Talk:Mackenzie Ziegler

Incorrectly named
This article is incorrectly named. All WP:Reliable sources and nearly all "news" sources (and even the subject's own social media) refer to this subject as "Mackenzie". "Kenzie" is a nickname used only by her friends, and perhaps some fans. See: https://www.google.com/#q=%22mackenzie+ziegler%22&tbm=nws vs. https://www.google.com/#tbm=nws&q=%22Kenzie+ziegler%22 I have asked an admin to move the article to Mackenzie Ziegler, which is a page that was previously protected from creation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What administrator did you ask? This article, which was created by socks, not to mention the original salted article that also involved sock puppetry, needs to be dealt with in some fashion before any move over the salted name takes place.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've asked User:Newyorkbrad and one other admin, in case Brad cannot get to it soon. I think that Mackenzie Ziegler is probably now notable -- she has 5.8 million instagram followers, was a main character on a successful reality TV show for several years, and has attracted a considerable amount of press.  More than 3,000 Google "News" sources refer to her: https://www.google.com/#q=%22mackenzie+ziegler%22&tbm=nws  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX
The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." 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) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is little benefit to the box here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also oppose the infobox. I think that it merely repeats information that is stated better in the Lead section of the article. Somambulant1 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox is not needed here for reasons I have stated on previous discussions of a similar nature. Jack1956 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally am strongly in favor of an infobox here, as with most all pages... it's largely a matter of personal preference, but many of the reasons given by the original post here are true for most all infoboxes... infoboxes are intended to contain facts already present in the article, most of which will always be present in the Lead. All infoboxes, especially those that are large, take up considerable space, and far more than would in this case. As far as the other points presented, all infoboxes present these issues (block of code at the top, "distracting" editors for the content, etc). As far as I am concerned, the issues presented here do not pertain directly to this article or its contents, but rather to personal opposition to infoboxes as a whole. It is my opinion that infoboxes in general provide a brief overview of important details for any article which provides them, which this one does. --Hunterm267''Talk 22:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I also Oppose an infobox in this article for the reasons given by Ssilver. UWS Guy (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018
Infobox added against consensus (see "WP:DISINFOBOX" section above) by User:Jade.parker123. Infobox should be removed. 50.81.227.4 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: If there were a consensus achieved, those who achieved it have been less than diligent in enforcing it, as the infobox has existed in this article for at least 2 months and no one has said anything about it. You should make contact with the editors who were active in that discussion to see what can be done here.  spintendo   19:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. I added it to the table. Probably not necessary to mention it in the text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this page protected??
Why is this page protected from vandalism? I just wanted to add some stuff about her! Dance.moms.fanz (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What would you like to add? Let us know, and we can help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too 2601:2C0:8900:9750:4021:8CC0:4E81:9AAB (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has been protected because of an edit war if one of the sentences needs an Oxford comma.--100.1.76.9 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Article with no Infobox
Is it necessary to add an Infobox to this article? And if it is which one is appropriate here - musical artist or actor. PushaWasha (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have seen a previous discussion on this matter. PushaWasha (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As you saw in the previous discussion, no infobox is desired for this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources re: songs/singing by Mackenzie Ziegler
BBC News calls Ziegler a singer. In addition to all the references already in the article discussing Ziegler's albums and songs, here are more articles discussing Ziegler's albums and songs: Billboard, Paper, which reviews 3 of Ziegler's songs in one article, PopSugar, E!, Teen Vogue, Elite Daily, People, Seventeen, CelebMix, Entertainment Tonight, Seventeen again, Paper again, Yahoo!, 1883, 2Paragraphs, and The Things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree re above so the article should stay as it is with "singer" remaining in place. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Updated Photo of Mackenzie Ziegler
Could someone please upload a recent photo with no copyright to Wiki Upload page? The photo currently listed is from 2018, which is quite outdated considering it was four years ago. Jacksongreen1442 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022 (2)
2601:83:201:A980:B4CF:823F:41CF:4C69 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Age 18


 * The article gives her birth date. Readers can do the math. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

New discussion on infoboxes on Maddie's talk page
Hi guys. I thought I'd let you know that a discussion on adding infoboxes to Maddie's article is currently occurring, and the discussion has also mentioned adding Kenzie's infobox as well in an attempt to change consensus. Some editors who more actively edit both Maddie and Mackenzie's article have already commented (notably Ssilvers); thought I would give others an opportunity to comment as the discussion's result may transfer to both Ziegler sisters' articles. Just thought I'd let y'all know. Thanks! InvadingInvader (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This article (see above) has a very clear consensus against adding an infobox. As Arbcom has made clear, a WP:INFOBOX can only be added to an existing article if editors that that specific article reach a consensus to add one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Bring back the infobox. It's about time.
