Jump to content

Talk:Maddie Ziegler

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Isabelle Belato (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 31 December 2022 (→RFC on Infoboxes (continuation from discussion above): Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 2, 2014Articles for deletionKept
June 12, 2014Articles for deletionSpeedily kept


Infobox

Why is there no infobox, only a note in the article that says not to add one without discussing it here? There's no mention of it here. - Dyaluk08 (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox has been discussed by editors on the talk page of this article a number of times since 2015 (as recently as March 2021). Each time it has been raised there has been a consistent consensus against the inclusion of one. As per the notice at the top of the talk page, threads with no replies in over 6 months are automatically archived. However links to archived discussions and and an archival search function is included in the header box at the top of the talk page if you would like to review the previous discussions covering this. MarsToutatis talk 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted in the past consensus *not* to include the infobox, while sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support an infobox, and appreciate Ssilvers well intended arguments repeated from 2017, but disagree respectfully with those arguments as follows (numbered to match original post):
1) These are not unimportant factoids, and are concise and comparable as described at Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?
2) You are correct that the infobox contains redundant information, exactly as it should. Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain? recommends that infoboxes are should contain information already cited elsewhere in the article.
3) It is not taking up valuable space on many common clients, especially since there is already an image in this location. On a computer, it would be located in whitespace, and on a mobile client it is very fast and easy to scroll past to reach the expandable table of contents, which arguably prevents even more users from reading the contents of the article hidden behind the section titles.
4) The possibility of vandalism or misinformation is something that every aspect of every Wikipedia article faces constantly. The inclusion of an infobox neither increases nor decreases this possibility.
5) It is difficult to empirically state whether or not an infobox discourages editors. Wikipedia does have more readers than editors, so both user types should be considered. As far as a new editor, any good-faith edit introducing errors or problems is not terribly difficult to correct while steering that editor toward resources that may help them in the future.
6) This argument is redundant to the first and second arguments, and does not add any new logic to your point.
7) I disagree that an infobox would distract editors. While it does increase the maintenance of the article, an editor who does not wish to fuss over the 'coding and formatting' of the infobox may simply choose not to edit the infobox while 'focusing on the content'.
Now, for my own arguments, I argue that:
A) An infobox would add value to the article for readers, in the form of standardized formatting of commonly sought information (example: age, location of birth). I believe the infobox contents cover many common use cases for users of Wikipedia. See "Comparable" or "Concise" at Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?
B) Many other editors seem to feel that an infobox would be valuable, as indicated by the fact that this discussion has repeated several times since 2015.
C) Counter to any prior "consensus" on this article's talk page, a quick informal sampling of Category:American YouTubers or Category:Participants in American reality television series, for example, seems to show a broader consensus view on Wikipedia that including an infobox is considered worthwhile for this type of article. I would even go so far as to argue that this broader consensus is more significant than the past discussions on this talk page.
I welcome any further discussion, especially where my own logic or assumptions may be faulty or require clarification. A simple response of "I support this" or "I don't support this" is adding little value to this discussion without any explanations. Wikipedia:Consensus is about quality of arguments, not quantity of "votes" in the ballot box. Remember, we're discussing whether or not an infobox is helpful on this article, and not whether or not infoboxes should be used on Wikipedia at large. LobStoR (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to your arguments: A: Do you think that the most important information a person needs to know when opening the article is the "location of birth". I think that is relatively trivial, and that the infobox would emphasize such information instead of the key information in the Lead section, which contains all the most important information about this person in a much more useful format. B. This is a fallacious argument. Arbcom has addressed infoboxes and emphasized that they are optional and particularly unsuited to articles in the arts. Again, see the arbitration report: here. The people who keep starting infobox discussions go around Wikipedia doing that, instead of creating content. I am a content creator who has worked on this article. I have thought about its content, rather than hopping from article to article starting infobox wars. C. Just because inexperienced editors in the pop culture area have mass-added them to articles doesn't mean that they are good, and in this case an infobox would be disruptive, not helpful to readers, in accessing the key information about this person. That's why, for example, the thoughtful editors at the Opera project and classical music project (where there are a lot of Featured Articles) have made an effort to exclude them from the articles within their scope. Don't readers of articles about other artists deserve to see high quality Lead sections instead of "standardized", boxes that highlight such information as the town where someone happened to be born? The first sentence of the Lead states that she is an American and gives her birth date. Do you really think that our readers are so stupid that they need you to say it again in a box? See also WP:DISINFOBOX. Actually it is the people who have not contributed significantly to the content of an article who are "adding little value to this discussion". -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to present my perspective. Thank you for informing me about the "infobox war" I actually didn't know about that. Now that I know that this is a hot issue for many editors, I am moving onward away from this. By the way, my comment on "adding little value" was not directed at you, it was about some of the other comments within this section. Seeing as I have no vested interest in this article, I surrender the debate back to the article's owners. Cheers, LobStoR (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one owns Wikipedia articles, but it always amazes me when people who have not contributed to an article drive by and decide to make an issue of some technical/minor/optional point (that covers every single person who has pushed an infobox here). That the "perspective" of such people could possibly be considered to add more value than the opinion of people who have contributed to the article (even if their Talk page comments are brief) especially where, as here, there is no WP policy or even guideline in favor of the change sought (in this case infoboxes), is always mind-boggling to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support infobox; infoboxes are the de facto standard for all biographies and people still warring against them have a WP:POINT rather than an objective case that they do any significant harm to an article. Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support having an infobox for this page. It would not be "oversimplifying" or "misleading"; it would simply summarize the subject in a way that's easier to read than in the lead. Addressing Ssilvers's bullet points:

(1) There is literally nothing in the infobox that would be out-of-context or unimportant. It would also feature some things that aren't in the lead; for example, if a reader wants to find out how old Ziegler is, it would be much faster to read it in an infobox than to have to do the math by looking at her birth date in the lead.

(2) No it wouldn't be. The infobox is simply a convenient box of information for readers who want to read that information—such as age, place of birth, or years active—faster than they can in the text of the article. It summarizes the subject in a nutshell.

(3) There is no basis for this claim. The lead is still going to exist and be perfectly readable.

(4) The lead section is just as prone to vandalism as the infobox, but I think we can agree that leads shouldn't be done away with just because of that. As for fancruft and arguments about what to include, simply because a handful of editors can't agree on what should be in an infobox doesn't mean we should burn the whole thing down and ruin the experience for all readers.

(5) How does it discourage anything? Editors can just scroll down to the section they want to edit and click [edit source] or, better yet, they can simply use CTRL+F to find the part of the article they want to edit.

(6) There is no basis for this claim. There's no reason anyone who intends to extensively read about Ziegler's life and career would be stopped by the infobox. Also, a good number of people who read Wikipedia aren't there to exhaustively read; in fact, no one should use Wikipedia as a reliable source for a research paper or anything else. Many of us just come to pages like these to get a quick look at the basics of who someone is, just like the "In a nutshell" templates. The infobox serves those readers very well. Wikipedia was created for the readers—many of whom find infoboxes useful—not the editors.

(7) This is simply false. On any page, only a handful of edits relate to the infobox.

The bottom line is, regardless of whether some editors like infoboxes or not, many readers do appreciate the brevity and convenience of infoboxes, and that should be respected. Songwaters (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Songwaters argument and conclusion. In my opinion, an infobox would not be of value to the article. Somambulant1 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Somambulant1 are you a sockpuppet of Ssilvers? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar, I typed a reply to you, but I deleted it. Your comment does not deserve a reply. Somambulant1 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Television Personality?

Maddie Ziegler is an actress, dancer, and television personality. She started her career in 2011 with Dance Moms, Ziegler was a judge on So You Think You Can Dance. That makes her a television personality too. 75.84.163.45 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Television personality is not her main occupation. She was known primarily as a dancer as a child, and she is now primarily a film actress. I object to characterizing her as a "television personality", whatever that is. Do not WP:EDIT WAR by changing the article prior to receiving a WP:CONSENSUS to make the change. As far as the other changes you are proposing to the IB, they do not seem helpful, and you have not explained them here. In general, infoboxes should be kept as concise as possible, although I would be happy to delete it, if others agreed with that, as I don't think it is helpful in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Ziegler is an actress, dancer, and television personality. She started her career in 2011 with Dance Moms, Ziegler was a judge on So You Think You Can Dance. That makes her a television personality too. 75.84.163.45 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Television personality is not her main occupation. She was known primarily as a dancer as a child, and she is now primarily a film actress. I object to characterizing her as a "television personality", whatever that is. As far as the other changes you are proposing to the IB, they do not seem helpful, and you have not explained them here. In general, infoboxes should be kept as concise as possible, although I would be happy to delete it, if others agreed with that, as I don't think it is helpful in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ssilvers. That is just an adjunct to her dancing career. Per MOS:ROLEBIO we should only list the major occupations she is notable for. Television personality is something that generally gets used when that is all they are known for, not when they are much more notable for other things such as the case here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle infoboxes once and for all.

