Jump to content

Talk:Maddie Ziegler/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

  • 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)
    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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
See WP:ARTICLE. No mention of infobox. Fan sites often focus on infoboxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there an FA on an existing entertainer that doesn't have an infobox? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
@Ssilvers Would you like to open this up as an RFC? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maddie_Ziegler/Archive_5&oldid=1160064819"