Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 2, 2014Articles for deletionKept
June 12, 2014Articles for deletionSpeedily kept


Infobox[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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: "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) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support an infobox, and appreciate Ssilvers well intended arguments 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)[reply]
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: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

RFC on Infoboxes (continuation from discussion above)[edit]

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.
While I have not participated in infobox discussions during my years here, I am aware of the longstanding issue that is this topic among editors. Throughout this discussion (and the ones preceding it), many links were provided to related essays, guidelines, and even ARBCOM cases. One point I will comment on, which was raised a couple of times, is that the opinion of editors who have not engaged with the article should have less weight. While the participation of users who have not contributed to the article demanding the addition/removal of the infobox was noted as a persistent issue in these kinds of discussions, no remedy or RFC appears to have passed stating how this should be dealt with, and as such it falls under the closer's discretion.

It was also pointed out that, in the infobox cases, a remedy was supported in which editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general (emphasis mine). While this does not directly qualify the kind of arguments that should be ignored or given more/less weight during an RFC like this, one should take care when considering !votes that are essentially WP:WHATABOUT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

If we were to focus solely on the arguments that are directly related to the use of an infobox in this article, we would have one major point: the type of information provided in the infobox would lack context, due to the subject's extensive and varied career, which can be only acquired by reading the lede and possibly the remainder of the article, meaning it would be doing our readers a disservice. Some editors proposed a discussion on what should be shown on the infobox, but no counterpoint was given to justify using an infobox in this specific article.

The vast majority of the rest of the discussion focused on generic points about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of this kind of template in articles in general (ie. too easy to vandalize, too much clutter, etc.), with each user giving their own opinion on what is better. While I still took them into consideration, I gave them less weight.

Having said all that, and taking into account best practices in these types of discussions, there is no clear consensus on whether this article should have an infobox. While consensus can change, it appears we are not quite there yet. Although the article did have an infobox when it was first created, it remained without one for several years, meaning the current status quo is without an infobox.

Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


A recent discussion on whether to include an infobox for Ziegler's article has stagnated without conclusion. Supporters of an infobox (myself included) reference a previous discussion in which an infobox was supported as well as accessibility/quality of life, while opposers of an infobox usually cite WP:DISINFOBOX and raise the possibility of increased vandalism. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC) 18:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support accidentally replied to dead thread; infoboxes are overwhelmingly common on biographies and useful to general readers. Anti-infobox users generally resort to overemphasizing minor problems covered by basic maintenance, or vague non-subjective arguments, to cover up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people who have commented/voted above but not yet in this RfC: Wizzito, Somambulant1, Tim riley, Jack1956 -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you that I left the notification from ArbCom about civility in IB discussions. Much of your comment is personal in tone and does not relate to whether an IB should be included on this article. Mischaracterising the intentions of others, their motives for commenting and the arguments they have employed with good reason are not civil and I suggest you should possibly strike much of the material you added in this addition to your otherwise acceptable contribution to the discussion. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is specific and to the point. I have yet to see a logical argument against having an infobox on this article or the other one. The closing editor should note that the same handful of editors are fighting this change. When the same vocal minority is fighting infoboxs article by article it's worth pointing out. I don't know what the motives of these editors are, but they're fighting a losing and time consuming battle. Nemov (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a gentle reminder to the closing admin, ArbCom decisions have stressed that arguments about IBs in general should not be taken into account (the arguments that say ‘I like/don’t like them’, ‘I can’t see why not’), nor should arguments about consistency (ie ‘other articles have them, so this should too’), and that such arguments should be based on more concrete bases about this article in particular. So say ArbCom. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:5945:C359:CFC1:EECC (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously long, well written argument for a user with three edits… Dronebogus (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a former editor on a dynamic IP address. Please comment on the issue, not on other editors. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I’m very concerned about sock-puppeting or meat-puppeting in such a contentious topic area. Dronebogus (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the case here. Please be more careful about how you phrase comments about other editors. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:, I note that this proposed infobox demonstrates well how undesirable the infobox would be: For example, 1) It includes a line for education and links to her grade school, which she attended up to age 11. This does not comply with MOS:IB, which explains that an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject". It is not a key aspect of the subject. 2) It has a line for "Known for", stating that she is known for Dance Moms, but she left that show in early 2016, aged 13. She is better known for her music videos with Sia, and since 2016, she has concentrated on film work including, most recently, The Fallout and Spielberg's West Side Story. 3) The box mentions her sister. This is not "key" to an understanding of the subject. Since 2016, Ziegler and her sister have very rarely appeared together and have totally separate careers. Much more "key" information is given in the Lead section, and the information given in this proposed infobox lacks nuance and is, if anything, mostly misleading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. The grade school can and very probably should be removed from the infobox. 2. Items can be added to "known for". 3. I strongly disagree about relatives. In my mind, that's one of the most important features of infoboxes – if they have notable relatives, they can and should be listed in the infobox whether or not the subject associates with them. This gives instant important, relevant information to the reader. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would fully concur with this opinion. Grade school ain't important; we've traditionally only listed university education, and Known For can be expanded. Again, we don't like WP:Walls of text in discussions, so why should we have walls of text as our leads for readers who could reasonably assumed to like them less? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can fix most of that without trashing the infobox entirely. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. 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. 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]
Then how come various WP:FA's on personalities have one (as examples, see Laurence Oliver, Amy Adams, Priyanka Chopara, or Brad Pitt)? How come most people who have attained some sort of fame have one? Why should Ziegler be an exception to the standard? WP:OSE, per its page, is generally a good argument when making comparisons to GA's and Featured Articles. Well-written articles generally have infoboxes. It's not necessarily a codified standard, but it's informal enough that it's a reasonable assumption to make that most readers of the most important encyclopedia expect infoboxes for celebrities. If you think otherwise, maybe be bold and remove all of those peoples' infoboxes, along with other celebrities and notable figures like Bebe Rexha, Chloe Lukasiak, Gayle, Tate McRae, Bryce Hall, Macaulay Culkin, John Watson, Alvin Malnik, Tim Cook, Natarajan Chandrasekaran, Joe Jonas, Fred Astaire, GAI, Stevie Nicks, and WAYYY too many others to mention (and maybe try not to get reported for disruptive editing). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know by what definition you "start" an article with an infobox? Reading on a mobile, I first see the lead, then an infobox. On a broader screen, I see the lead left (where a reader of English looks first), and an infobox right. Both can coexist, serving different needs of readers (sometimes the same person with a different question) side by side, and why we have debated that coexistence for so long is a mystery to me. Recommended reading that helped me: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? by Brian Boulton (10 Jul 2013) and User:RexxS/Infobox factors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just said that editors should not stand up to a bad addition to an article. I disagree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me and apparently GoodDay, Infoboxes are good additions to an article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay didn’t actually specify either way— I take their vote as neutral on quality, but also implying that it’s not worth fighting a popular idea that isn’t harmful. Dronebogus (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I'm removing this from WP:CLOSE for now and extending the RfC since this discussion came up in the other related article. This should be allowed to come to clear resolution. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this at the time, but after I extended this RfC and removed the close request an IP account added it back.[2] I've removed the request and it can be added back in a couple of weeks. Nemov (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify any doubts. I support adding an infobox & it shouldn't matter why. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation style[edit]

Before we get into an edit war about citation styles,@Philoserf, @Ssilvers, let's talk about it. WP:CITEVAR says the following:

"As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved"

Per this 14 February 2014 edit, the first non-bare-url citation format on this page was using citation templates. That was basically the modus operandi for 2014 and 2015 as far as I can ascertain. So without any established consensus, that should be the preferred citation format.