With all due respect to previous discussions, most people from what I'm seeing seem to be in favor of an infobox. Most of the discussions so far, the most recent being about nine months ago, has seen many in support of an infobox. All of these discussions have lead to dead ends, and it does seem like that as of today at least, a vocal minority generally seems to be the primary pushers against an infobox. Their reasons are long and winded, and some editors on both sides have been comparatively aggressive in their comments against an infobox with a fiery rhetoric that seems to evoke more of a "my way or the highway" mentality rather than "let's try to make this better". Many editors have been re-adding the infoboxes as well.

Once and for all, let's settle this. Personally, I'm in support of an infobox. Both Ziegler's are among the most famous Gen Z members in entertainment across the English-speaking world and beyond, and Ziegler's work has been seen by billions. Her article is of a long enough length for her to justify the inclusion of an infobox. They're generally precedent, and while they are NOT in any case mandatory, it's generally accepted to be a helpful tool, and speaking from personal experience, they really help on the mobile app.

I'm aware that consensus so far is against infoboxes, but from what I'm seeing, consensus looks like it's gonna change in the not too distant future based on recent developments I've been seeing. Remember, consensus can change. If y'all want, we can also talk about Mackenzie's infobox here as well, though I won't push it here and now.

Pinging various editors from recent additions of the infobox and older discussions (@Kingofthedead, @Ssilvers, @Wizzito, @MarsToutatis, and @Wikieditorforfun1) requesting their opinions on infoboxes. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would refute a few of those arguments.
    1. Emphasizing unimportant factor:. It wouldn't emphasize unimportant aspects of the article's subject to a degree in which it would degrade it.
    2. The box can be adjusted to be less redundant: Easily solvable problem without nixing the infobox.
    3. Hampering the layout, impacting the lead: This looks like it's too extreme of an interpretation of what an infobox can do.
    4. Frequent errors creep into infoboxes: we can fix stuff. Plus, reverting is a thing. If it's vandalized, we can revert and rollback. This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be.
    5. The visual editor solves this problem, albeit not as well, but to a good enough extent.
    6. Some people just need a birthday or something. If people want more information, they can read. If you want to encourage people to read an article, consider better utilizing the table of contents so people can get the information they need. This argument hinges primarily on the idea that people be required or nagged to read the entirety of an article, which seems to be imposing one view onto the rest of the populace. It fails to address that some people just need to grab data or information, maybe for small talk at a dinner?
    7. Good point, but again, different people have different needs. Some just want information. Some are looking for Ziegler's life story. We can't assume what everyone wants, so it would be best to structure an article to a point where it has both quick information and longer-form content. It's possible that wall of text would actually discourage people from reading.
    Even though Wikipedia is a private agency and not the government, we already have a long standing series of policies (especially on color) when it comes to accessibility. Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia should be able to atone for all audiences, not just super nerds who want to document everything there is to know about a subject but people who consult us as a resource for quick facts. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the current consensus at #Infobox and the points made by InvadingInvader, Lobstor, and Songwaters. wizzito | say hello! 09:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Infobox is useful for a quick overview of basic bio data easier to extract than reading the lead and article. Also age is an important fact about people that readers generally want to know for context, it is bit of a hassle to quickly calculate from birth date, and the only location it is usually mentioned and automatically updated is in the infobox. Also I expect to see inboxes in bio articles and lack of one is jarring. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we additionally consider that since the discussion has started, another editor (@Lady Junky) has added the infobox (though their edit was reverted by @MarioProtIV), that adds potentially one more vote to the support and oppose sides each. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose infobox. I add my vote to oppose, for the numerous reasons I and others have stated previously. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most arguments in favor of an infobox rely on WP:READER, and I agree; a Wikipedia reader shouldn't have to do math, regardless of how simple it is, to calculate age. Despite think of the children being hilariously cliché, the joke does bring up an important point: we do get a fair bit of kids here who shouldn't be burdened by having to do math; speaking from personal experience, they get enough homework already. Wikipedia isn't Citizendium where it's by experts for more nerdy people; it's by volunteers for the rest of the world, so we have to take into account the rest of the world when we make edits. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". In addition, I think that it is not civil for people to show up at an article at which they have not added useful content for the purpose of forcing those who have contributed to the article to add a WP:DISINFOBOX that would, I contend, be a redundant distraction from the good information that is contained in the WP:LEAD section. As for kids, if they really are only interested in a subject's age (and I doubt that this trivial information is high in many readers' minds), this is a good opportunity for them to practice some very simple real world arithmetic. BTW, if you actually read the article Think of the children, you will see that it explains that an appeal to "think of the children" is an illegitimate rhetorical fallacy, immoral, as well as leading to a false conclusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "think of the children" phrase was an obvious attempt at ironic humor, not a serious argument. The point is that calculating ages from birthdate is not trivially easy for every reader, myself included, and gets harder as I get older. Yes I can do it but it puts an obstacle in quickly getting the information I would like to see. I find ages important info in bio articles, a lot of it to give context to the person and weight I give to their life experiences and notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your opinion and usually agree with your editing, but in this case, I