So I did a little bit more reading into the entire concept of Infoboxes as Ssilvers' previously pointed out, and it seems like that Mackenzie deserves one even more so than Maddie, referencing the discussion on Maddie's talk page. In contrast to Maddie, Mackenzie is a recording artist and more of a public figure than her older sister, which warrants the inclusion of her record label (which according to the most recent single she released is the Disney subsidiary Hollywood Records), and it seems like that any well-written lead would not be able to graphically represent the information in a way that the infobox accommodates to certain audiences. Ssilvers' reasons as presented on Maddie's infobox. The information as presented in the box, while relatively trivial compared to Ziegler's life story, is a crucial part of her career and the laid-out structure of an infobox allows for much quicker retrieval of information for humans. The foregoing, and Ssilvers' previous easily-refutable arguments on vandalism towards infoboxes on Maddie's IB discussion (lol we can revert and rollback vandalism with one or two clicks) to me justifies the inclusion of some sort of infobox, and I encourage the community to strongly change its consensus against Mackenzie's infobox inclusion. I've also inserted a suggested infobox for Ziegler to the side. Pinging previous discussion participants @Ssilvers, @SchroCat, @Hunterm267, @UWS Guy to this discussion, as well as participants on the Maddie IB discussion @Geraldo Perez, @Dronebogus, @Wizzito, @Tim Riley, @Jack1956, @Nemov, and @Somambulant1 for their thoughts.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and @User:Cullen328. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend starting an RfC to broaden the discussion outside those who have already discussed this topic. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to start an RFC if we can't get an immediate consensus on this.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be surprised if any of the people who have commented on this before are going to budge. Nemov (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would to, but it doesn't hurt to see.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I came to this topic a few weeks ago and there's a few editors who are never going to like infoboxes. Infobox adoption only changes over time because newer editors are used to them and recognize the value they bring. You can review the recent RfC at Laurence Oliver to get an idea. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say "I came to this topic", you don't mean that you came here to edit and improve the article (which you have never done to date), but instead with a mission to force an infobox into this article and the Maddie Ziegler article. This is not consistent with Arbcom's rulings about infoboxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I really wish editors on both sides of this debate would tone it down. There's nothing nefarious going on with my comments here. There's no guideline against commenting on a RfC. That's how I found out about this infobox topic. There have been several infobox RfCs of late and @InvadingInvader pinged me in this article. My only mission is to improve Wikipedia and find a consensus end to this infobox debate. Since editors don't WP:OWN articles we collaborate to improve the project. Ultimately Wikipedia is an evolving project and if it's going to take RfC after RfC of editors approving infoboxes I guess that's the process. It shoudln't have be that way though. Nemov (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you came because of the RfC, then I apologize. I thought your comment was from invadinginvader, who is the person who is going around forcing infoboxes into articles that they never edited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is borderline WP:OWN and a personal attack.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is simply a fact.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BUTITSTRUE. Civility is more important than truth when it comes to talking about other editors. You can be truthful, but not harsh and outright rude. For example, if I wanted to criticize you fictitiously for violating WP:NPOV (assuming you violated NPOV), I could say "I think that Ssilvers' edits are consistently less than neutral; please try to be aware of this in the future" instead of "Ssilvers is forcefully inserting information and she may be a propagandist for the Chinese Government and the CCP; they should be banned".  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 22:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (By the way): for your infobox, which Emily Skinner are we referring to here - there appears to be two actresses with that name. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The actress born 2002. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the late reply.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I support adding an infobox to this article. There is sufficient information to make it useful. Specifically birth info including most importantly her age which isn't included anywhere else in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose 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 emphasizes unimportant and unreferenced factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. For example, it names, without a cite, a record label that is not even mentioned in the article. It also states, without any citation, that her genre is pop. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead and also in the body of the article, the box is a redundant 3rd mention of these facts, such as name, date and place of birth, years active, and sister's name. On the other hand, it fails to mention her notable acting career. (3) It hampers the impact of the Lead, and discourages readers from reading the text of the article. (4) Vandalism that is added to the box will be more difficult to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box; (5) Boxes in liberal arts biographies like this attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (6) The box will distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they will spend time working on, and arguing about, this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * All of this is easy to fix, and all of your arguments that you have provided all share a common theme of feamongering all the "evil" that comes with adding an infobox. You don't win arguments on Wikipedia by repeated assertion, or making the same argument over and over again.
