The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Mackenzie Ziegler
Ziegler in 2018
Born	Mackenzie Frances Ziegler (2004-06-04) June 4, 2004 (age 19) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
Years active	2011–present
Relatives	Maddie Ziegler (sister)
Musical career
Genres	Pop
Instruments	Vocals
Labels	Hollywood Records
YouTube information
Channels	kenzie
Location	Los Angeles, California
Years active	2015–present
Genre(s)	Music, Vlog
Subscribers	3.71 million
Total views	370 million
Creator Awards 100,000 subscribers 1,000,000 subscribers

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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and @User:Cullen328. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd be willing to start an RFC if we can't get an immediate consensus on this. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would to, but it doesn't hurt to see. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is borderline WP:OWN and a personal attack. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is simply a fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

The actress born 2002. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the late reply. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 [1] and [2].

  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? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Dude. I just wrote "I won't WP:ABF" (which if you read the essay, ABF stands for Assume Bad Faith).. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  How is it zero encyclopedic benefit? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  “Because the editor formerly known as SchroCat said so”? Dronebogus (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  That could work InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t make a box bad just to prove it’s bad. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support - Would be advantageous to readers, help describe the subject, and overall give quick access to important info. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]