disagree that emphasizing such factoids in a prominent box at the top of the article is a net positive. For all the reasons I mentioned in my "oppose" discussion above, I think infoboxes in arts bios are a huge negative. And it is manifestly unfair that the people who regularly edit an article and seek to maintain it to a high standard will be forced to maintain this box of factoids that is abhorrent to them and further must then be vigilant to keep vandalism and errors out of it, while, once successful in forcing the box into one article, the infobox warriors just go and force another Disinfobox into another article and rarely subsequently add content to the articles that they have so disrupted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're reflecting an attitude which seems like you're claiming ownership of an article, which we have an entire policy against. In case you weren't aware, WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay, not a policy. You don't have the right to dictate who gets to edit what in an article, and if you prevent people from constrictively editing to any degree, you violate the core principle of Wikipedia: being a free and open encyclopedia. The third of the five pillars essentially comes as close as Wikipedia does to cementing this in stone.
I've also noticed that you tend to make quite a few remarks on talk pages which can be interpreted as personal attacks against other editors. Please try to avoid this, see the fourth of the five pillars.
Lastly, the arbitration report you cite does not declare an end-all be-all. Wikipedia has no firm rules, and sometimes exceptions, or exceptions to exceptions, need to be made. See the fifth of the five pillars for more information.
Be also reminded that infoboxes are also dependent on execution, or how they're done. An infobox with Ziegler's YouTube career (for both sisters) would help. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was your bad behavior in this debate that was reverted today by an admin. So let's just focus on content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should focus on content. Speaking of which, within here, more editors are supporting an infobox both in verbatim through this and previous discussions and presumably through their actions on adding it back. If people want an infobox, why not give them an infobox? Why shouldn't WP:READER overrule WP:DISINFOBOX? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Ssilvers What about Ziegler's YouTube career? That deserves some sort of mention/acknowledgement as one of her minor activities, and because of the infobox's dedicated slot for YouTube which comes prefilled with play button awards, don't really see the bad in that. It's a subject that qualifies for the infobox but might not be able to make it into the main article. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We mention that Ziegler has a YouTube channel. We also mention that she appears in some very popular YouTube videos on Sia's channel (not on her own channel). Ziegler is not a very active YouTuber, and all of her YouTube videos in the past 3 years have been to promote her Fabletics and Morphe collections. Her YouTube channel is far less popular than her Instagram channel, which has approximately 4x more followers, but even that is incidental to her career. Her main career activities are acting, dancing and modelling/promoting her merchandise. I don't think one could say that she has a significant "YouTube career", and it would be extremely misleading to mention it in an infobox. Your question is a very good illustration of why infoboxes tend to present unbalanced, misleading information to readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just give readers the information they want in an accessible format rather than what someone else thinks they need? Less-advanced readers who don't fit the demographic of the Simple English Wikipedia would likely be deterred from reading with giant walls of text. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are magnificently omniscient about what readers want. Have you asked them? How many have you asked? How many agreed with you, and how many disagreed? Tim riley talk 21:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal way would be to create a survey, but since we haven't done that yet, we do have to rely on assumptions. I am confident that readers would be in favor of an infobox, however, given that many newer accounts and IPs have added one but have seen their contributions removed by the more frequent editors. I would not be opposed to creating a giant survey though...we could do it here or maybe through a third party platform like Reddit or Twitter? InvadingInvader (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you don't in fact know. Finding out by an objective survey of our readers might well be a good move if it established if visitors to Wikipedia (i) wished for an I-B for a particular article, (ii) didn't wish for one, or (iii) couldn't care less either way, (option iii being the most popular, I suspect), but how you could conduct such a survey, for one article, to meet Wikipedia's requirements I am unsure. Meanwhile, in the absence of such objective data it is our job as editors to follow Wikipedia's policy and agree article by article whether an I-B is wanted or not. Tim riley talk 18:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policy so far seems to say that they are optional, and guidelines are conflicting with the arbitration report/DISINFOBOX and WP:READER. It would all have to depend on how it's executed. In principle, an infobox for Ziegler's article would be helpful for audiences, and making an educated guess based on how many people are bringing back the infobox without reading or intentionally ignoring the talk page discussions, there is a generally large group of people who would prefer an infobox here.
Given both of the Ziegler sisters' larger YouTube presence as well, especially Mackenzie, the infobox would be able to provide career stats. Infoboxes can also summarize the styles of dance that each Ziegler sister specializes or is best noted in. Let me make clear, though, that the I-B all depends on execution to avoid fulfilling WP:DISINFOBOX.