 * Point 1: Ref for Hollywood records and Kenzie being pop, see and.
 * Point 2: Redundancy is something that doesn't matter in the bigger picture, as something which is redundant but easier to read would be an acceptable form of redundancy.
 * Point 3: It's not your place to dictate how other people read articles. Point 3 does seem a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and at an extreme interpretation, WP:OWN.
 * Points 4 and 5 and 6: I already addressed this for point 4 in my original proposal, but in case you didn't see, we can revert and rollback with less than 3 clicks, and sometimes bots do this for us automatically. You're making this seem like a bigger issue than it actually is. A similar POV can be applied to 5 and 6.
 * Point 6 (continuation): "they will spend time working on, and arguing about, this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting" – You're self-fulfilling your own argument by continuing to oppose infoboxes and prolong discussions. Not a good move for your position's reputation.
 * Point 7 (the Signpost report you cited): Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited...that doesn't always mean they are.
 * In general, Ssilvers, all of the points you have made and nearly all of the objections you have made to an infobox only serve to fearmonger and over promote the downsides without considering that there are undeniable benefits that infoboxes can cause. Prolonging this discussion by repeated assertion of the same easily-refutable arguments without considering/addressing all of the previously made statements which refute your arguments is actually fulfilling Point 6 you made, so wouldn't it be better to include the infobox and test your hypothesis as it will cause less unproductive discussion? Where is the proof that an IB on Mackenzie Ziegler's article specifically would hamper the article?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 03:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point maybe it’s best to accept anti-box users are just using bad arguments to filibuster RFCs to a “no consensus” close by promoting an artificial controversy, and ignore them. If they insist on responding then they’re obviously bludgeoning. Dronebogus (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do get the feeling that there is a bit of canvassing which is happening when these users participate in discussions, but I won’t WP:ABF unless there’s firm indisputable evidence.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done on bringing in smear tactics so early in the discussions. Please see WP:AGF and concentrate on the article, not whatever you think other people are doing. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:EC7C:7CCE:D2B2:CF59 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude. I just wrote "I won't WP:ABF" (which if you read the essay, ABF stands for Assume Bad Faith)..  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 09:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. You state above that redundancy does not matter, but that is wrong and indicates a lack of understanding about good writing. Conciseness adds to clarity and communication.  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)
 * People don't usually like walls of text. And the Infobox is the solution for best of both worlds: people who want quick information for small talk or whatever other purpose (and those who can't or don't want to do the math on Ziegler's age) while leaving room for a more detailed and text-based encyclopedic entry taking up more space in the center. Don't forget that the mobile app also has infrastructure set up specifically for infoboxes.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 19:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * “We are very important, too important for infoboxes” just sounds like “we’re judt too good for infoboxes”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your position, but the phrasing seemed too much like a possible personal attack against the other side of the debate. Might want to tune it down a bit.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ssilvers - at this stage, rather too various a career to usefully summarize in a box. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support standardization with other bio articles and useful (if brief) summary. The existence of a request for age, dismissed with “readers can do the math”, shows that infobox-exclusive material like automatic age calculation is helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Zero encyclopaedic benefit that brings no benefit to the reader. Also per Johnbod and Ssilvers. There is no policy or guideline for consistency or standardisation between articles, and for good reason: all articles are judged on their own individual merits and what works for one won't work for another. - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:EC7C:7CCE:D2B2:CF59 (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it zero encyclopedic benefit?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 09:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * “Because the editor formerly known as SchroCat said so”? Dronebogus (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd urge you to tone down the comments about editors. This topic has enough hostility already with some editors discussing this bitterly for a long time. This type of thing isn't going to change opinions so please try to keep this civil. Nemov (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment wouldn't disagree in saying the infobox provided here gives out the purpose of this famous person when readers view it and may be subect for inclusion.
