Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle name[edit]

Per WP:RS and WP:BLP, we cannot add Evans' middle name unless we can cite a publication that confirms that information. If Evans had used her middle name when she was interviewed by the press or put out press releases, it would be published in a newspaper or magazine, but it is not. Of course, we can add it if she indicates that she is going to use it officially, by putting out a press release, or saying so on Twitter. Or, she can put it in the "about" page of her YouTube account or her official Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/Colleenb1234/info?tab=page_info. If you look carefully, it appears that Evans has actually been careful to *avoid* using her middle name on most social media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly pertinent as there is more than one way of spelling the name that has been inserted – Mae or May: both have been removed recently, and having the wrong spelling is much worse than showng nothing until there is certainty. – SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this page? https://www.facebook.com/colleen.mae.3?fref=ts This is her facebook. Now what? Happy now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her middle name is also included on IMDb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is her *private* family and friends-only page. Also, IMDb is definitely *not* a reliable source. Evans' public Facebook pages, and in fact ALL of her public social media, is careful to exclude the middle name. We either need a WP:RS showing that she is using the middle name publicly, or an unambiguous self-published source stating that she now prefers to use the middle name. As I noted above, one could conclude, from the available evidence, that she prefers *not* to use the middle name. We are careful about this with respect to biographies of living persons. See WP:RS and WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether she wants it to be used or not, her private facebook plus that video posted by Joshua constitutes reliable source that her middle name indeed is Mae. Wikipedia should provide accurate information instead of what you deem should be public knowledge versus not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If she didn't intend to use her middle name publicly, why would she used it in a recent video?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please review WP:BLP. If you think you are correct, you need to build a WP:Consensus of Wikipedia editors to add the middle name to the article. See WP:Consensus. You should not WP:Edit war to get your own way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your opinions, we should change this page back to Colleen Ballinger because there is no reliable sources stating that she has changed her name. Her public facebook, twitter, youtube and all social media still refers to herself as Colleen Ballinger. You cannot have it both ways. You can either include her middle name and have the page as "Colleen Mae Evans" or change it to "Colleen Ballinger".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article verifies that she has taken the surname Evans. Evans herself stated in several places on social media that she intended to officially use the surname Evans, which complies with WP:SPS. What we are missing, regarding the middle name, is an announcement by Evans herself that she intends to use her middle name officially. I added a footnote with some refs in the body of article after the date of the wedding. [Update: she has now changed her main Facebook/psychosoprano page title to "Colleen Evans".] -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen's mom just confirmed that her middle name is Mae so yeah. Change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it doesn't matter what her mom says. Evans needs to say, herself, that she wishes to use the middle name. Edit add: on July 7, she posted another video where she states her name as "Colleen Evans". She did not use her middle name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She did say it herself in the video I linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just said the problem is whether if it was Mae or May. Now she confirmed that it is Mae you're saying it doesn't matter? She did indeed say it herself in the video with Joshua so this trumps the statement that she had never used it publicly. I'm pretty sure using her full name in a video is public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have a consensus that we can add her middle name on this page or am I going to be banned by Nazis for providing accurate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no consensus to change her name. You are not able to do it because the page has been locked down, and if you continue to abuse other editors you will face a complaint against you for your behaviour: this could lead to a block of your IP address. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got it a few months ago, Schrocat. I probably looked just like this IP at the time we were disgreeing over Stanley Holloway's infobox, or was it his place of birth? Live and learn... Anyway, I hope to become the kind of contributor that you and Cassianto are. Scr★pIronIV 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ScrapIronIV - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no consensus over her middle name? You said it was not used in a confirmed source, yet her mother, the person who named her, confirmed the spelling as Mae. Then you said she herself had never used it in any publication, yet she herself said it in a new video which was published just this past week. Now you are saying that it should not be added simply because you say so? How is this different than the North Koreans limiting the Internet from the citizens because they want accurate information? - 73.216.29.240 (talk) 15:19 EST, 7 July 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Evans changed one of her two main Facebook page title from "Colleen Ballinger" to "Colleen Evans". No middle name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015[edit]