Shantanu Maheshwari has an infobox which can describe dance styles which can be used as a basis for the Ziegler infoboxes, and I think that if we can make a GOOD infobox, we can settle this debate. I believe many of the arguments against infoboxes rely more so on principle and less so on potential, and if we here can prove that a GOOD infobox can be created, I think many who are opposed would change their opinions. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my sandbox as a potential IB candidate...it's not complete but we can list Ziegler's notable works and other notable stats there. It provides the same information in a quicker to read format, which helps readers who aren't on the literacy or age level of Simple English Wikipedia but for time and/or knowledge-related reasons need information quickly and simply. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, there is no "good" infobox for this article. This article gives readers all of the key information about the subject in the WP:LEAD section, and the more detailed information about her life and career is set forth below. Also, as I mentioned, neither Ziegler has a YouTube career. It would be destructive to this article to add all of the trivial factoids and repetitive information you have mentioned in a box format to the article at the top for the reasons that I explained in my original Oppose comment above. There is very very clearly no WP:CONSENSUS to overturn the longstanding consensus against the Infobox in this article (and the other one that you keep mentioning, although it is not relevant to this article, as Wikipedia clearly states. See WP:INFOBOX). -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: There is very very clearly no WP:CONSENSUS to overturn the longstanding consensus against the Infobox in this article... Consensus is actually somewhat established as of the last discussion...the only reason this is being brought up again is that the last discussion on IB supported it while in the time between that discussion and this discussion, some editors have claimed that consensus was against infoboxes. Per @Wizzito, the last infobox discussion concluded with many editors supporting the infobox, and in this discussion, it's tied. I think that you're only looking at the downsides and not the potential upsides of IBs; I encourage you to reconsider. I read DISINFOBOX and the arbitration report; it's possible to make an IB work if executed correctly. The opinion that infoboxes don't belong in the Ziegler articles is fundamentally based on fearmongering, and it has denied a crucial part of content for an article to be added to an article where it is more desired and needed as demonstrated by many newer editors consistently adding infoboxes just to only see them removed because of DISINFOBOX.
Please also note that WP:DISINFOBOX is one of the very few Wikipedia essays to have multiple published refutations, the most relevant to this instance is viewable Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation, which broadly states that many of the arguments in DISINFOBOX are essentially bogus and make it so that many of DISINFOBOX's opinions make an issue out of something that is not an issue at all.
As a sort of middle ground, I urge the community to consider the possibility of a collapsible infobox. It can be hidden at will so that readers who prefer text can read text by clicking a "hide infobox" button while those who need quick facts can get their material and leave. It provides more flexibility in a way that achieves the best of both worlds. I strongly encourage the other editors to reply constructively to make this work rather than pursuing absolute domination of their opposition. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be constructive "to make this work." It would be destructive. You can keep writing paragraph after paragraph, but adding an infobox would be detrimental to this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I write paragraph after paragraph because the stance that infoboxes are destructive is easily refutable. How would an infobox DESTROY the article? Any destruction could be mitigated by a collapsible infobox or one that did what infoboxes do best: provide key information quickly on a sidebar? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ARTICLE. No mention of infobox. Fan sites often focus on infoboxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't help your case. I'm well aware that infoboxes are optional de jure. WP:ARTICLE fails to prove that infoboxes are destructive to an article. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't agree with InvadingInvader striking out content from an archived talk page, but I do agree with their reasoning. I personally interpret such comments as "BTW, have you ever edited this article to add valuable information and references to it?", "it always amazes me when people who have not contributed to an article drive by and decide to make an issue of some technical/minor point", and "Actually it is the people who have not contributed significantly to the content of an article who are adding little value to this discussion" as ownership behavior. I joined this discussion not because I'm an infobox warrior or whatever, it's because like others, I saw this article with no infobox and wanted to know why. If consensus shifts towards not having the infobox again, that's fine, but Ssilvers' behavior is concerning to me. wizzito | say hello! 00:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. In retrospect I should not have struck the comment out but rather only brought it up. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. WP:OWN is about people trying to discourage others from editing the content of the article. I have no problem with other people editing the article. If you can improve the article with good sources and writing, please go ahead. I only have a problem with people who *never* edited the article coming here for the sole purpose of forcing a Disinfobox into it in violation of WP:INFOBOX. By all means, edit the article to bring it to WP:FA! I oppose an infobox in this article for all of the reasons that I wrote in my Oppose comment above. I recognize that I am only one editor, and if there were a clear WP:CONSENSUS to add an infobox, I would respect that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, you're right, in my view, but I suspect you will not get the Invading tanks off the lawn by mere reason. Let us acknowledge that some have an unshiftable view regardless of facts or argument. Tim riley talk 19:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an FA on an existing entertainer that doesn't have an infobox? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus with the YouTube career, it's not as important, so we put it at the bottom of the infobox. If it was more important, put it above personal details why not. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers Would you like to open this up as an RFC? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Infoboxes (continuation from discussion above)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While I have not participated in infobox discussions during my years here, I am aware of the longstanding issue that is this topic among editors. Throughout this discussion (and the ones preceding it), many links were provided to related essays, guidelines, and even ARBCOM cases. One point I will comment on, which was raised a couple of times, is that the opinion of editors who have not engaged with the article should have less weight. While the participation of users who have not contributed to the article demanding the addition/removal of the infobox was noted as a persistent issue in these kinds of discussions, no remedy or RFC appears to have passed stating how this should be dealt with, and as such it falls under the closer's discretion.