 * As for the dob: not sure why that is included in here without any source given. Per Google site search, I am not certain if any of those websites on page 1 are reliable sources even though IMDB is widely used as references, and other Dance Moms related articles have the dob's unreferenced as well. Including a reference of the dob or removing it per BLPPRIVACY may solve that part of the problem.
 * I can also see an ongoing discussion on Talk:Maddie Ziegler: this looks like a no-consensus outcome at present on including infoboxes or not. Either way, we should consider some sort of general discussion on including infoboxes on other articles rather than these two articles alone - such as Brynn Rumfallo which has fewer content than both articles. Having two related discussions going on at the same time on the sisters seems disorganised as to which user voted for supporting or opposing an infobox to one or both. This probably should have been some sort of general discussion rather than discussing separately as many people have done here and there. Thanks - Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Brynn Rumfallo is a good example of an article that probably doesn't need an infobox. There's a few open RfC on WP:BIO at the moment. Recently many of the articles with 30kb+ readable prose have had infoboxes approves via consensus, but that hasn't led to those objecting to stop objecting to similar articles with infoboxes. I've attempted to come up with some kind of standard for how this could be applied to WP:BIO articles, but it's not easy and some editors have been arguing this for years. It does appear the long run outcome is infoboxes on articles with enough content to support them, but I'm not sure how many RfCs it'll take to get there. Nemov (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Brynn could go without one. She hasn't had a substantial and varied career unlike both of the Zieglers. She doesn't even have a photo.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There was once this year before it got deleted as it was found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. All that infobox info doesn't seem to have any sources so unsure if that is right. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose My position remains unchanged. I am opposed to adding an infobox, for reasons that have already been explained in great detail. In my opinion, this discussion has become repetitious and tiresome. Somambulant1 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have stated my opinion previously. I believe that an infobox adds nothing to an article that isn’t in a well-written lead section. Jack1956 (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose − I-boxes are useful in some articles and not in others. This article is one of the latter.  Tim riley  talk   10:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This is kind of a useless discussion since it's the same editors from other infobox debates repeating the same arguments. In light of the open related RfC would the editors be in favor of accepting the outcome of that RfC and apply it here? That would save everyone a considerable amount of time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That could work  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 04:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The suggested infobox just got immeasurably worse with the addition of the really useless and space-consuming YouTube details. Mackenzie Ziegler's social media focus is TikTok, not YouTube, and her social media activities are not the main focus of her career. None of the "associated acts" listed are actually associated acts of Mackenzie Ziegler, so the infobox is not only useless and distracting and gives a skewed idea of her career, but it is full of misinformation and lies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can get rid of that section then. But Ziegler does have a much bigger YouTube career. If you were put in charge of making an infobox for Mackenzie Ziegler and you had no option of removing it altogether or intentionally making it a blatant DISINFOBOX so it gets removed, what would you put in it?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would write "You are wasting your valuable time looking at this box instead of reading the informative article itself." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question; you failed to read my condition of not making it a blatant disinfobox. This would not only fulfill that but also be vandalism (and by extension, disruptive editing). In any case, also don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point...you don't have to engage in the wikipedia equivalent of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to make your disdain for infoboxes public.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can’t make a box bad just to prove it’s bad. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - per inevitable. In the last two or so years, the tide of adding infoboxes to bios, has become stronger & likely will continue to do so. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - infoboxes do not harm the encyclopedic value of an article, and many editors (including myself) find them an incredibly useful when using wikipedia. Alssa1 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Would be advantageous to readers, help describe the subject, and overall give quick access to important info. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support—Readers are used to seeing infoboxes on biographic pages. I believe they even expect them. Infoboxes serve as a quick short hand view of common data such as birthday and age, canonical name, siblings, parents, and offspring and more. —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

IB, Attempt #2.
