Talk:Maddie Ziegler#rfc D85BA34

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)

: 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)

::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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristin_Chenoweth&diff=675148792&oldid=675090232 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)

::: I support an infobox, and appreciate Ssilvers well intended arguments {{diff|Talk:Maddie_Ziegler|794645195|prev|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)

::::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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/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)

::::: 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)

:::::: 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)

:::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)

:::I Support an infobox. The argument that they have errors because people don't update them is ludicrous. All articles have the potential to have errors if they are not properly updated in all sections, and the "nuance" that allegedly makes it difficult to express things out of their "context" is ridiculous. There isn't nuance to Ziegler's name, birth date, birth place, occupation, years active, or education, all of which have the easy potential to be expressed in the simple Template:Infobox person. EytanMelech (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

::::{{ping|User:EytanMelech}} You’re responding to a dead thread here. The last RfC was a year ago and ended without a consensus so it’s probably fine to start a new one if you are so inclined. Dronebogus (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::Haha sorry! I didn't see the date of posting until after I left my message. I don't care enough about RfC to start a new thread but yeah that was totally my bad! EytanMelech (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::User:Somambulant1 are you a sockpuppet of Ssilvers? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

:::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)

• Support This is ridiculous that this page has not infobox. I understand if this was a page about a composer, where I have seen some composer-related pages without infoboxes but she's literally an actress and dancer. Everyone in that field here has an infobox. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons; we need to be considering the WP:READER here. Additional comment: the WP:OWN-like behavior demonstrated by Ssilvers over this page is appalling. wizzito | say hello! 21:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussions. These decisionsshould be made by the main/regular editors, as Arbcom has very clearly said, not drive-by editors (like me). Is it Discord stirring this up? Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support I think it is frankly stupid that this page does not have an infobox, when pretty much every other notable person page has one. I just don't get it. I believe there should be an infobox. Can we add one? Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2024

Comment - wouldn't the above be considered a consensus in favor of an infobox? Quite frankly, the "drive by" editor comment be converse to the idea of Wikipedia being something anyone can edit (and by extension contribute towards a discussion toward, and at an extreme, could be considered a personal attack. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, this is an overwhelming consensus in this thread for an infobox for this article. That said, for it to be binding and edit-war proof, an WP:RFC may have to be used, because infobox wars tend to go on forever unless a neutrally worded RFC is opened, presenting a sample infobox for the specified article, that respondents can support or oppose. Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Noted. Not one to start RFCs at least nowadays, but if you go ahead and start one, I'll definitely keep an eye on it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Edit: I just saw it lol InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, of course it's not. That's just simply vote counting on a thread that - as someone pointed out in 2023 was "a dead thread". The last RfC on this rejected an IB, and this certainly doesn't overturn it. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::This old discussion is long dead. New discussions go at the bottom of the page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers Could you please explain how [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maddie_Ziegler&diff=prev&oldid=1159968350 this edit] is vandalism? I was attempting to correct the fact that {{tq| Sia received the Razzie for worst director.}} is, for some reason, included as part of the citation and not the article text. The citation also should be formatted, rather than a bare URL. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:Your edits were not vandalism. The bad edit was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maddie_Ziegler&diff=prev&oldid=1159966142 this one], which your edits tried to clean up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

::Fair, but I think you also may have mistakenly reintroduced some typographical errors, as I described above (sorry for the edit conflict). I have no issue with restoring that STATUSQUO, but I do think we should also fix that error or otherwise entirely remove the sia mention and fix the bare url. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:::There is no bare ref. The reference to Sia is within the footnote on purpose, because this article is about Ziegler, not Sia. It looks correct to me. Please take another look at the text and footnote 64, and let me know if you still see any kind of error. If the article had a separate "notes" section, it could go there, but I don't mind it in the footnote as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

::::BTW, I now see that you had already reversed the bad edit by the IP, so thank you for that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Maddie Ziegler|answered=yes}}

Maddie Ziegler stared in a music video as a dancer called DANCE by the Abby Lee Dance Company featuring Todrick Hall. I will provide a link as well as the link to the video.