Since her mother has confirmed that Colleen's middle name is indeed Mae, and that Colleen herself has used it in a recent video, I think it is the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to provide accurate information and to add her middle name to the page. 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am desperately looking for a source in this request, and fail to see one. Scr★pIronIV 19:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Here is the source of her mother confirming the name: https://twitter.com/pixietangerine/status/618240820483743744 and here is the video of herself saying her full name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e05H3EzrVY (fast forward to 00:07) there you go - 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the twitterfeed of someone who may or may not be the subject's mother nor a YouTube video meet the criteria for a reliable source Scr★pIronIV 19:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is indeed her mother's twitter feed. (source here: https://twitter.com/ColleenB123/status/556270345699995648) Colleen said so herself as well. And the video, per "Definition of published," "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources", is considered reliable source because it came from the subject herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denied, per the discussion above, and the initial consensus against the move. Should the consensus change, or RELIABLESOURCES be found, which would change the situation, the edit may then be valid, but not yet. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it still denied? The "discussion" above is just you yourself dictating what goes on Wikipedia. Last time I check, Wikipedia edits are based on collaboration instead of dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So my response gets removed while his personal attack on me stays? This website is such a toxic environment. i just know that Colleen will not care whether she has a wiki page or not. You guys are rude and unhelpful and sarcastic. I hope you all lead a hard life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is important is that (1) there are no reliable, sources, as defined under our guidelines, that state her middle name; and (2) Evans, herself, has not made an unambiguous statement, either on social media or in the press, that she wishes the media to use her middle name (see WP:SPS). As I pointed out above, the fact that she has never used her middle name in her numerous press interviews, *and* she has never requested on social media that people use it, are indications that she does not prefer to use it. See WP:BLP. If, in the future, she begins to use the middle name in press interviews, OR specifically requests media to use it, OR adds it to her "about" pages on social media, then we would be warranted in adding it here. If you have nothing new to add, then just wait until you do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Married[edit]

How come it doesn't say Colleen is married when she is? I have proof I saw her wedding video on YouTube.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editqueen35 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly *does* say that she is married. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name change back to Ballinger[edit]

Although Ballinger married Joshua David Evans in 2015 and briefly used Evans professionally, she has returned to using Colleen Ballinger as her professional name, as reported today in Variety. See also this and this. Ballinger also changed her social media account descriptions back to "Ballinger". See this (at the top), this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support If that's the name she'll be known by, that's the one we sold be using. – SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has objected to this request after several days, I've gone ahead and implemented the pagemove. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016[edit]

I'd like to add an infobox youtube personality and edit some misspelled words :) --0 Madgrindem (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP:CONSENSUS *not* to include an infobox on this article. See the discussion above and also WP:DISINFOBOX for some helpful discussion about this. What misspelled words do you see? Let me know, and I'll correct them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016[edit]

On September 30th, 2016, Colleen and both Joshua made a video on both of their YouTube channels announcing they are no longer together and that they are getting a divorce. -- SCVKMT (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The divorce announcement is mentioned in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce announcement[edit]

The divorce announcement is already mentioned in the article. Evans and Ballinger are *still married*, as a divorce can take a long time to finalize. No further details have been announced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the marriage to divorce because it is now been finalized by Colleen that the documents have gone in and when you announce a divorce you are divorced. Like an engagement, when he proposes and you say yes you are officially engaged. Note: Divorced on 30 Sep 2016 Sheldy5342 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:V and WP:RS carefully. If you have a WP:RS that states with authority that the divorce is finalized, please supply the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in California a divorce takes a minimum of 6 months from the date that the papers are served by one spouse upon the other. So, it appears that this divorce cannot be finalized until at least March 2017, and only if everything happens as fast as possible. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the content down, please[edit]

There are important politicians, academics and artists who have 1/10 of this amount of content on their biographies. This is a minor YouTube celebrity who is only of interest to her fans. Not every.single.thing.she.has.done is notable or noteworthy. Can someone chop this down to size, so that it only includes her best achievements? 2601:1C0:6D01:1800:5405:7677:9552:6B79 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a ridiculously, needlessly long article. 2601:483:100:CB54:74C5:D574:4F52:C186 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016[edit]

