Talk:Maddie Ziegler/Archive 1

Need image
The article needs a free image of Ziegler. Can anyone can find one? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone has uploaded an image, stating that it is licensed under a CC license, but I cannot find evidence of this. Can anyone verify the license info? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the image - hopefully pro tem if a licence can be found. I've also had to flag it for deletion at Commons. If a licence can be found, it can be shown at Commons and the deletion tag removed, which will allow the use here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another editor has added an image with an SA license that looks good to me. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
Several editors are edit warring currently, so I have requested temporary full protection. Widr (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reported one editor who has reverted five times and ignored all requests to use the talk page to discuss the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There was only one editor warring so I don't know where you got "several" from.    Cassianto Talk   21:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There were several editors overriding previous edits,, which makes it edit warring. Widr (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And here we go again..., if the majority (those who "voted" above) feels that the infobox is useless, then it should stay off. This must be one of the silliest things to edit war over. Widr (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The info box is not useless and is in many articles just in inside. --Maintrance (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But we have to go by consensus here on Wikipedia, and currently it seems that the consensus is to remove it. Insisting on keeping the box is not worth getting blocked for, is it? Widr (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sister (upcoming film)
Not sure if Maddie will be acting, or portraying herself, but she is starring in the upcoming film Sisters, which will be directed by Sia. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is premature to mention this. See WP:CRYSTAL, which says, "...expected future events should be included only if the event is ... almost certain to take place. ... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."  In this case, Sia says that she has a script and that she wants Maddie to star, but no real preparations for the film have been made.  She does not mention a date for filming, or any other casting, or even how she will raise the budget for the film.  For now, I think this is merely a potential project, rather than an actual one.  FWIW, I think your stub for the film would also run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016
She will also star in "Sister" a movie written by Sia. It will be released in late 2016.

MaddieZiegler1313 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No source provided. Widr (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is already mentioned and sourced in the article, although it will not be released until at least 2017. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Any Topic I contribute to always is nominated for 'Speedy Deletion' I would like an explanation on WHY.

I always take this very seriously, I contribute only facts that I have confirmed on several sites. I spend hours typing and retyping most of the paragraphs, making it my own, configuring it in such a way that it is finely written and hold thousands o words of knowledge. My topics, however, keep getting deleted, and I want to know why. //Sincerly, Maddie1123  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddie1123 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. On May 24, 2016, you attempted to start a new article about the same topic as this article.  We cannot have two articles about the same topic. On the same day, you added information to this Talk page that was not properly referenced, and so it was removed. See WP:BLP and WP:V for more information about our referencing requirements.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so we cannot accept new facts unless they are verified by citations to reliable sources.  If you read WP:V and WP:RS carefully, I think your contributions will be more successful. For more information about how to contribute to Wikipedia, please see WP:WELCOME and WP:NEUTRAL.  Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ziegler's fashion line, set to be introduced in November 2016
Please add her new fashion line to her career section.


 * On September 1st 2016, Maddie announced she is launching her our fashion line at maddiestyle.com (Here is the video of her announcement and the URL for her line is in the bio of her official Instagram account. Jtb2910 (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Yes, I have just added information about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ssilbers,

Can we add more about her clothing line?

Maddie Ziegler's fashion line is available now
Please add her new fashion line to her career section. The fall collection is available on maddiestyle.com. Maddie announced it is live maddiestyle.com(Here is the video of her announcement and the URL for her line is in the bio of her official Instagram account.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtb2910 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request re: new fashion line
Maddie's new clothing line is due to be released 10/3/16. The line is an eponymous 30-piece fashion line for girls and juniors. See Kanter, Sharon Clott. "Exclusive First Look: Maddie Ziegler’s Launching a Clothing Line", People magazine, September 1, 2016. Maddie talks about her upcoming fashion line on her official youtube channel here.

The Preview page for her new clothing line is live at www.maddiestyle.com -- 173.68.176.194 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. The clothing line is already mentioned under the heading "Acting, modeling and other activities". All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016
I want to mention that she is dating Joe Constantino.