Link: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dance-moms-nearly-ruin-video-with-todrick-hall-065840564.html

It will not let me put the link to the video so just look up Dance by Aldc and Todrick hall. 2607:FEA8:E982:1A00:B11B:359D:CDB2:B30A (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Well, they made at least two videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp72to_kN1s "Dance"] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGnRO7WlE-o "Freaks Like Me"]. These are already referenced in Ziegler's article (search for Todrick, and you'll see where). The videos themselves are not very noteworthy with respect to Maddie's career. Ziegler was only one of several Dance Moms dancers who appear in the videos, and actually she is not very prominent in either video. There are no serious news or feature articles that describe Ziegler's performance in either video. So, they should not be given more ink in Ziegler's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753185688}}

{{rfc|bio|media|rfcid=D85BA34}}

Should the article have an infobox?
Started because of a slow-burning thread at the top that was going nowhere Dronebogus (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• As a reminder to all who !vote, and by way of background: Infoboxes are classed as a contentious topic, and care should be taken to ensure that comments do not impugn or malign others; please comment on the content, not other editors. Furthermore, ArbCom's rulings on IB's state that arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general - decisions of 2013 and 2018, plus many active discussions in the intervening period. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :SchroCat, I’d really prefer you didn’t “clerk” these discussions like an uninvolved user by adding this disclaimer, even if in good faith; everyone knows where you stand on the issue and that you hold strong opinions on it. I am the same way, and I don’t do this because I’m not (and cannot be) a neutral party. Dronebogus (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::See above, take note and AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I am assuming good faith, I’m just politely asking you not do this as an extremely involved non-neutral party; it’s impossible not to read subtext into your message even if you intended it to be 100% neutral. Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::See above, take note and AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Schro, as an FRS respondent, I'm afraid I have to agree with DB on this; I think the problematic is likely to outweigh the benefit when it comes to an involved user attempting to prescribe the boundaries of the discussion at the outset by summarizing the previous ArbCom rulings. Nobody would object to a simple statement like "Just a reminder, this is a CTOP area, so a high regard for civility and keeping commentary focused on this issues is advised." Although, frankly, those should be general principles guiding editors working in any area. And basically almost every veteran editor is familiar with the background and context here as is. {{pb}}But your additional summary of the ArbCom cases could easily be misinterpreted as a mandate to avoid stating positions such as "I think infoboxes are generally useful, for reasons X, Y, and Z". And nothing in the rulings for the cited ArbCom cases discourages such positions. There's merely a desire (not merely among ArbCom but the general community, who long-ago wearied of the roving infobox war) that every discussion not become a re-statement of every possible argument under the sun for or against infboxes. But generalized positions are, of course, permitted. And your wording feels like you are slightly putting your thumb on the scale against that. I'm happy to AGF that this is not your intention, but it's an illustration of why DB is right: the most highly partisan editors for this infamous dispute probably should not be setting the ground rules for !voting. Because you do have biases that could influence how you present such issues, even unconsciously. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::"{{tq|But your additional summary of the ArbCom cases could easily be misinterpreted as a mandate to avoid stating positions such as "I think infoboxes are generally useful, for reasons X, Y, and Z". And nothing in the rulings for the cited ArbCom cases discourages such positions.}}" That is incorrect. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes specifically says to avoid to "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general". There is no 'thumb on the scale' or anything of the sort. Additionally, given you've also !voted in this, please don't try and claim some 'FPS respondent' status. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::SnowRise is not trying to make rules of engagement for this discussion. Additionally with your double standard on what constitutes incivility shown below (very low standards for you but any criticism of you or your allies’ opinions for everyone else) I believe you are outright disrupting this RfC by playing both non-neutral debater (and not even holding to your own standards) and neutral clerk (which you have no right to act as given you are neutral neutral nor in a position of authority like an administrator) Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::See above and take note. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Stop saying that, it’s also disruptive as well as just annoying. Dronebogus (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Best read over Wikipedia:Don't be obnoxious Moxy🍁 01:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per my original argument: infoboxes are the de facto standard for biographies and no-one has ever presented an evidence-based case that they do any significant harm to an article. They provide simple facts at a glance, which is the whole point. This is not damaging to the article, or redundant; this is what they exist for. Additionally, this isn’t even a biography in an area that historically did not include biographical infoboxes like classical music. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, Infoboxes are particularly unsuited to arts fields, especially when they merely 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 the box would misleadingly emphasize less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about Ziegler. The key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead *and* in the body of the article, and so the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :You really do not need “nuance” for a person’s birth (and if applicable death) place and date. I will never understand that argument. Dronebogus (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support The article is long enough to justify a modest infobox that helps readers quickly access basic information without having to sift through the lead and body. While some argue it might overemphasize minor facts or lack nuance, I find that unconvincing, infoboxes serve to summarize straightforward details for readers’ convenience, while the prose remains for depth and context. Including one aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of making information easily accessible. - Nemov (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Infobox. I think that @Songwaters reflects my points as Disinfobox in my personal opinion is all but deserving of effective deprecation, but to reiterate a few of their points (go read their full rebuttal to Ssilvers in the previous thread): Infoboxes provide a concise, user-friendly summary that benefits readers looking for quick facts, such as age or place of birth, without undermining the lead section. Concerns about vandalism or editor disputes don't justify removing a tool many readers find useful. Ultimately, infoboxes serve the core purpose of Wikipedia—making information accessible and easy to find. I've shared these opinions for a while, and while good faith, I personally view Ssilvers and SchroCat's opinion asoutdated in how they try to tell people how to read a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, making articles more accessible for audiences, in providing both prose and data, is the best move for the future. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Please don’t personalise discussions, particularly by presenting misleading statements about the opinions of others. Bluntly, you have lied in saying how I think people should read an article; you have no idea on my views on that subject as I there is nothing on this page that states it. You should strike this misleading part of your comment immediately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC) NOTE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maddie_Ziegler&diff=prev&oldid=1296097402 This was the comment to which I replied]; it has since been edited without text being struck. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I do not see my statement of my opinion as untruthful - my opinion on DISINFOBOX and views like it is that it forces people to only consume Wikipedia articles one way, and my opinion is that only providing prose without infoboxes to supplement is an outdated opinion. Respectfully, I think you are misapplying the idea of a personal attack to any criticism of your opinion, and unlike your person, your opinions are subject to scrutiny, debate, and criticism, as are mine and everyone else's on this encyclopedia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I see you have edited the comment, but without striking the text. It still contains a falsehood about how I think people should read the article. Unless you can show a diff from this page that says what you are claiming, you need to strike the comment: I have not made any such statement about this article. See also WP:TALK#REPLIED as to how to edit one’s own comments after they’ve been replied to. - SchroCat (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I'm not making a 100% irrefutable claim about your position - I'm making a claim about my opinion on your position. But I digress. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::How is {{tq|and while good faith, I personally view Ssilvers and SchroCat's opinion as outdated}} a personal attack, but {{tq|Bluntly, you have lied}} (directly insulting someone’s honesty and assuming bad faith) not? Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Infobox. See first section for all my reasons. Songwaters (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately in this day and age of short attention spans, some of our readers just want the quick summary without bothering to read the entire article. For those that want the quickness, there is no harm in letting them have it, while those who have the time, can read the entire article and actually learn something about the subject. And thank you to {{u|SchroCat}} for the reminder; good advice we should all follow. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Most tertiary sources for people, companies, historical events, etc. (including Google info-panels, online and offline encyclopedias, FT and other articles, etc., etc.) contain infoboxes for ease of comprehension and use. It has nothing to do with the current digital era or short attention spans. It's an age-old educational device designed to impart knowledge and aid the reader. Also, infoboxes show the person's age (or age at death), which nothing else in the article will do (or nothing at the top of a deceased person's article will do). I looked through the article history for the word infobox and found this one inserted a year ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maddie_Ziegler&diff=prev&oldid=1248141794], and it, for example, seems fine. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support This article is no different from any other articles about living celebrities that have infoboxes. Not sure why we're making an exception for Ziegler. Some1 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support: I don't get the opposition to this. It's a helpful place to get quick pieces of information about the subject. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Somambulant1 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The utility for a BLP like this seems to me to be manifest, and I am not persuaded by the generalized argument that they are inappropriate for people who live their public life in / derive their notability from the arts, as opposed to other classes of individuals. Further, the argument that there is some redundancy of the statement of some facts is uncompelling to me: we clearly understand and accept a certain degree of this for the core purposes of infoboxes in articles of all sorts. Incidentally, I don't mean anything by the focus on Ssilver's points, but as one of only two opposes so far (and the only one who left a rationale for their position), there's are the only arguments for omission that can be engaged with. Otherwise, I broadly agree with the sentiments shared in the support !votes above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. An i-box is very useful for certain articles, but this would not, in my view, be one of them. Tim riley talk 06:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I was not familiar with infoboxes being a contentious topic, but as an editor and reader of arts-related content, I expect to find them on biographies and personally think readers' experience suffers without them. Speaking only to my individual experience, I am a librarian who provides reference support to college students, and personally find that having quick facts to ground myself before wading into paragraphs of complex prose (whether lead paragraphs or not) is a good way to quickly ground oneself on any new topic. For biographies, I specifically look for an infobox first, before moving a lead paragraph to learn more and contextualize bare facts. This article is long and detailed, and if I did not know anything about the subject, having a very basic overview of what the person is known for, how old they are, etc. in a table form always helps me, as it is easier to digest than in paragraph form. Peachseltzer (hello!) 18:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Since Mackenzie Ziegler's article also has been having a very similar trajectory when it comes to its infobox debate, albeit a lot less frequent, is it time to consider adding an RFC to Mackenzie's too, regardless of whether it's subsequent or concurrent to this one? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)