Colleen Ballinger and Joshua Evans are now divorced. Colleen's photo is out of date as well. Rtblack628 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We state in the article that they are divorcing. A divorce in California takes a *minimum* of 6 months after the petition is filed with the respondent, so the divorce cannot have been finalized yet (see above). If you have a newer public domain image, we'd be happy to add it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colleen Ballinger. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit war[edit]

Hi, As noted directly above the article doesn't need an infobox because all of the info would be directly next to it therefore making an infobox pointless and redundant, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that more information has been added to this page since that decision was made. It is now necessary to include an infobox for quick reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenann1401 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Davey and the earlier discussion. No infobox would be helpful in this article. UWS Guy (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colleen Ballinger. 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) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colleen Ballinger. 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) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ballinger[edit]

I think we should start on Colleen about Rachel's rise in fame! --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I must disagree. Rachel is not even close to being Notable by Wikipedia standards. According to social blade, she is the 13,474th most notable YouTuber. Her overall social media fan base is relatively low, and she has no notable acting or other entertainment credits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Colleen Ballinger. 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) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New boyfriend[edit]

Colleen recently began dating her Haters Back Off costar Erik Stocklin. In is unknown the exact month or date they began dating, but we do know it was either in December 2017 or January 2018. It has been added to Erik's page but not Colleen's so this needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgeousllama92 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and discography[edit]

There is a consensus not to use an infobox in this article. See above and also see WP:DISINFOBOX.

Also, no discography is warranted here. This person's recordings have never charted and are not important to her career. See WP:TRIVIA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the recordings do not seem significant to this person's career. I do not think the discography or an infobox are appropriate. -- UWS Guy (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely concur about the info-box. We've already agreed on this page that so far as this article is concerned an IB is a waste of space and no help to the reader. I don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion about the discography, but we seem to be moving in the direction of a consensus to exclude it, and I am happy to join that consensus. Tim riley talk 07:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on both: the discog fails notability (although some reference does need to be made in the text that she has released discs of her material); the IB is redundant here as the lead covers everything that is needed, and provides it in a more informative way that provides necessary conext. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pop culture bio, most of the pop culture articles have infoboxes, (see, e.g. Brian Wilson) this debate is just the usual IDONTLIKEIT. I re-added the discography too, as a performer's works generally are listed, wether they "chart" or not. But I have no objections if others think it is irrelevant. Montanabw(talk) 09:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colleen Evans
In 2012
Born
Colleen Ballinger

(1986-08-21) August 21, 1986 (age 37)
Santa Barbara, California, US
Years active2006–present
Compromise: I suggest to trim the infobox to life data, we don't desperately need twitter etc. - They who mention disinfobox should also mention its refutation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pictured what I mean. as t was removed again. If I read the article history right, seven different users have added an infobox to this article ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), but some editors still claim that there is "consensus" not to have one? - There is never a "need" to have one, as there is never a "need" for an image, but if it is helpful for a few, why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an infobox which does not add anything to the more extensive info covered in the lead. Ditto for the discography - not needed as she has not had chart success.Jack1956 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Ssilvers and others. I oppose an infobox on this article. The discography is not much better. CassiantoTalk 12:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a great fan of Gerda, but her doctrinaire insistence on IBs is well known, and I think focused common sense tells us that the IB is not helpful here. Tim riley talk 14:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's avoid the personalization, Tim. That's uncalled for. If everyone wants to throw a fit over an infobox again, you are going against the tide of wikipedia, but oh well. While infoboxes actually are almost always helpful, particularly when well-designed to emit microdata and be viewable on a mobile device, you don't have to agree. The rule is infoboxes are decided on an article by article basis, so if it's going to cause huge drama, fine. You don't have to have an infobox, no matter what your reasons. Montanabw(talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am surprised (but then nothing surprises me anymore) that a call for compromise is labeled "doctrinaire insistence" (meaning what?), and that "well known" (meaning what?). Seven different people installed an infobox, - how can "consensus" be claimed not to have one, disregarding these people? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Left] Gerda, counting old insertions of infoboxes is a specious argument. I could counter it by saying that thousands, or millions of people did *not* install an infobox. In this discussion, however, 5 editors are arguing against an infobox, and only two are arguing for it. But we are supposed to focus on rationale, not counting. I believe that while sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box does not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative WP:LEAD section does so well. Instead, it presents disconnected facts stripped of context and lacking nuance. (2) The most important points about the article that could be mentioned in the infobox are already discussed in the Lead, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and includes some less important factoids that are better discussed in the body of the article below. (4) It limits the size of the first photo and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (5) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, and they tend to draw vandalism and fancruft. (6) Starting the article with the infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the article that discourages new editors from editing the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not counting, and I try to avoid infobox discussions and there repetitive arguments. (The image size is free, to mention just one. Being afraid of vandalism would be same for articles in general, another). I pleasantly remember having approved this for DYK, not mentioning the topic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! It's good to see you, but mostly I only see you during infobox discussions, so you must really love them! As for errors, vandalism and fancruft (my argument no. 5 above), I strongly disagree with you – it is not the same: Infoboxes draw an extraordinary amount of silly fancruft, errors and vandalism; far more than narrative text, and the information in them is often inconsistent with the information in the article, because people make changes to one but forget the other. So, again because of their repetitive nature, many infoboxes are just another opportunity for inexperienced or poor editors to get it wrong. But look above for half a dozen more reasons why an infobox would not be helpful in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look for me under the GA nominations, perhaps, or at my more than 100 DYK reviews in 2015 ;) - I don't care if this lady has an infobox or not. The infoboxes I create don't draw fancruft, and Beethoven hasn't been changed since it appeared in the article. Sorry for your unhappier experiences, - and out ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! This is more of a press release than an informative article. Stick to the Wiki guidelines re: (shameless) self-promo please. ----