Sofi1244 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016
A wikipedia page was created for Maddie's younger sister, Kenzie Ziegler. Please link mentions of Kenzie/Mackenzie's name in Maddie's page to Kenzie's page. Emmahalliwell (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The page Kenzie Ziegler is incorrectly named. I have asked an administrator to move it to Mackenzie Ziegler, which is a protected page, which is, no doubt, why you created it under the nickname.  If the admin agrees, then I will add appropriate links to Maddie's article. Please be patient. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is resolved now. See Mackenzie Ziegler. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017
Height: 5ft 5in Art5626 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Her height is unencyclopedic trivia. Even if you have a source, it does not belong in the article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
WP:LEAD requires that the article's Lead section contain an overview of the article. An editor has been removing material repeatedly that is necessary for an overview of the entire article, and adding WP:OR. The material removed includes information about the popularity of Ziegler's two most popular music videos, the name of her second most famous video, and a summary of Ziegler's performances, coverage in magazines and modelling, all of which are described in greater detail in the body of the article. Instead of WP:Edit warring, please discuss any concerns you have here on the talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Page protection
I've protected the page for three days because of the nine reverts today of the infobox. In case anyone is annoyed that I protected with the box, I was about to protect Shrocat's version, and was pondering whether the reverting had stopped, when it happened again. I would have done the same had it been the other way round. Please consider posting an RfC. If you can agree that the reverting has stopped, let me know and I'll unprotect early. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah, you've answered my question here, so no need to respond on your talk. I would still ask, however, should it not be protected without a box seeing as that is the current consensus?   Cassianto Talk   23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, I have to go offline shortly, but I'll look through the history later to see who has been reverting, and if it's very clear that consensus supports no box, then I'll consider switching. In the meantime, please consider organizing an RfC, or even a brief straw poll, so that consensus is more obvious, then admin action can support whatever it is. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tar v. much ;)  Cassianto Talk   23:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin, the Infobox discussion is above. The result was:
 * In support of the infobox:
 * User:Maintrance
 * User:Tabercil
 * User:Hclaricejohnson


 * Opposed to the infobox:
 * User:SchroCat
 * User:Cassianto
 * User:Ssilvers
 * User:Sagaciousphil
 * User:Tim riley
 * User:Dr. Blofeld
 * User:Jack1956
 * User:Epicgenius


 * Neutral
 * User:Widr (It was not clear that they preferred the box, but they objected to its removal before the consensus was clear)

-- Ssilvers (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Add my voice (for what it's worth) as being in favour of the infobox. Personally I prefer them as they pull together many relevant threads of information into one convenient location. Tabercil (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * does the lede. But perish the thought that someone may actually have to read the first sentence to get the same details that they would otherwise find in an idiot box.   Cassianto Talk   07:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. The article was recreated (after deletion) in February 2014 by with a box, which remained in the article. At some point recently it was filled out to include more details, e.g.  then those were removed.  On 30 May Cassianto removed it entirely,  followed by lots of reverting.


 * Supporting or restoring: Maintrance, Tabercil, Hclaricejohnson (an occasional editor)
 * Opposing or removing: Cassianto, SchroCat, Ssilvers, SagaciousPhil, Tim riley
 * Other: Widr