First of all I would like to ask Wikipeidans per ARBINFOBOX2, please try to concentrate comments for infoboxes specific to this article and not general comments about them in the first place. The IB to the right is the draft I would propose; you are welcome to revise it as needed aside from intentional sabotage to prevent an infobox. (WP:POINT) Given Ziegler has a much more expansive career on YouTube, I find it necessary to include such details outside of prose and do not see an issue with redundancy. These statistics are often needed in culture for quick look-up facts. By forcing people to refer to prose, editors disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "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 for those reasons and the others listed below: the box suggested above would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject; and as the key information about the subject that could be in the box is already discussed in the article and is also seen in the Lead, in the body of the article, and in the Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (and in many cases 4th) mention of these facts.  To address the suggested box, specifically: (1) The image you suggest is already included in the article and can be sized and captioned more effectively and flexibly without the box. (2) The birth name and birthdate are already given in the first sentence of the article. (3) The birthplace is stated in the first text section of the article, where is more sensibly belongs. It is not such an important fact about this person that it should clutter up the top of the article, and it is given in context where it now is presented. (4) Hollywood records is such an unimportant factoid that its name is not even mentioned in the article and is unreferenced in the box. She has uses several labels to date. More importantly, her music career is much more clearly described in the Lead section, and its presentation in the box is over-simplified.  (5) Relatives is listed near the top of the box. This seems misplaced and is, in any case much more clearly discussed in context in the first paragraph of the article and elsewhere in the article. (6) The YouTube information is grossly overrepresented in the box.  First of all, Ziegler has primarily been a Muse and later TikTok creator (where she has 23.4 million followers) and an Instagrammer (where she has nearly 15 million followers) not a YouTuber.  Most of her views there have been on her music videos. YouTube is not a significant part of her career; the bolded creator "awards" are an outrageous waste of space at the top of this article, and possibly the least important (and unreferenced) factoid about her one could image.  (7) In general, the infobox gives a misleading, confused, out-of-context and out-of-balance picture of this subject. Outside of social media, most people probably have heard of her from her television performances, which are not even hinted at in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments specific to boxes on this article and not in general.
 * 1. Birthplaces aren't in the lead like birthdays in this article and rarely are they mentioned.
 * 2. What's wrong with redundancy? Given the emphasis placed on these factoids by media in general, we should be emphasizing them based on the due weight of what our society says, not what other people, let alone Wikipedia editors, want. See WP:POINT, and WP:DUE.
 * 3. Hollywood Records is her label – usually that's important. If it's not in the lead right now, then add it in.
 * 4. YouTube information is not grossly elevated. And there are templates for TikTok information as proved with the evidence of Charli D'Amelio's article. We can add those in.
 * 5. Remember that infoboxes are collapsible on the iOS app (and I would expect the Android app) and by default off to the side in desktop. You'd only have a fair argument on mobile browsers – I think that your argument about "waste of space" is grossly over-exaggerated, with all due respect to your person.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)