And most importantly, haters back off. seriously, haters gonna hate, potatoes going to potate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryholiesterfire (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why so insistent on omitting serial commas?[edit]

She's American. Most American style guides encourage serial commas. There is no benefit at all to omitting them, there is only the added risk of non-native speakers getting confused. This "go to the Talk Page" strategy is cute, by the way. You all know that you'll outnumber me, so that is why you give me the false impression that I can "BRD". Wash whites separately (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please stop WP:Edit warring. This article's editors have, to date, consistently chosen not to use the serial comma, and, per MOS:SERIAL, the article omits it consistently. There is no consensus to add it. It clutters up sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) See also: User talk:Wash whites separately#Colleen Ballinger. Consensus-building often relies on discussion, and it's not a strict vote. Therefore, simply being "outnumbered" doesn't guarantee a defeated argument. WWS, it would have been useful if you had included an edit summary with your initial edits explaining your rationale behind including serial commas. I have no input on whether the serial comma should be included in this article, but would be happy to assist in resolving this dispute amicably. Airplaneman ✈ 21:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Airplaneman. WWS and I disagreed about the serial comma at Sia Furler. I followed the procedure at WP:BRD and reverted. Instead of then bringing the discussion to the articles' Talk pages per WP:BRD, WWS began to edit war at that article. Then he followed my recent edits to several articles that he had never edited before, including this one, Miranda Sings, Oscar Asche and Chu Chin Chow, initiating edit wars there and again refusing to follow the WP:BRD procedure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the serial comma should be omitted in this article. I agree that it generally clutters up sentences with embedded lists. I am American and I do not agree that most American style guides encourage serial commas for expository writing. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the serial comma is unnecessary in articles and clutters up sentences. Jack1956 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018[edit]

Requested content was added to the article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  (Non-administrator closure) 04:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

She announced she was pregnant and engaged to Erik Stocklin on June 29, 2018 72.81.140.226 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been added to the article, citing People magazine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2018 (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.

