Jump to content

Talk:Miranda Sings: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
182 refs!: new section
Line 50: Line 50:
== 182 refs! ==
== 182 refs! ==


This article is out of hand. It's full of adjectives, reads like fan cruft, and is ridiculously long. That this article about a fictional character has 182 refs is ridiculous.
This article is out of hand. It's full of adjectives, reads like fan cruft, and is ridiculously long. This article about a fictional character 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.
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.
[[Special:Contributions/2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97|2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97]] ([[User talk:2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97|talk]]) 22:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97|2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97]] ([[User talk:2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97|talk]]) 22:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:09, 15 March 2017

Infobox, etc.

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. (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]
  • 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]

If needed

(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 Evans article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too long.

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]

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

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

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!

This article is out of hand. It's full of adjectives, reads like fan cruft, and is ridiculously long. This article about a fictional character 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]