Talk:Miranda Sings/Archive 1

2009 comment[edit]

I noticed the external link to mirandasings.com; however, I am wondering if it should be noted this is an unofficial site (i.e., having no association with Miranda), as the site itself makes no such statement and, as a result, we could be furthering that assumption by linking to the site from a more prominent site such as this. I have added an external link myself to the site labeling it "unofficial," but wonder if that should be noted in the references as well? What do you all think? Tcamic (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if It's unofficial then you should be fine. I'm a Writer and you know it! :) (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mirandasings.com is the official website now, and it is labelled so in the ELs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an Internet meme[edit]

Even though Miranda has been frequently parodied, unlike a true meme, the character is controlled by its creator, Colleen Ballinger. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a Meme: a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc. that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users. She is only missing the slight variations part, but that is an often, so I think she could be considered a meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.148.246 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A true meme must be able to "self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures." Miranda can be copied and spread, but her development and image is controlled solely by Ballinger, rather than by the copiers. So it is not a true meme. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

When visiting this article a few days ago, I noticed a mind-boggling 24 external links! With categories! Since WP:EL states "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum", it seemed like this article's External Links section needed to be looked at. I've pared this down to an official link to her website and a link to her YouTube channel. Those familiar with her YouTube channel will note that most of the removed YouTube external links were also listed in that site's Playlists/Uploads.

Pertinent Wikipedia:External links sections:[edit]

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
This guideline does not apply to citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.
WP:ELPOINTS
3. Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
4. In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site.
WP:ELNO
10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.

If you feel that you have an external link that should be added that isn't yet another YouTube link already available via her playlists/uploads, isn't already cited and not in the WP:ELNO list, Be Bold and add it. However, you may need to justify why that link should be listed as per WP:EL. Stesmo (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Stesmo[edit]

First of all, stop deleting links until you have formed a consensus to do so. You clearly know that other editors oppose your deleting the remaining six links at issue. Your failure to use the WP:BRD process, and your edit warring about them is disruptive. As more than one editor has written in edit summaries, we find the remaining links essential. Here are my thoughts on this.

There are only 8 remaining links, which is not unusual. All are accurate, helpful for an understanding of this performer, support article content and on topic. I understand that you are a relatively recent editor, and, like some of those, you are fixated on the EL guidelines, but you should try to be practical. In your deletion of the links, you made no effort to move key information up into the article, you just deleted valuable information. Nearly all of the links pointed to important information that I have now moved up into the article. The EL guidelines do not say to be destructive. They specifically suggest that editors consider whether the information that the links point to may be helpful if used in the article.
I believe that the links have now been kept to a minimum. As you say, there were 24, and now there are only 8. A very substantial reduction. I believe that you have too narrow an nterpretation of "mimimum". The EL guidelines say: "minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". They also specifically contemplate that media can be linked: "media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work" and "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail (such as ... interview transcripts...), or other reasons." Also: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites".

Here is an analysis of the *six* links that you still wish to delete:

First London interview of Miranda by Mark Evans. 2009

This article is about a very quirky comedy character. In order to understand the character's "personality", we have included this link to an independently-produced video of one of the character's key early media interviews that demonstrate her character traits, as well as that giving information about the character's backstory that is too detailed to include in the article.

Miranda interviews Jennette McCurdy. 2012

Here, the character "interviews" a notable actress. Again, it demonstrates facets of the character. If editors agree, however, mention of this could be moved up into the body of the article, but I believe that it is more efficient to include it as an EL.

Here is a discussion of each link that you wish to delete:

Miranda giving vocal coaching to the Broadway cast of Rock of Ages. 2009

This is an independently-produced video of the character's interactions with an actual Broadway cast. It cannot be adequately described and must be seen. The character has interacted with several Broadway and West End casts, and this is probably the best video example.

Miranda on an episode of Dr. Fubalous at 6:33. 2012

This is an independently-produced video of the character's appearance in a 2012 web series starring several notable actors.

Miranda with Peter Hollens. 2013

This video is a good example of the character in a music video collaboration with a notable singer.

"How to Get a Boyfriend: The Musical". 2013

This is an independently-produced music video of the character in a collaborative music video that exemplifies the character and has received 3.5 million views.

So, only two of the examples are from the subject's YouTube channel, and all are of interest to readers who wish to understand the character. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the links provided are essential for readers to have an understanding of what the character Miranda Sings is all about and they should be left as is. They are doing no harm by being in the article and may actually do some good. Jack1956 (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ssilvers[edit]

As a Wikipedia elder, if you believe you are discussing something with someone you believe to be new, please don't bite and Assume Good Faith. Specifically to your accusations of Edit Warring, this seems odd as I have edited the page 4 times in 3 days and not in or even near a 24 hours period. To the accusation of disruptive editing, I'm sure that reducing an article's External Links from 8 to 2 links (that point to the official page and the YouTube page (which contains some of the external links removed)) strains the definition.