 * Editors should generally respect BRD, and given the strength of feeling about boxes, it's better not to go around adding or removing them. If the objection is that a minimalist box is pointless, perhaps adding details would help. If it's to any box, an RfC is the only way to resolve it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm happy to remain in the "other" section. The only reason I commented above was the edit warring which seemed like pointless drama for drama's sake. Note that when I originally made the protection request there was also warring regarding the content of the lead section (which, at the time, was a bit clumsier than what it currently is), but at least that seems to have ended. Widr (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion remains the same as I stated above - the info box does not convey any information other than in the concise lead. By the way, could an Admin please remove the additional duplication of material within the info box itself, please? I'm guessing that it is an error to have "Maddie Ziegler at the Opening of Abby Lee Miller's Dance Company in Santa Monica -ALDCLA -DanceMoms" twice? And the cropped version of the photograph is, in my opinion, far superior to the one currently in place. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Tabercil (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks terrible, the photo isn't even properly set and seems largely devoid of info.81.104.175.138 (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The box still looks terrible. Still, only a few days to go and then we can revert back to how it should be, according to the current consensus.    Cassianto Talk   12:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , although you have now fixed the duplication I see you've still left the uncropped image though. Is there a specific reason for doing so? SagaciousPhil  - Chat 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't like how the colours looked on the severely cropped version that Stemoc uploaded, so I went back to the original image (which was a full body shot which you can see here) and tried my hand at reworking it. Tabercil (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * More than 1 year was the infobox in this article. Why suddenly now delete. That makes no sense. . --Maintrance (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, I wouldn't care about the infobox (I'd even support its inclusion if it was longer and more detailed than the lead), but because it is so short in this case, it seems unnecessary here. Maddie's official website is in the "External links" section, anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a more detailed version of it before the edit war, check the page history. I noticed that Ssilvers placed you in the opposed section above, but I get the feeling that you are leaning towards neutral here? Widr (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a case-by-case-basis, but in this particular instance, I oppose an infobox because it is way too short here. Epic Genius (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find thousands of articles in the English Wikipedia, where the infobox is or less the same way. Nobody clears, why just in this one bothers all users. Now that Ziegler is famous, they all come running up and want to change around the article. Previously, the small box did not disturb anybody. An info box is a summary of the personal data. What's the problem, i cannot find it. This discussion is waste of resources. --Maintrance (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your frustration at having people "come running up and want[ing] to change around the article" smacks of ownership . The infobox, as pointed out by Epicgenius, conveys nothing to the reader that the first line of the lede doesn't. The only person wasting time here is you and your backward opinions.  Still, as I've said above, as soon as the protection expires, I will remove it again, as per this talk page's consensus.   Cassianto Talk   12:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus against the box seems clear, so I've removed the protection. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sarah.   Cassianto Talk   18:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This consensus is nonsense and completely arbitrary. --Maintrance (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion and your problem. Get over it would be the best course of action here I would suggest.   Cassianto Talk   18:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all other infoxes equal with, who are all useless. --Maintrance (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the idea Maintrance; by jove, I think he's cracked it!  Cassianto Talk   18:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes that's the nonsense. Then the article look exactly like manure in the German Wikipedia. 😝 This is not progress but regress. I was always jealous of your infoboxes in English Wikipedia. --Maintrance (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not all about aesthetics Maintrance, there are other reasons as to why an infobox is seen as a redundant waste of space. Be honest: what exactly was the purpose of this one? Everything within it was on the first line of the lead section; it restricted the size of the image; it took up much needed space from the lead section and sandwiched the text as a result. Nothing about it was good.  I am not opposed to infoboxes per se and actually find them an essential tool in articles to do with politics, sports, medicine and film. My argument is that we should not be slapping an infobox on every article in the name of "Wikipedia normality" because in some genres, they simply do not do the job they are supposed to.   Cassianto Talk   08:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD, again.
WP:LEAD requires that the article's Lead section contain an overview of the article. The key elements of Ziegler's notability to date are (1) Dance Moms; (2) "Chandelier" and "Elastic Heart"; (3) her performances on scripted TV shows; (4) her performances on DWTS, Ellen, talk shows and award shows; (5) her extensive coverage in magazines and as a FW correspondent for Elle; and (6) her modelling career, including Capezio. WP:LEAD requires that *all* of these be mentioned in the Lead section and described in greater detail in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This: "Ziegler has also guest-starred on scripted shows and performed on talk shows and other broadcasts, and she has been seen on magazine covers and in feature articles." is pure Fancruft. It doesn't tell anyone anything that isn't already obvious. Please show me one other BLP that mentions "...guest-starred on scripted shows and performed on talk shows, and she has been seen on magazine covers..." as part of the lede. Such mention is perfunctory – every actor or prominent dancer has "guest-starred on scripted shows and performed on talk shows". This is absolutely not notable and should be stricken. WP:LEAD says that the lede should be a "summary of its most important aspects". Guest appearances, etc. don't cut it. IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, "FW correspondent for Elle" probably is notable enough to be mentioned in the lede, but that isn't in the sentence I cut (it probably should have been). At the least, this sentence needs to be substantially reworked so it's not just Fancruft. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:LEAD says that the article's Lead section should contain a "summary of its most important aspects". The most important aspects of Ziegler's article include her appearances on scripted shows, including Drop Dead Diva, Austin & Ally and Pretty Little Liars (forthcoming).  She has danced on  Dancing with the Stars, Ellen, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Saturday Night Live and at the Grammy Awards broadcast, among others, that got very significant press coverage. These were not just interviews, they were dancing performances, each of which got very significant coverage.  Her magazine covers and features include Kode, Schön! Magazine, Elle, Dance Spirit, Nylon, Vs., Seventeen, Harper's Bazaar, People, Dazed, Cosmopolitan, Billboard, Teen Vogue and Stella.  Summarizing these facts is not fancruft, it is "a summary of the most important aspects", which is *required* in the Lead section.  If you have a better way to summarize these facts that you don't consider "perfunctory", please suggest it, but to delete all mention of them does not satisfy the requirements of WP:LEAD. None of these things are "obvious" -- they are key facts about Ziegler that need to be stated in the Lead.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the problem – guest and magazine appearances don't qualify as "most important aspects". Those apply to every celebrity BLP on the planet. There is nothing notable about this. Dance Moms is notable. "FW correspondent for Elle" is notable. The modeling contact is probably notable. Random TV and magazine appearances is not notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ssilvers above - these are important facts about her career need to be included in the article's Lead section. Jack1956 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jack and Ssilvers. This is a no-brainer to anyone familiar with WP:LEAD.  Tim riley  talk    21:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLPLEAD: "4. The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played" – the argument I am making is that "appearances" don't qualify as "notable". Again, no other BLP that's like this one even mentions "talk show appearances" or "magazine appearances" (or even TV show "guest appearances", generally) in the lede. Doing so really smacks of "Fancruft", at least the way that sentence is constructed now. I get it that she's only 12, and so doesn't have much of a "resume" yet. But that doesn't justify lowering BLPLEAD standards here. There's a reason that that sentence is controversial, and has led to previous edit warring – it's because a significant percentage of the readership doesn't think it should be there (certainly in the form it is in, right now). I'm one of them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Fancruft" means, but I take it to be an American equivalent of Schwärmerei. If so, I'm blest if I can see how that applies here. Appearances of any importance are ipso facto notable – or else they could not be in the article at all. If they are notable enough for the main text, they must be mentioned briefly in the lead. That is what WP:LEAD says. I hope this helps clarify the misunderstanding.  Tim riley  talk    23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, well I've tried. I will reiterate again that this sentence is problematic to anyone who's visited nearly any other BLP, and will no doubt lead to continued edit warring in the future (as it has in the past) because it comes off as trying to make basically accomplishments of much lesser notability appear "notable" or "important". In short, most of that stuff does not belong in the lede of a BLP – only the most important accomplishments should be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that as (or if) her career grows, then these appearances will pale into insignificance and IJBall's position wll be the right one to hold (and I suspect everyone else here will agree with it). At the moment, however, with a burgeoning career, I think the balance is right: they are important for this individual at the moment, and should remain in the lead for the present, until such point that there are more notable exploits and experiences to replace them. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Best Known For
The lead currently says "She is best known for appearing on the Lifetime reality television series Dance Moms." Is this (still) true? From what I can tell those episodes only get between 1 and 3 million views, while she was the lead in the music video for "Chandelier" that even on just YouTube got 180+ million views; a video that received nominations, and resulted in lots of guest appearances on Ziegler's part, including her performance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed and changed. Dance Moms would be virtually unknown outside of the US, but her performance in the video has garnered worldwide attention. Don Cuan (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The obvious suppressing discussion. Perhaps so as not to harm the child, right? Then, I only agree, yes. Weill, the visitor - Kontent are, yes, .... (dubious). SSilver2 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that SSilver2 is not me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note: if you Google search "Sia" - Three YouTube video music videos appear - I added "Big Girls Cry" to the Wiki page, I know it has a factor of 10 less views, but similar proportion difference. ( Sia - Big Girls Cry; Sia - Chandelier; Sia - Elastic Heart; 50,172,514; 775,048,445; 316,680,086 ) Envelopery — Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Overturn infobox consensus
I propose adding an infobox. I went back and looked at the version of the article when it was decided against and could vaguely see why it was decided against, however, circumstances have changed. The article has a picture, it has more than enough information to summarize in without being "ugly" (how such a subjective thing could be used as basis for a consensus, I don't get), and not being too small. Let's add an infobox.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 04:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Circumstances have not changed and desire to ignite yet another laborious infobox discussion is a net loss for the project. I would suggest that you spend your time and effort in reviewing a GA or expanding a stub rather than trying to talk about how best to bastardise this article.   Cassianto Talk   04:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, I don't appreciate your tone and think you should read this.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I couldn't really give a toss what think.   Cassianto Talk   17:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I continue to oppose an infobox for this article. The use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional.  The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids, and all the facts it could present would be stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, so the box is 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 lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts 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) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I can only repeat what I stated less than three months ago as the article has changed very little during that period: "There is no need for an info box in this article; it does not convey any information not already included in the (concise) lead." SagaciousPhil  - Chat 07:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I thought we had previously clearly established that the article does not need an info box for the reasons stated ad nauseum. Jack1956 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per the above, and my comments in an earlier thread (see ). - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. IB would be pointless clutter in this case, making Wikipedia look amateurish and half-baked.  Tim riley  talk    08:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

New film projects
Maddie will be starring in the upcoming film "The book of Henry" by Colin Trevorrow. Alongside celebrities like Naomi Watts, Lee Pace. http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/619617-jurassic-world-director-colin-trevorrows-the-book-of-henry-begins-filming http://www.ew.com/article/2015/10/05/book-of-henry-maddie-ziegler-jacob-tremblay-jaeden-lieberher - Padfoot93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padfoot93 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Awards section
User:Maintrance, please discuss your views on article Talk pages, like this one, instead of WP:Edit warring. We have a procedure here on Wikipedia described in this guideline: WP:BRD (Bold, revert, discuss). That guideline says that, when you disagree with content in an article, you can go ahead and make a bold edit. If someone else disagrees with you, they can revert. Then, you should open a Talk page discussion. In this case, you made a bold edit. I reverted, and so then you should have opened a discussion here on the Talk page. As for the matter at hand, Ziegler is the soloist in the "Chandelier" video. The entire video is just Ziegler dancing to Sia's vocal. It seems to me that it belongs on her article as much as Sia's. I feel less strongly about the Dance Moms award, but I note that Ziegler is certainly the star of that show, primarily responsible for its popularity, and so the award seems appropriate here. There must be a guideline that governs such Awards sections. Does anyone know it? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning sounds weak to me. The impression that one now gets is that Ziegler herself picked up the awards or got nominated, which obviously is not true. The section should cover awards regarding her work only. If Ziegler would be awarded as the best dancer in a music video, we certainly wouldn't list that to Sia's resume, would we? This doesn't mean that there couldn't be a mention of it in the body text itself, of course. Widr (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No one would argue that Leonardo DiCaprio has won an Oscar, because the film Titanic won so many Oscars. Ziegler is no the winner of these awards. Singer Sia and the Show Dance Moms are the winner of these awards, not Maddie. That is why this must not be mentioned in the article. What are you doing is simply wrong. --Maintrance (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:C.Fred and others, can we have more comment on this, please? I have removed the Dance Moms award, but the "Chandelier" video is a solo dance by Ziegler.  Ziegler is not the "best" dancer, as Widr suggests, but the *only* dancer; in fact the only person shown, in this video, so I think it makes sense to show it on her bio article.  It's more analogous to a case where a one-woman show wins a Tony award.  Would that go on the performer's bio article, as well as the show's article? Take a look.  As I asked above, isn't there a guideline that gives us guidance here?  I don't see one.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the point. Those awards and nominations have nothing to do with Ziegler herself; they are for the video and the artist behind it. It makes no difference whether she is dancing solo or not, because the section should only be about her awards and nominations. I'm not sure about guidelines here, other than obviously this. Widr (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact is that like anything is wrong as well: First, the MTV Award was won for "Best Choreography" by Ryan Heffington, not for the best dance performance of Maddie Ziegler. This must out of the article. Secondly, the Grammy was a nomination for "Best Music Video" and was not won, but won by Pharrell Williams. This nomination goes only to the artists and that is the singer Sia and video director Daniel Askill. These needs to get out of the article too. Thirdly, ARIA Music Awards of 2014 was won for the "Best Music Video" by the singer Sia and video director Daniel Askill. Again, all of these awards are not won by Maddie Ziegler, even though she was the dancer in the video. Only an Award for "Best Solo Performance" can be in her article but did not exist. That's why I had removed again and again because it is now simply wrong in the article for now. We in Wikipedia must be correct, otherwise we are just a joke. I hope you finally understand this. --Maintrance (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Maddie won the Zimbo Scene Stealer award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.206.246 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Big Girls Cry"
Ziegler starred in three Sia videos: Since Big Girls Cry is so much less popular than the other two, we have not included it in the Lead, although we mention it in the body below. I don't think that it belongs in the Lead. Can others weigh in, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Chandelier -- about 775 million views, as of today
 * Elastic Heart -- about 315 million views, as of today
 * Big Girls Cry -- about 50 million views, as of today.
 * I agree, it is not necessary in the lead. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 05:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Ssilvers. The first two are much more significant than the third, and since we want to keep Lead sections short, it makes sense to choose only the most important ones for the Lead section. -- UWS Guy (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Update as of October 2015: So, "Big Girls Cry" is still far less significant than the first two and should not be named in the Lead. It is mentioned in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chandelier -- more than 900 million views
 * Elastic Heart -- more than 400 million views
 * Big Girls Cry -- about 75 million views

