Talk:Maddie Ziegler/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Infobox

I removed the infobox and someone has put it back. The infobox on this article is pointless, redundant and repetitive, not to mention ugly. I vote to delete it. CassiantoTalk 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. Articles about living people have an information box in the English Wikipedia. Stop this sensless deletion. --Maintrance (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Who says I'm wrong? And where does it say "articles about living people have an information box in the English Wikipedia"? Please see this and then get back to me. CassiantoTalk 13:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Listen to me, stop to erase the info box. Look around at other articles in english Wikipedia, because there is also an info box. You're disturbing with your actions. --Maintrance (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Maintrance, that's not even close to any policy or guideline. The only relevant guideline says that IBs are neither required or prohibited. Please don't try to make up guidelines to suit your personal preferences. – SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"Listen to me"? And who are you? CassiantoTalk 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can I say as well. What's the sense to delete a message box, which is already more than a year in products and now disturbs you at once. Your action makes no sense. --Maintrance (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (again) Im sorry but I just don't understand what you are saying. Could you put that in proper English so we can answer you properly. – SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure, the majority of users favor this box. What's your problem. What's so hard to understand that it makes no sense that you remove the information box. --Maintrance (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You have opinions that are not shared by a large proportion of readers (although a large proportion obviously do support their use). They are not required in articles, and their "merits" are often dubious. Additionally please do not be so aggressive in your tone: saying to people "What's your problem" and "Listen to me" is not going to lead to a constructive discussion, so it is best if you temper your language and approach accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Likewise. Nevertheless, you are wrong. But that probably makes no sense. --Maintrance (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
What a very odd and nonsensical thing to say. I have not used a brusque tone or made silly demands, and I fail to see what is "wrong" in my balanced response to your one-sided comments, but your logic is skewed and I think language barriers are affecting communication here. – SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if you got me perhaps misunderstood but my concern is only to declare that the information box has become quite normal in every article and need not be deleted. --Maintrance (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Being "normal" (which it's not) is not a reason to declare the use of an infobox in all articles. CassiantoTalk 14:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"Quite normal"? Not really. They are used in many, they are eschewed by many. – SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Look please on articles about people, all have an information box, even if it is still so small. You're strange and stolid. --Maintrance (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Not even close. There are many, including a large number of GAs and FAs that do not have an IB. – SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean about living persons. --Maintrance (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, there is no difference in the application of an IB for BLPs. If you think that's the case then you have been misled. If you are so convinced you are right, provide a link to a policy or guideline that backs your opinion. – SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maintrance, you are at 3RR. If you force the IB back into the article once more, I will not hesitate to report you in the appropriate forum. – SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong and don't want to see it. Then threatening when you're stuck. Many thanks also. --Maintrance (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You look Maintrance here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here to name but a few. Explain how these gained FA status without having an info box? CassiantoTalk 15:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I told you living persons, not dead persons. --Maintrance (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can point to an area in the MoS where it restricts the use of Infoboxes to persons who are alive then? No? Maybe your talking shit? CassiantoTalk 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Cassianto would care to explain what made the infobox all of a sudden so pointless, redundant, repetitive and ugly? It has been there since the article was created, and, as far as I can see, no one else has had problems with it until now. I can't see any consensus for keeping or removing it, but what I do see is quite improper use of rollback to force it your way. Widr (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
We're still waiting for a response from you regarding my explanation. You seem to have gone very quite on the subject. CassiantoTalk 22:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes in articles such as these have, for a long time, been pointless, redundant, repetitive and ugly. Maybe you should open your eyes a little bit more and consider other arguments rather than settling for what you think is "normal". I saw NO discussion for the implementation of an IB so why should we now discuss the reasons for its removal?
Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text. Infoboxes should be used only occasionally, with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists. CassiantoTalk 15:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
See WP:DISINFOBOX for a discussion of why Infoboxes are often not needed or helpful. One thing is clear: Infoboxes are not required. So, the only question is whether there is a consensus to include or not include one in a particular article. I agree with Cassianto and Schrocat that an Infobox is not required in this article, because it contains no new information. Indeed, it tends to emphasize some less important information, and the information that it contains is presented with better balance in the Lead and the rest of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
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 16:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Following on from the request for page protection, I've warned the reverting editor to stop. But it seems that editor created the article with an infobox in February 2014 (actually, recreated it because an earlier version was deleted), and it seems to have stayed in the article until a few days ago. Assuming I'm reading the history correctly, consensus is needed to remove rather than retain it. Perhaps an RfC would help. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree with the comment, above, from SagaciousPhil. An info-box serves no useful function here, and is mere clutter. Info-boxes are fine in their place (e.g. sportspeople, politicians, and others where career stats are wanted upfront) but not when they merely duplicate the content of the lead. Tim riley talk 08:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is against you at present. Sme articles have IBs, some don't. There is no rule that insists we include them, so you'll have to get over it, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Maintrance, the guideline states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Please stop edit warring. By the way, the Paula Abdul infobox is also a poor use of space in her article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox for the reasons stated by SagaciousPhil above. Jack1956 (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support infobox. I find them helpful, particularly in biographical articles. Also, given the focus on Ziegler's age, both in the article and in the world outside wikipedia, a birthdate-and-age template is called for, and an infobox is the best place to support it. TJRC (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • ...or you could just flick your eyes to the left and read the top line of the lede? Perish the thought that someone may actually have to read some prose to find this out; I know, shocking! CassiantoTalk 19:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Dome people do not want to do constant mental math to find out people's ages. No, subtracting 2002 from 2015 is not that difficult, but 7 from 9 mod 12 is. Regardless of the point, and regardless of how other people may be behaving, that is no reason to abandon WP:CIVILITY yourself. ⁓ Hello71 13:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I might've taken the time to respond to your comment had it of not been full of typos and poorly structured mathematical equations. I also don't listen to people pointing to incivility to bolster up their argument. CassiantoTalk 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a hidden tag on the page, saying "PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A CONSENSUS AGAINST ADDING AN INFOBOX TO THIS ARTICLE, SEE THE TALK PAGE". From the above, I don't conclude that a consensus exists and definitely not against it. The tag is misleading and should be deleted and the info box should stay. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you could read the thread again, properly this time and then you will see that what you have said is completely wrong. CassiantoTalk 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Evidently, I will not allow myself to get lost in endless discussions. We have opinions, which can't be right or wrong. We disagree and that is fine. Xtalkprogrammer (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think an infobox would be helpful in this article. I see that Cassianto, SchroCat, Ssilvers, SegaciousPhil, Tim riley, Jack1956, and I have all argued against the inclusion of an infobox, which seems to be a consensus to exclude it. -- UWS Guy (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Reinstating the infobox because the basis of this entire argument is ridiculous. I Support an infobox, clearly. It is common procedure for notable biography articles on Wikipedia to have infoboxes to summarize material from the article into a clear, concise way. It cleans up the page, helps organize, and presents information well. The majority of wiki bios, particularly that of people involved in the television and show business industries, provide info boxes. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I have also entered more information into the Info box so that it doesn't appear "small". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
That's very magnanimous of you, but I've just restored it back. You're clearly too selfish to take part in a consensus building excersise if you seemingly stick two fingers up to the persons bothering to take part in this discussion and revert to your own preferred version. CassiantoTalk 06:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Someone's clearly upset and has a disturbing hatred for infoboxes -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And someone's clearly too stupid to take part in a consensus building discussion. CassiantoTalk 06:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion? Reading through it shows something similar to a sad attempt at school yard bullying. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Aided and abetted by people like you of course. CassiantoTalk 06:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

[Left] Anyone who does not know that infoboxes are highly contentious on Wikipedia has not been paying attention. Willthacheerleader18, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Willthacheerleader18, do not add infoboxes to articles without first forming a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is thin line between idiot and genius. I choose the aesthetic aspect to solve this controversial. I put the infobox anyway and everyway.
Relly Komaruzaman | Talk 14:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I am Neutral over the inclusion of an infobox in this article, but as is clear from this talk page the inclusion is contentious and there is a current WP:CONSENSUS against doing so. Relly Komaruzaman, please refrain from your current actions of including the infobox without first building a consensus here, as your doing so constitutes Edit warring. Sgcosh (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

Please delete the verb phrase "is fat and" from the very first sentence of the entry, because this is a personal opinion from an editor not a factual statement or supported by any evidence. Full sentence is: "Madison "Maddie" Nicole Ziegler is fat and (born September 30, 2002)[1][2] is an American dancer, actress and model who achieved wide notice at an early age." Thank you. Colin Sachs 03:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. But you don't need to make a request regarding vandalism. We will delete that anyhow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Sage

Someone added this: "American singer-songwriter Rachael Sage was so moved upon seeing Zielger's performance to her song Happiness from her 2014 album Blue Roses that she dedicated the song to Ziegler as Maddie's Song.<ref>[http://www.fansshare.com/news/rachael-sage-s-happiness-earns-rave-reviews-after-maddie-z-dance "Rachael Sage's 'Happiness' earns rave reviews after Maddie Z dance"], ''Fansshare'', August [30], 2014</ref>" [The author's name, Danielle Wright should be added, if this is to be used].

First of all, that is not what the source says. It says "Rachael Sage upon seeing her perform her dance number to the song went on to her social media account and disclosed that the song was dedicated to the young dancer...." Secondly, is Fansshare.com a WP:RS? And finally, is this WP:fancruft, or is it really encyclopedic information? It really just boils down to the fact that a somewhat obscure artist said, on one occasion, that she liked one of Ziegler's numerous performances. What does everyone think? Probably, something more substantial could be written about Ziegler and Sage's album Choreographic.-- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you the website Fansshare.com was a poor choice and agree probably isn't a WP:RS. I think the inadequate source has led you to the wrong conclusion regarding it boiling down to her saying "on one occasion, that she liked one of Ziegler's numerous performances".
The song was released on her album with the Title 'Happiness (Maddie's Song)'. On Sage's website she says "i thought it would be an inspiring exercise to try and compose something for a specific dancer, and the one that captured me the most at the time was Maddie Ziegler." <ref>http://rachaelsage.com/the_story_of_happiness</ref>
Is it encyclopedic, that an artist with her own wiki article released a song (named after Zielger) on an album which itself has its own article (perhaps questionably), or does the song first have to be notable enough to have its own article? With regards to if Zielger having influenced this artist is WP:fancruft, or encyclopedic information, it would depend on the criteria used for judging how obscure the artist is. Sgcosh (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
See also this, mentioning the song and its date, and this. I don't think it should go in the "Reputation" section. If it goes in at all, I'd suggest putting it up with the Dance Moms stuff. I would be comfortable with a simpler statement like this: Singer-songwriter Rachael Sage dedicated her song Happiness, from Blue Roses (2014), to Ziegler, who danced a solo choreographed to the song, as well as other solos choreographed to Sage's songs, on the show.[refs] -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think as things stand (unless other editors want to voice an opinion) we should probably just leave it out completely as looking again at Rachael Sage's article and the links you provided i'm not 100% sure what side of WP:fancruft / or encyclopedic, this info would fall. Sgcosh (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Family and friends

I wanted to add some extra information about her family and friends e.g who they are. Lxxpy lxu (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ziegler's parents and siblings are mentioned. I don't believe that there is any further information regarding the subject's family and friends that would be of encyclopedic interest in this article. If you see important information in WP:Reliable sources, please let us know. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Spectrum?

Under music videos maddie also appeared in florence and the machines "Spectrum" video. Please amend this as page protected for some reason. Rhemzter (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Ziegler appeared in this video, certainly not as a principal dancer. Do you have a news source that reports it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Underage Sex Symbol?

Credible sources such as the Christian Science Monitor have debated Ziegler's role as an "underage sex symbol" (http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/Modern-Parenthood/2014/0512/Maddie-Ziegler-in-Sia-video-Right-choice-for-an-11-year-old). Her purported status as "America's first pre-teen sex symbol" is not reflected in this article at all nor is the debate on child sexualization in the media (http://www.theimproper.com/141814/maddie-ziegler-questions-pre-teen-sexualization-video/). There is a note about the controversy around the "Elastic Hearts" video, but I think this discussion should be expanded in this article to reflect the broader debate. 66.44.114.161 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is cherry-picking. No reasonable review of the thousands of articles written about Ziegler or the song "Chandelier" would lead to the conclusion that Ziegler was sexualized in "Chandelier" or other songs, and certainly not for a purile or salacious purpose. Also, there have been lots of children previously whose parents were accused of sexualizing them, for example child beauty pageant contestants (and numerous child actresses, like Brooke Shields), so Ziegler could not have been the "first" underage sex symbol. One article in a Christian newspaper, and another in an unreliable gossip source, do not rise to the level of verifiability required by Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, WP:BLP. By the way, when you comment on talk pages, please start new comments at the bottom of the page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Discussion (2017)

I personally prefer pages, especially those that are BLP's, that contain an infobox. Given that this article is rather lengthy, and even includes an image of the individual in the place where an infobox would appear, I personally am in favor of adding one. Given that there is a message at the top of the page prohibiting the addition of an infobox without discussion on the talk page, are there any objections to its addition now? --Hunterm267Talk 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I Support, but let's prepare to be shouted down, as has always happened in the past. There are a few editors here who don't quite get WP:OWN. TJRC (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
TJRC, please don't antagonise others. Just because some people have a different opinion on the use of infoboxes does not mean you get to insult them with accusations of OWNership.
I would oppose the inclusion of an IB. While IBs have their place, and their uses, I have to disagree with you, Hunterm267. I actually think IBs on BLPs are something that should be more carefully considered than in other biographies because of the potential for incorrect or out-of-date information. As to other rationales for opposing, my comments in the thread above and the one prior to that still stand. – SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above statements by SchroCat. I oppose the inclusion of an infobox. Somambulant1 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately, my source of confusion and issue with the exclusion of an IB on this page stems from inconsistency. For example, the article for an individual whom I would consider to be roughly similar in general notability, Chloë Grace Moretz, has an IB that provides no more information than would be provided in an IB on this page, yet an IB here is contested, while that one is not. Ultimately, my personal preference is and will be to have an IB here (and on most pages), however, for the sake of more cohesive editing, I feel that inconsistency leads to the majority of issues. --Hunterm267Talk 23:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I would support the inclusion of an IB on this article similar to the example you linked above. MarsToutatis talk 23:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Point taken, SchroCat, I'll strike that. To put a little more meat on my bare "support", I think having the small sidebar that the infobox provides is very helpful. This is particularly true in a case like this, where much of the interest in Ziegler is her accomplishments at such a young age; things like date of birth and age should be readily available.
I have never been much convinced by the arguments to the contrary: that infoboxees lead to errors by not being updated (so update them; most of the information in infoboxes is actually pretty stable, anyway); that it eliminates context (it's right next to the lede, and they complement each other quite well); or that it discourages the reader from reading the entire article (that's entirely the reader's decision, and it's quite a reach to say that we provide a service to the reader by making them go through an entire article to find the facts they want). I really don't see any good reasons not to have an infobox; most boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TJRC (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
One could argue that the there really is no good reason to have an infobox as most 'absence' arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT too. As to things like the date of birth, they are in the opening line of the lead, as is all the pertinent information, where context and further background is available. Thank you for striking the comment - it is appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox. This has been discussed twice before. The people who opposed to the infobox, in addition to SchroCat, Somambulant1 and me, were User:Cassianto, User:Sagaciousphil, User:Tim riley, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Jack1956 and User:Epicgenius. As I noted previously, 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. Note that, the editors who favor the infobox are not the editors who have actually done the hard work of updating and expanding this article over the years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
My response to this concern was articulated in my reply to these concerns listed here, on Talk:Mackenzie Ziegler. The inclusion of an infobox is largely a matter of personal preference, but many of the reasons given here are true for most all infoboxes... infoboxes are intended to contain facts already present in the article, most of which will always be present in the Lead. All infoboxes, especially those that are large, take up considerable space, and far more than would in this case. As far as the other points presented, all infoboxes present these issues (block of code at the top, "distracting" editors for the content, etc). As far as I am concerned, the issues presented here do not pertain directly to this article or its contents, but rather to personal opposition to infoboxes as a whole. It is my opinion that infoboxes in general provide a brief overview of important details for any article which provides them, which this one does. Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, similar pages, such as that for Chloë Grace Moretz, contain similar information as would be present here, however an infobox exists there, and has not been disputed. --Hunterm267Talk 16:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox for this article for all the reasons clearly reiterated by Ssilvers above; no fresh rationale for inclusion has been presented since the last discussions so I would simply be repeating exactly the same comments I have given previously. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox for the same reasons as ssilver stated, and per the previous discussions. UWS Guy (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox for the reasons I stated during the previous discussion about an infobox on this article. Jack1956 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose infobox, as previously stated. Somambulant1 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maddie Ziegler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Philanthropy