It was also pointed out that, in the infobox cases, a remedy was supported in which editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general (emphasis mine). While this does not directly qualify the kind of arguments that should be ignored or given more/less weight during an RFC like this, one should take care when considering !votes that are essentially WP:WHATABOUT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

If we were to focus solely on the arguments that are directly related to the use of an infobox in this article, we would have one major point: the type of information provided in the infobox would lack context, due to the subject's extensive and varied career, which can be only acquired by reading the lede and possibly the remainder of the article, meaning it would be doing our readers a disservice. Some editors proposed a discussion on what should be shown on the infobox, but no counterpoint was given to justify using an infobox in this specific article.

The vast majority of the rest of the discussion focused on generic points about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of this kind of template in articles in general (ie. too easy to vandalize, too much clutter, etc.), with each user giving their own opinion on what is better. While I still took them into consideration, I gave them less weight.

Having said all that, and taking into account best practices in these types of discussions, there is no clear consensus on whether this article should have an infobox. While consensus can change, it appears we are not quite there yet. Although the article did have an infobox when it was first created, it remained without one for several years, meaning the current status quo is without an infobox.

Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


A recent discussion on whether to include an infobox for Ziegler's article has stagnated without conclusion. Supporters of an infobox (myself included) reference a previous discussion in which an infobox was supported as well as accessibility/quality of life, while opposers of an infobox usually cite WP:DISINFOBOX and raise the possibility of increased vandalism. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC) 18:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support including infobox, I literally don't think there's a single drawback to doing so.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose including an infobox. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead or body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, updates are made to articles but not reflected in the box, and IBs tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (6) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    May, can, would. In real life, infoboxes are generally useful. Sometimes, we don't want to read a whole entire article to get a rough idea about someone, and there can be details found there that are missing from the article. On point 1, no, infobox doesn't necessarily emphasize unimportant factoids, it can be nuanced or tailored as seen fit. On point 2, no it's not redundant - it presents data in a different way or format that can be valuable to different people. On point 3, not necessarily, I find infoboxes make the page look cleaner (at least on the web). Pn point 4, frequent errors creep into all parts of articles, not just infoboxes. Regarding point 5, this is not quantifiable or proven. And on point 6, this looks like the same argument as point 5. Ortizesp (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that many of these issues can easily be fixed and are overplayed. For example, vandalism can be reverted...and the space in the lead that an infobox would take up isn't necessarily valuable when not used by an infobox. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including infobox. An infobox is useful for a quick overview of basic bio data easier to extract than reading the lead and article. Also age is an important fact about people that readers generally want to know for context, it is bit of a hassle to quickly calculate from birth date, and the only location it is usually mentioned and automatically updated is in the infobox. Also I expect to see inboxes in bio articles and lack of one is jarring. I agree there should be some minimum amount of info below which an infobox isn't necessary. I think that basic bio info such as birth date and age, birth location, what known for, and years active is enough data, though, for an infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support accidentally replied to dead thread; infoboxes are overwhelmingly common on biographies and useful to general readers. Anti-infobox users generally resort to overemphasizing minor problems covered by basic maintenance, or vague non-subjective arguments, to cover up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people who have commented/voted above but not yet in this RfC: Wizzito, Somambulant1, Tim riley, Jack1956 -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support The infobox will undoubtedly make this article easier to find information for end users. That's really the only thing that matters when discussing this topic. The data backs up this conclusion.[1] Also, I came across this topic via the Biography RfC noticeboard. This is similar to the current discussion surrounding the Talk:Laurence Olivier infobox. I can't help but notice, but it's the same handful of editors who are dedicated to fighting infobox's on every biography article. One user has even come out of retirement to comment. I'm not sure why they've chosen this hill to die on, but I have yet to read a logical argument against making articles easier to navigate with an infobox. This appears to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT crusade they're willing to fight article by article. The only question to discuss is does the infobox help the end user. It's very difficult to logically say no, which is where discussion eventually ends. These editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nemov (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remind you that I left the notification from ArbCom about civility in IB discussions. Much of your comment is personal in tone and does not relate to whether an IB should be included on this article. Mischaracterising the intentions of others, their motives for commenting and the arguments they have employed with good reason are not civil and I suggest you should possibly strike much of the material you added in this addition to your otherwise acceptable contribution to the discussion. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is specific and to the point. I have yet to see a logical argument against having an infobox on this article or the other one. The closing editor should note that the same handful of editors are fighting this change. When the same vocal minority is fighting infoboxs article by article it's worth pointing out. I don't know what the motives of these editors are, but they're fighting a losing and time consuming battle. Nemov (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Entirely agree with the preceding editor that the only thing that matters is to make useful info available to our readers, but an i-box here wouldn't. Excellent things in the right place, but this isn't one. Tim riley talk 18:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As previously stated, I am opposed, based on reasons already made clear. Somambulant1 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What will users find in the box like the last one posted? The same name and date of birth as in the first line, an occupation that is in the same sentence and an incorrect “years active” field (unsourced and not relating to any information in the article). Yes, I can see how this vital information is easy to find (equally easy as it is in the first line, in fact). The other parts of the box shown are the place of birth (really not an important piece to focus on - ie, it fails WP:WEIGHT), the name of a relative and Ziegler’s website. So the desire for a box is for those readers who navigate their way to Wikipedia, then to this article, just to find a link to take them away from the site? Putting aside the fact that they’ll find the link on their first Google search, do we now have boxes just to help people leave this site?
As a gentle reminder to the closing admin, ArbCom decisions have stressed that arguments about IBs in general should not be taken into account (the arguments that say ‘I like/don’t like them’, ‘I can’t see why not’), nor should arguments about consistency (ie ‘other articles have them, so this should too’), and that such arguments should be based on more concrete bases about this article in particular. So say ArbCom. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:5945:C359:CFC1:EECC (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously long, well written argument for a user with three edits… Dronebogus (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a former editor on a dynamic IP address. Please comment on the issue, not on other editors. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I’m very concerned about sock-puppeting or meat-puppeting in such a contentious topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the case here. Please be more careful about how you phrase comments about other editors. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the points made by others in previous discussions. wizzito | say hello! 04:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - an infobox contributes nothing that isn’t in a well-written lead section. They do not encourage readers to read on Jack1956 (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re essentially complaining that readers should be forced to read a certain way. That’s not our job. Different people use Wikipedia for different needs. Dronebogus (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support inclusion...I know I've already stated I support infoboxes, but I'd like to provide rationale here. Most arguments cite WP:DISINFOBOX and ArbCom-related papers, but I strongly believe that many of the arguments are simply fearmongering and outlining a worst-case scenario. The infobox will do anything but harm the article. DISINFOBOX is also a widely-rebutted Wikipedia Essay (see Disinfoboxes can be useful, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation, and Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: Another rebuttal). And while I don't adhere to it personally, many arguments which demonstrate the opposition's potential violations of WP:OWN and WP:IDL generally have strong evidence.
    Additionally, while I am completely aware that Wikipedia:Wall of text is inclined to talk pages, most readers don't want to see a Wall of Text on articles either, especially in leads, as just like WP:WALLS explains, it leads to WP:TLDR. At core, the infobox is about accessibility for certain audiences which would need certain information quicker rather than having to search through a lead which is essentially walls of text, and it's a reasonable assumption to make that not everyone who reads Wikipedia is on an equal academic caliber. For the purpose of attaining to multiple types of audiences, I support the infobox. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only opine on infobox inclusion if a sample of the desired prospective infobox is presented, so I would like to request a sample for this article. Please ping me when presented. If none is presented prior to the closing of this RFC, then the closing admin should count this as an Oppose vote. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: See Special:Permalink/1111496762 for an example.Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my mind the infobox in the link presented above offers sufficient useful information to the reader, in a quick and useful format not as easily or quickly gleaned from the lede, to warrant its inclusion in this article. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:, I note that this proposed infobox demonstrates well how undesirable the infobox would be: For example, 1) It includes a line for education and links to her grade school, which she attended up to age 11. This does not comply with MOS:IB, which explains that an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject". It is not a key aspect of the subject. 2) It has a line for "Known for", stating that she is known for Dance Moms, but she left that show in early 2016, aged 13. She is better known for her music videos with Sia, and since 2016, she has concentrated on film work including, most recently, The Fallout and Spielberg's West Side Story. 3) The box mentions her sister. This is not "key" to an understanding of the subject. Since 2016, Ziegler and her sister have very rarely appeared together and have totally separate careers. Much more "key" information is given in the Lead section, and the information given in this proposed infobox lacks nuance and is, if anything, mostly misleading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. The grade school can and very probably should be removed from the infobox. 