Infobox[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor suggested adding an infobox to this article, but it did not contain any information that was not already better presented in the narrative text of the WP:LEAD section. I do not believe that this article would benefit from an infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally am against using info boxes as I do not feel they contribute anything to an article - in fact they detract from it. I have never used one in my articles as all the information in an info box is already in the body of the article. Jack1956 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. As the editor who removed the IB in question (after its good faith inclusion by an IP), my rationale for doing so still stands: it's just not needed. All the information one needs is in the lead, and there is no need for the repetition for the third time on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view of info-boxes is that they are useful to the reader if they display key information not otherwise available without reading the whole article. Thus, for biographies of sportsmen and –women their career statistics in a box are helpful. But I can't see what an info-box would add to the Ballinger page other than clutter. Looking at the box added by the anonymous editor, I was mightily underwhelmed. While I'm here, in the last sentence of the lead I had to read "Ballinger guest starred" twice to get its meaning. A hyphen would make it clearer, I think. – Tim riley talk 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to start another infobox war, but is there really anything so detrimental about having an infobox on the page? I believe that they provide important information quickly and at a glance for readers without the need to read through the lead or the body. Fezzerof(talk)/(contribs) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an easy way not to start an infobox war: respect the consensus of the talk page and don't include one. The consensus exists not to have one, and that is entirely in line with MoS guidelines. They do little to aid or educate, and reading he lead may well lead to knoelwdge and learning, rather than the drive by harvesting of trivia. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox. No infobox is needed or would be helpful in this article. An editor recently suggested an infobox that contained information that was repetitive, gave undue weight to less important matters and did not assist the reader in understanding this topic. -- UWS Guy (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to include an infobox for Colleen. Basically any page you go to has one, so what is so bad to put one on here? Put all her channels, subscriber and view counts and her play buttons on it for people looking for information about youtube and then all of her personal info as well like age, birthplace, stuff like that. Jeff.Abney99 (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." 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) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2018[edit]

im gonna write more about her relationship and baby and stuff about her life Marlou791 (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy[talk – contribs] 07:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting necessary info ?!?!?!?[edit]

I have added the fact that Colleen & Erik got narried Stocklin with citation proof : a video with her saying she got married. why on earth is her new spouse irrelevant to this page ? Maybe instead of deleting it just add Erik as a spouse and leave the information I added alone! Malindgtsqueen (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation was in the edit summary I left: "We need a third party source ideally (which should be out in a day or so) We also need something really concrete about the change of surname - if she retains Ballinger for professional work, so do we." Wikipedia isn't a news project and there is no rush to put in poorly sourced, badly written information. Good information comes from good sources, and we have to wait a day or two for that. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISINFOBOX and new photo[edit]

  • Info Box*

Info box needed as the page describes a notable person or thing.

  • New Picture*

New picture needed as the photo is outdated due to it being seven years old. Slu7ty65 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC) User/Ruairi2222 I agree.[reply]

The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." 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 vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (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) 15:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a recent copyright-free photo of Ballinger, I'd love to know about it. I might be able to take a picture of her at the stage door of Waitress. But you'll find that Wikipedia's image rules are very strict. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American spelling of "theater"[edit]

I'm fairly new to this article, and I was already corrected on the established consensus of infobox omission, which I now understand agree with. Still, I do believe that the American spelling of "theater" should be used over "theatre." Per MOS:ENGVAR, I wouldn't even be making this argument if the subject of the article was British and appeared in West End productions. Alas, she is not. If she was involved in the labor movement, I doubt editors would vouch for the inclusion of "labour." As stated on the WP:SPELLING page,

"Many uses of either spelling can be found in American English. Both theater and theatre are commonly used among theatre professionals. The spelling theatre can be seen in names like the Kodak Theatre and AMC Theatres. However, the spelling theater is used for the various venues at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and all major American newspapers, such as The New York Times's theater section" Theater section to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to the buildings where performances take place. The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English.

So, "theater" should be used throughout the article, and we can debate the oxford comma next. @Ssilvers: KidAd (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a MOS:ENGVAR issue. Theatre is a perfectly acceptable spelling in American English. Most Broadway theatres' names include the word "Theatre". Most American theatre professionals prefer the spelling theatre. I think the correct rule here is WP:BROKE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your alma mater appears to disagree with you, as does the NY Times and the article subject herself. I also disagree with the premise that this issue doesn't need fixing because it isn't broke. This is certainly "broke." KidAd (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: From WP:BROKE "On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." I am also sensing some slight WP:OWN behavior here. You have written 85% of the article, though this doesn't make you its self-appointed guardian. KidAd (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Picture & Infobox[edit]

I have two topics to discuss: a new photo and infobox.