Fashion week
Don't know there exactly to add it, but Maddie has also acted on the New York Fashion Week as a correspondent for TennVogue. On the previous Fashion Week she acted as a correspondent for Elle, as already stated in the article. But on the most recent one she was with TeenVogue. http://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/maddie-ziegler-nyfw-photo-diary</re - Padfoot93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padfoot93 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All she did for Teen Vogue, apparently, was add captions to several photos of herself with others at several fashion shows. For Elle, there were detailed articles and several reports about her activities as a "correspondent" at fashion week. So, it doesn't look like the Teen Vogue episode is worth reporting, in contrast to the significant content and descriptions that were available concerning her Elle adventure.  Let me know if I'm missing something important here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Time magazine list in WP:LEAD
I added the Time magazine 30 most influential teens list to the Lead section. According to WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So, the fact that something appears in both the article's body and in the Lead is fine, as long as the items in the Lead are "the most important points", so "redundancy" is not a reason to exclude something from the Lead. The question is whether it is important enough to mention in the Lead, and it seems to me that it is of particular importance, because Time is the leading US news magazine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Her appearance on the list is a consequence of the things she is notable for, not something she is notable for. So, yes, I would maintain this does not belong in the lead, and certainly not as identical content (wikilinks, citations and all) to the content that appears in the body.  General Ization   Talk   21:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Time list is a "consequence" of her achievements. So is any "award", honor or recognition.  But this seems to be an important point of recognition in the most important US new magazine.  The only reason that the content is identical is because it is so brief. Happy to leave off the ref in the Lead if you don't think it is necessary. What do others think?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it merits inclusion... - SchroCat (talk)

Edits by Rnicraje
It was better the other way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnicraje (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming to the Talk page, Rnicraje, but I disagree. What Rnicraje did was as follows:


 * break the sections down into numerous stubby sections, some of which had only one sentence, or even nothing in them. Adding a level 2 section for social media, near the top of the article, for example, is a poor formatting choice. The way the paragraphs were broken apart also left some information that appeared to be unreferenced, whereas it was correctly referenced in the previous format.
 * add information to the WP:LEAD section that is of lesser importance or, at least at present, is of uncertain importance because it is a future event or activity. See also WP:CRYSTAL.
 * add a new awards section about Sia song awards that is not appropriate here. This information is already included in the Sia article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's reasons stated above for reverting Rnicraje's edits. Sgcosh (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur.  has been reported at WP:AN/3RR.  General Ization   Talk   16:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)