on the infamous "hi." video.[edit]

It's been featured in a wide variety of sources, such as "Colleen Ballinger: YouTube star writes song to respond to accusing fans" on the BBC, and people were mocking it on Youtube for quite some time due to it being an "apology video" that was actually a song that accused her grooming allegations of being "toxic gossip", despite the fact that there was proof at the time. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is in the Colleen Ballinger article rather than this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miranda_Sings&oldid=1209088695"