While accusing me of violating an essay WP:BRD while making edits citing a guideline WP:EL, you've also reverted my latest edit without first coming to this page to have a conversation and waiting for consensus. This does not seem very WP:BRD and I am asking you to revert your own edit until a consensus has been reached. I am positive it won't take long. As you will see below, we already agree on some things!

I believe you and I have reached consensus on one point: This article (with 24 ELs) before I edited it on October 3rd had way too many external links. We are already on our way to consensus on this issue!

I also do not claim the YouTube links were pointing to anything illegal or inaccurate. Nor do I claim there is a blanket ban on YouTube. That would be silly, as 50% of the External Links (OK... 1 of 2) in my edit were to YouTube. Additional Progress!

The Videos:

The Mark Evans video is also not linked in any of the mirandasings08 playlists, correct? Your description definitely makes this sound as if this should be in the External Links and I can see how this would be Great. It sounds like this should not have been removed.
Jennette McCurdy interview: This is already linked in the Collabs Playlist, correct? If so, this would seem to be covered by the link to mirandasings08's YouTube channel.
Rock of Ages: Personally, I'm not sure why this video makes your top 6, but your reasons sound all reasonable and stuff.
Dr. Fubalous: This seems like the least useful link, as she is but one of many characters. Her participation in this video is already mentioned in the body of the article. This seems least likely to be a great fit for EL, in my opinion.
One Direction: This is already linked in the mirandasings08 playlists (Collabs?).This would seem to be covered by the link to mirandasings08's YouTube channel.
How to get a Boyfriend: This is already linked in mirandasings08's Liked videos playlist. This would seem to be covered by the link to mirandasings08's YouTube channel.

Basically, I absolutely see now why you'd like EL to have some of the links above. Some of the links are already linked to on mirandasings08's channel and should not be in the External Links list. And, her channel and parts of her channel are used as sources and are already in External Links. I can't imagine readers not having an understanding of this character after reading this article, visiting the 112 refs and her YouTube channel even with only 3-4 external links. Thanks for discussing this on the Talk page! Stesmo (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are still objecting to the following four links. I believe that in an article specifically about a YouTube personality, we must give some examples of her key Youtube videos, using our WP:editorial discretion to choose important examples that will help the viewer to understand the subject. There are more than 350 videos on the Miranda Sings channel, and probably another 100 videos of Miranda collaborations on other channels, so choosing just a few examples is not only permitted but, in my view, required. I think you are simply wrong that the EL guidelines should be interpreted to prevent us linking to a few examples, since these are the core of what made this subject notable in the first place. Also, because they are visual media, they are difficult to describe in words, and since they are central to the subject, they need to be shown visually. With respect to the four left on the table:

Jennette McCurdy interview: As I said above, this one is, I think, the least essential, so in the interests of compromise, I have moved the McCurdy interview up into the text.
Dr. Fubalous: This is an episode of an independently produced web series in which the character actually plays a role in the larger comedy and demonstrates that the character has not simply posted a series of comedy videos, but is actually being taken seriously by professional producers of internet content who are writing content specifically for the character. So I think it explains something about the character that can only be properly explained by showing it.
Peter Hollens (One Direction): This is now the only video from the Miranda Sings channel included in the ELs, although it was a multi-camera shoot by a professional crew. I think it is a good example showing Miranda collaborating with a serious music artist and exemplifies how mainstream artists are taking the character seriously and find it worthwhile to make video with the character, even though the joke is that the character is a horrible singer and an unsatisfactory romantic partner. There are quite a few Miranda videos along these lines, and I have selected this one to be the quintessence of that idea. Even though I have tried to explain this part of the comedy of the character in the text above, I think readers need to see this visual example, and not simply be asked to search around in the videos on the channel
How to get a Boyfriend: This is not one of the Miranda Sings videos, so it is not covered by the link her YouTube channel. It is, again, an independently-produced video, and it is a very good example of a large body of work of this artist, plus it is one of the most popular ones, with about 3.5 million views to date.

To conclude: Now there are only 7 ELs left, which do not clutter the article and are of interest to readers of the article. These are, in my opinion, exactly what the EL guidelines require: the "minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". Therefore, I hope you are now satisfied. As for your statements above, you are not a newbie, and I did, in fact, assume good faith the first couple of times you deleted the links, even after I started to work to reduce the number of them. After that, I think it was required that you stop deleting and go to the talk page instead of continuing to delete. I also think it was wrong of you to simply delete without making any effort to analyze the information to see what should be moved into the text of the article, as the EL guidelines suggest. If you disagree with this, I am sorry, but I think your process is bad for the Wikipedia project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with seeing the External Links pared down by 17 unnecessary links. I'm glad we've been able to reach some consensus on most of the items. Stesmo (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]