2. Items can be added to "known for". 3. I strongly disagree about relatives. In my mind, that's one of the most important features of infoboxes – if they have notable relatives, they can and should be listed in the infobox whether or not the subject associates with them. This gives instant important, relevant information to the reader. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully concur with this opinion. Grade school ain't important; we've traditionally only listed university education, and Known For can be expanded. Again, we don't like WP:Walls of text in discussions, so why should we have walls of text as our leads for readers who could reasonably assumed to like them less? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can fix most of that without trashing the infobox entirely. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This is the most important encyclopedia in the world. It should be well written. Articles should present information clearly and in context, emphasizing the most important information. Starting off with a boilerplate box that contains less important factoids and leaves out all nuance and context is a very bad way to start this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come various WP:FA's on personalities have one (as examples, see Laurence Oliver, Amy Adams, Priyanka Chopara, or Brad Pitt)? How come most people who have attained some sort of fame have one? Why should Ziegler be an exception to the standard? WP:OSE, per its page, is generally a good argument when making comparisons to GA's and Featured Articles. Well-written articles generally have infoboxes. It's not necessarily a codified standard, but it's informal enough that it's a reasonable assumption to make that most readers of the most important encyclopedia expect infoboxes for celebrities. If you think otherwise, maybe be bold and remove all of those peoples' infoboxes, along with other celebrities and notable figures like Bebe Rexha, Chloe Lukasiak, Gayle, Tate McRae, Bryce Hall, Macaulay Culkin, John Watson, Alvin Malnik, Tim Cook, Natarajan Chandrasekaran, Joe Jonas, Fred Astaire, GAI, Stevie Nicks, and WAYYY too many others to mention (and maybe try not to get reported for disruptive editing). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know by what definition you "start" an article with an infobox? Reading on a mobile, I first see the lead, then an infobox. On a broader screen, I see the lead left (where a reader of English looks first), and an infobox right. Both can coexist, serving different needs of readers (sometimes the same person with a different question) side by side, and why we have debated that coexistence for so long is a mystery to me. Recommended reading that helped me: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? by Brian Boulton (10 Jul 2013) and User:RexxS/Infobox factors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Infoboxes are highly useful/informative to many and as someone else once said, I prefer to serve those people rather than coddle those who simply don't like they way they look. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Infoboxes are OK for career politicians, for example, that list the various offices that they have held, or for professional athletes that list all the teams that they have played on and championships won. But for creative professionals, we should be encouraging readers to read actual prose, in particular the prose in the lead section which should summarize and contextualize the person's artistic significance. A list of data points cannot possible convey that kind of nuance. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t force readers to read the “right” way. I can’t emphasize this enough. Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why prose in the first place? Some people just want data…better to cater to both prose WP readers as well as “data mining” WP readers rather than exclude one or the other. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per inevitable. The tides are in favour of adding infoboxes to bios pages, so it's useless to stand up against it. Sooner or later, an infobox will be added. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just said that editors should not stand up to a bad addition to an article. I disagree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me and apparently GoodDay, Infoboxes are good additions to an article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay didn’t actually specify either way— I take their vote as neutral on quality, but also implying that it’s not worth fighting a popular idea that isn’t harmful. Dronebogus (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of infobox for this article. The preference to include an infobox for this article was established upon its creation and no good reason has been shown for forcing its removal. In the absence of a strong consensus favoring its omission (a consensus unlikely to emerge) the status quo should endure and that condition is with the infobox in place.--John Cline (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, these infobox arguments are a waste of time. There really is no valid reason to not have them, and push comes to shove I would vote to just add them in almost every case for readers that just want brevity.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. [Invited by bot]. ~ HAL333 22:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - linked here from related discussion at Talk:Mackenzie Ziegler. I think this would be just as valuable at both pages, given the quick access to genre, works, and associated acts. It's of encyclopedic value to summarize this info in an infobox. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm removing this from WP:CLOSE for now and extending the RfC since this discussion came up in the other related article. This should be allowed to come to clear resolution. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this at the time, but after I extended this RfC and removed the close request an IP account added it back.[2] I've removed the request and it can be added back in a couple of weeks. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify any doubts. I support adding an infobox & it shouldn't matter why. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A similar RfC is being repeated on the Mackenzie Ziegler talk page

Here is the RfC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maddie_Ziegler&oldid=1130620399"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy