Talk:Vivienne Medrano

Untitled

 * User:Historyday01 - Please see these comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer Comments
I have taken another look at this draft, and am commenting: Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. The draft has still been reference-bombed with low-quality sources.  40 is still too many sources.
 * 2. However, the draft speaks for itself in describing the subject as the creator of multiple web series that have their own articles, and this is a case where some of the sources must be good quality.
 * 3. I would check with the previous declining reviewer, but the previous reviewer has been banned.
 * 4. The author is advised that the next time that they have a similar situation, they should either make a brief explanation in AFC comments or on the draft talk page of why the topic is notable, or ask to discuss with the reviewer, rather than just removing content and complaining.
 * 5. The author may discuss restoring the removed content on the article talk page.
 * I think the number of references is appropriate and I don't believe that any are low-quality sources, from what I can tell. I am glad to hear you feel it is notable, but I doubt the other content which I removed will be returning at this time and place. I still have it on a talk page somewhere, and I hope that other editors add them in in the future and will contact said editors accordingly. Since I have been informed, as another editor told me recently, that I don't have to go through the draft process, I most likely will not do so and will just create the page then and there. In terms of "removing content and complaining" I was just annoyed because of how long this process has taken. So that's my perspective on it.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be called "Vivienne Medrano" or "Vivziepop"?
She is almost always called "Vivziepop", so I propose that this article should be retitled. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NICKNAME, the title should be the name most often used to reference a subject. I'd say that it's a bit over half that refer to her as Vivziepop, but I wouldn't say the ratio is enough to justify a rename. SWinxy (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that as long as "VivziePop" redirects to this article, a retitle isn't needed. Blubewwy (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, calling it Vivziepop would be too confusing. Vivienne Medrano is MORE common that Vivziepop among reliable sources. Historyday01 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more useful would be to create a redirect from Vivziepop to this page. I would disagree with "A bit over half". I doubt it would be less than 90%, at least on social media. To the world, she's VivziePop. I suspect that would be how most would be searching for her. Its her brand. I am not however familiar with the process of creating a redirect. 103.94.51.49 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Any good sources for Viv being an animator for Dawgtown?
I was just looking on Viv's IMDB page today and it stated she was listed as an animator for Dawgtown. Or it is just junk on IMDB? Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Removals on Vivienne Medrano page
I understand @User:Ganesha811, that your edit is in good faith, but your removal of many reliable sources in your recent edit (School of Visual Arts, Screenrant, Inverse, Animation Magazine, and Deadline among others) isn't helpful. I'm not sure about Creative Talent Network, Geekiary, or the LVLUPEXPO tweet, in terms of notability, so I suppose those could be removed, but it just seemed like a LOT to remove all in one edit, and I think the first edit you've done on the page. Some discussion about what you think should be removed/reduced, section by section, would be better than removing a whole bunch of content.

If your edits stood, and I haven't reversed them (and I stand by my comment that your edit "goes WAY too far"), I fear it could threaten the page's notability, which is not good. I struggled a LOT to get this page even through the AfD process already (and slashed a lot of sources in the process). So, removal of these sources erases labor of other people who added them in. Some of the material may be about Medrano's TV shows, but it is still about HER, so it is worth mentioning.

I'd like to come to some sort of compromise here. I'm not "owning" this page or anything, I just want to make sure it is the best page possible, considering that indie animation isn't always covered well on Wikipedia, often because such shows aren't covered in notable sources (reviewers ignore them), but with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss, to name two, that is an exception.Historyday01 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My edit was not about sources, reliable or otherwise, nor was it about notability. I just saw a lot of material that didn't seem suited for this article, so I removed it. I'm also a little confused about your reference to AfD - I can't find a prior discussion, could you link it?
 * In any case, since we have articles on her shows separately, I think it's appropriate to keep material focused on those shows (like " Animation Magazine said that A24 was taking a "bold step" by picking up the series " and " In February 2021, Medrano told Insider that Helluva Boss remains independent of Hazbin Hotel... ") on those pages, not on this biographical article. I understand that this is a topic you feel strongly about, and I want this article to be the best version of itself. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic summary of Medrano's life and career, not a collation of every appearance she's made or reliable article that mentions her. I also think that video views and channel subscribers are sometimes added to buffer an article's claim to notability. If a topic is truly notable (which Medrano seems to be), it's not necessary to invoke large numbers of views/subscribers to justify an article's existence. It comes across as promotional. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at all of your edits earlier, and ended up almost doing the same myself (as shown in this edit), with a few exceptions. I accidentally typed AfD and meant AfC. The article was in the creation stage for a while (the first comment on this talk page is evidenced of that, in part). In terms of video views and channel subscribers in the infobox, I think that's done on every page of a YouTuber on here, at least from what I've seen. So, you make good points and I'll keep them in mind going forward.Historyday01 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks for your hard work on the article. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that some amount of removal was necessary. Happy editing. SWinxy (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I ultimately ended up agreeing with them... I am just a bit wary when people remove a lot of information. Historyday01 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I'll just remove a few words every day until the article is blanked instead. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Viv's official alias: CamelCase or not?
Is it VivziePop or Vivziepop? Because the sources seem to flip flop. Her YouTube channel uses Vivziepop but her Twitter says VivziePop. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, she uses both about the same amount, so I think either one is equally appropriate. It would probably just make more sense to leave the current capitalization as is. Blubewwy (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. As such, I don't see a reason to change it to "Vivziepop". Historyday01 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright then Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)