I noticed that one of Maddie's projects is missing from the philanthropy section. She is one of the founders of "Positively Social". An organisation which main focus is to fight for a more positive environment on social media. Here is a link ~~Padfoot93~~

Hi. That is a self-published source. Do you have WP:RSs that indicate that the organization is notable, and also sources that show how significant Ziegler's participation is? By the way, please sign Talk pages by typing in four tiles in a row. Then the software will add your signature for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Movies 2018

There's also a movie missing which Maddie filmed last year. The media mostly refers to it as "Sister" (this movie also has a wiki page), but as far as I know it's not the same movie, it's similar to the original idea of "Sister". I heard it's going to called "Music" which is also the name of Maddie's character, but I don't have a quotable source for that information. But it's a fact she filmed a movie under Sia as director next to Kate Hudson and Leslie Odom Jr last year in summer. There are several news articles about it and Maddie and Kate Hudson also posted pics form set on their insta. So one could add the movie as "TBA" for 2018. Link to insta ~~Padfoot93~~

Yes, you're right. Many sources (mostly entertainment gossip sources) reported the filming, although they nearly all failed to heed Sia's confirmation that the project is *no longer* called "Sister". But Sia has not made an announcement to the media about the film since 2015, when the project was called "Sister". Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should wait until Sia or the production company make a formal announcement about it. There are currently no high quality sources about the nature of the project and when/if we can ever expect it to be released. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit filter re this edit and today's one

This has happened to me twice in the past three days but in those edits I did not add or use any unreliable sources. In the 'list of accolades' table, someone has put an unpaired nowiki tag before the .com text which I'd removed which must have caused me to trigger one or more edit filters. I hope this won't happen again about Wikipedia warning me about this even though I have not added unreliable sources. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HI, User:Iggy the Swan. The Daily Mail is now a deprecated source, so we put the nowiki tags in to keep the award listed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
These tags should be in the right place in the article instead of removing them. If I notice that in the future on other articles, I'll refer back to what happened here and hopefully edit filter triggering won't happen again when completing tag pairing. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add maddie ziegler merch collection with fanjoy (clothing), dior collaboration (makeup), clothing line MaddieStyle (clothing)

Maddie for Dior Forever - Maddie has teamed up with Dior Makeup and Dazed Beauty to announce the launch of Dior Forever! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edOkWALb_tA http://www.thezieglergirls.com/news/maddie-for-dior-forever/ https://www.dior.com/couture/var/dior/storage/original/application/9df3bb71954634cfb6e1b1f0d1a4a91c.pdf

MaddieStyle Clothing Line - The clothing line, which is described as “a little tomboy” and “a little girly” includes a range of fashions from tees, dresses, jackets and more. The limited-edition collection is for young teens around the world, with different body types. - Launched October 3rd 2016 (this was previously in her bio but was removed) https://celebmix.com/maddie-style-clothing-line-maddie-ziegler-launches-online/ https://maddie-style.myshopify.com/

Fanjoy Clothing Line Maddie Ziegler - Both Maddie and Mackenzie announced their new merch line with fanjoy https://fanjoy.co/collections/maddie-ziegler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.56.136 (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please sign and time-stamp your Talk page contributions by adding four tildes at the end of the comment, like this: ~~~~. We already mention Ziegler's most important products. If more products are noteworthy, we can mention them, but we don't need to mention the unimportant ones. Do you have a source that states how much of each of these products have been sold, or some other reason why the product is important to Ziegler's career? It would probably be noteworthy, for example, if you have a news article that states that a brand has sold $100 million dollars worth of a Ziegler product, but if they have sold less than that, feel free to explain why the sales of the particular product are noteworthy. Ziegler's own website, YouTube and the product websites are not generally good sources -- the best sources would be independent news sources that explain why the product is important success. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add maddie ziegler morphe collection (makeup), fabletics collection (clothing), snap chat series Close up with Maddie Ziegler (social media series/webseries),

MaddieZieglerxMorphe Maddie Ziegler Makeup Collection -new collaboration with Morphe, out June 25 -The Imagination Palette, the centerpiece for the collection, has 20 shades in vibrant and neutral hues with matte and shimmer finishes. -And, of course, the entire Imagination Collection lies within Morphe's reliably accessible price range. https://www.morphe.com/products/morphe-x-maddie-ziegler-the-imagination-palette https://www.allure.com/story/maddie-ziegler-morphe-imagination-collection

Maddie ZieglerxFabletics Clothing Line - Her third collection with Fabletics - Following the success of Ziegler’s first two collaborations with the brand, her third drop introduces new silhouettes with an ‘80s streetwear-inspired vibe. - Sizes for the collection range from XXS-4X. The limited-edition Maddie Ziegler x Fabletics collection is now available on fabletics.com and in Fabletics retail locations across the U.S. The assortment consists of seven outfits, with VIP prices starting at 25 dollars and 95 cents. - This collection contrasts bright neons with fan-requested neutrals to create a refreshing palette that’s easy to mix and match https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/maddie-ziegler-launches-third-collection-with-fabletics/2020091651021 https://www.fashion.ie/2020/09/18/maddie-ziegler-drops-her-third-edition-for-fabletics/

"Close Up" with Maddie Ziegler, Snap Chat Series - Maddie has released a series of videos exclusively available on Snapchat! “Close Up with Maddie Ziegler” - The show focuses on fan Qs and beauty secrets, which sounds like the kind of tea we need spilled while we are stuck inside. https://www.snapchat.com/discover/Maddie_Ziegler/0350652224?sc_referrer=None&sc_ua&fbclid=IwAR2PzFkPSUl6zI2Rhe6nk3k5TEay0egRXaZhL62ExQT7YNuPwSU0a8YYjl4 http://www.thezieglergirls.com/news/maddie-releases-new-snapchat-series/ https://www.girlslife.com/trending/must-list/36414/looking-for-a-quarantine-binge-check-out-these-super-short-snap-shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.56.136 (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please sign and time-stamp your Talk page contributions by adding four tildes at the end of the comment, like this: ~~~~. We already mention Ziegler's most important products, including Fabletics. If more products are noteworthy, we can mention them, but we don't need to mention the unimportant ones. Do you have a source that states how much of each of these products have been sold, or some other reason why the product is important to Ziegler's career? It would probably be noteworthy, for example, if you have a news article that states that a brand has sold $100 million dollars worth of a Ziegler product, but if they have sold less than that, feel free to explain why the sales of the particular product are noteworthy. Ziegler's own website, YouTube and the product websites are not generally good sources -- the best sources would be independent news sources that explain why the product is important success. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

She does not model for fabletics she has 3 gym wear collaborations with them.

Please sign and time-stamp your Talk page contributions by adding four tildes at the end of the comment, like this: ~~~~.

If the Snapchat series of any importance, please cite an independent source (not snapchat or the Zieglers' own website) that discusses it *after* its debut. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Commercials table

Should the commercials table be deleted? It is not customary and seems excessive -- Ziegler appeared only briefly in some of these commercials. All of the key information is already included in the narrative text. Also, an IP is edit warring over adding even more trivial and excessive details to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is not needed. The IP needs to stop their behaviour, both User:Ssilvers and User:Somambulant1 have reverted them but they have continued to edit war, I think a block is in order if they continue. UWS Guy 2 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think the commercials are important enough in her career to need a table, and we mention all the noteworthy ones in the narrative text of the article. Jack1956 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the commercials table is not needed. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maddie_Ziegler/Archive_2&oldid=1136977916"