CITEVAR also says: "switching between major citation styles" should be avoided and that "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles [is] an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit."

So, to my reading, CITEVAR supports Philoserf's edits. I have already removed the language parameter per Ssilver's helpful suggestion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philoserf also deleted some citations without explanation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is true - the truncated versions are better, but they can fit within either system, and whichever version of citation is chosen, the shortened links should be the ones in place. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've stripped out the tracking parameters I could see (although there may be others that should also be taken out. Going over the diff between the two versions, I was stuck at the carelessness with which the edit was undertaken - there were a stack of error messages generated by the change, with sloppy mistakes such as the author of one article being "last=News|first=A. B. C." and one being "last=Dazed" (with no first name) and one being "|last1=July 01|first1=Samantha Highfill Updated|last2=EDT|first2=2015 at 12:00 PM|"; "citation" templates were used in some places instead of cite web; and some title fields were missing or empty. Even when some bot or automated process is used, people need to check what they've done and clear up their mistakes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sloppy mistakes such as the author of one article being "last=News first=A. B. C." and one being "last=Dazed" (with no first name) and one being "
Poorly implemented citation templates are not an argument against templates, they are an argument against poorly implemented citation templates.
Even when some bot or automated process is used, people need to check what they've done and clear up their mistakes
I 100% agree. I am an advocate for correctly used citation templates, not for templates in general. I would say it goes:
Correctly used templates >> Correct manual citations >>> Incorrectly used templates > incorrect manual citations. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Poorly implemented citation templates are not an argument against templates": rather clearly I have not said anywhere that they are. Your personal preferences are noted, but as WP:CITEVAR says "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference". If it comes down solely to personal preference, the WP:STATUS QUO remains, as far as I am aware. As above, I have voiced no opinion on a choice of whether to retain the STATUS QUO or whether to change just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever style is chosen, CITEVAR tells us it should be maintained uniformly across the article.
Using the non-templated style would be difficult for new contributors who largely use either bare-urls (which are deprecated) or template plugins. Templates also enable the use of bots and other tools to update and maintain citations, check for linkrot, etc. These are some of the many reasons why most articles use templates.
Are there advantages to the non-templated style that I'm missing? Or disadvantages to the templates? Any improper importing of the non-templated style is fixable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the citation style ought to be uniform. Your arguments against manual citations are essentially the same as your arguments for infoboxes. You prefer the templates, so you perceive that they are easier to use and better in various ways. I find them far more difficult to use, and my experience over the past 16+ years and 150,000+ edits is that they introduce far more errors and generally poor-quality citations than the manual style, and that it is easier for me to fill out manual citations and keep the article up to date. So, once again, we will have to agree to disagree and, once again, I would contend that editors who have not regularly worked on this article should defer to the preferred style of those who do, since it doesn't affect the content of the entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think every user who contributes to this article should use manual citations from now on? Because that is what your suggestion results in, given the MOS principles. its not "I prefer manual citations" its "which style should everyone use from now on?"
I would say this is tantamount to saying few other users should contribute, given that manual citations are so uncommon. This is the first BLP article in a while that I've found them in.
The compromise is writing correct manual citations, and then converting them to correctly used templates, as I suggested above. If you know of a tool for converting templated citations to manual ones, I would love to see it, as that would be another great compromise. Allow others to generate templated citations (correctly) and then convert them to manual ones. Or at least make sure they appear similar when viewed not in wikitext.
"So, once again, we will have to agree to disagree" The next step is actually to escalate the dispute, not to "agree to disagree", in my opinion. Such as garnering a WP:3O or starting an RFC (which I would consider a last resort here, as in most situations). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything has to be escalated. Turning everything into a timesink drama isn't a positive and constructive way to proceed.- SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

@Ssilvers Could you please explain how this edit is vandalism? I was attempting to correct the fact that 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)[reply]

Your edits were not vandalism. The bad edit was this one, which your edits tried to clean up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Categories