I feel like it would be appropriate to update the picture of Colleen. To avoid copyright, someone could upload one from her instagram account, since she has selfies and high-quality personal pictures not by a professional photographer. The current photo was taken in 2012 and she looks more mature now. Mainly, she no longer has bangs. I don't see the reason why the photo shouldn't be updated to a more recent one. I uploaded one from her Instagram and it seems to be okay with copyright.

I know this has already been discussed numerous times, but I still don't understand why she doesn't have an infobox. She is a comedian and a YouTuber and many other comedians and YouTubers have infoboxes, so why can't Colleen? I saw the point about it being pointless since it would have information that is already included in the body, but it would but much easier to see quick-information such as her full name, years active, spouse, children, subscribers, views, professions, etc. I think she has accomplished enough in her career for there to be an infobox that includes the previously listed things as well as more. I get that this has been discussed and "closed", but I think I brought up some good points and would be interested in further discussing them. Keeganvmccarthy (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All photos on her Instagram page are under copyright. We definitely need a new photo, but it must be one that is not under copyright. We cannot use them. Re: infobox, see WP:DISINFOBOX. I feel strongly about the infobox and, if you insist, I can repeat all the reasons why it would not be helpful here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What photos wouldn't be copyrighted? Also I would be interested in starting a civil, respectful argument about the infobox because I don't see a good reason why we shouldn't have one. It's not hurting the page in any way shape or form, and nearly every other YouTuber has one. I think there's enough (popular and useful) information for there to be one. Keeganvmccarthy (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two threads above about whether to have an IB or not. As people's rationales differ for inclusion or exclusion, I suggest you read the threads where there are a variety of points raised and discussed from both sides. This will show why it is a something that should be considered frost, and not just automatically added because some other articles do. As to the photos, anyone who has seen her, taken a pic and uploaded it with a statement specifically giving others the right to use it, will be free of copyright. There are some such popular repositories, such as Flickr. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if you see Colleen at VidCon or any public event, and you take a photo of her with your own camera, you can upload that photo to Wikipedia together with a license that grants Wikipedia the right to display it. See WP:IMAGEPOL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Keeganvmccarthy. I don't get it why some people stubbornly resist not to have one. Personally, I think it's a little bit chaotic if you take a look at this article. People who just want to know some "quick information" - even in the wiki app it is called quick information - could get a summary of who she is and what she has done. I get that one of the arguments is that "we want people to read the article" but it would be off-putting to me if I saw that there wasn't an infobox if I merely wanted to know to whom she's engaged, what town she grew up in, etc. Honestly, I don't want to start a fight but I want to ask politely if you can see what I mean? A lot of wikipedia users would love that, I think. Kind regards. SeppeV (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I strongly disagree with you. Among the *least* important things about a person are generally to whom they are engaged and the town they grew up in, and that is certainly the case here. The Lead of this article gives the most important information about Ballinger, so you don't have to read the whole article, just the Lead if you want quick information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still learning about Wikipedia, but what gives you the authority to determine whether it gets an info box or not? It seems to me more people are in favor for one, so shouldn’t it go with the majority? The infobox is going to do no harm to the article and will make it much neater. Keeganvmccarthy (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with you, Keeganvmccarthy. Kind regards. SeppeV (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do things by consensus in Wikipedia. Failing a consensus to change, we leave things as they are. I see no sign of any such consensus here. For what it's worth, I would be among those suggesting we retain the status quo. An info-box here would be a waste of valuable page-space, offering readers nothing of any help. Tim riley talk 16:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1. No article is ‘born’ with an IB, and the addition of one has to be carefully considered to see if it is advantageous. Where there is disagreement, the WP:STATUS QUO remains until a new consensus emerges. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Keeganvmccarthy, 3 months old, 25 edits; User:SeppV, 5 months old, 25 edits... ——SerialNumber54129 16:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most bio articles, 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". Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box would not emphasize the most important information, as the narrative WP:LEAD section does so well. Instead, it would present disconnected facts stripped of context and lacking nuance. (2) The most important points about the article that could be mentioned in the infobox are already discussed in the Lead, so the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and include some less important factoids that are better discussed in the body of the article below. (4) It would hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (5) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among users about what information to include. (6) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the article that discourages new editors from editing the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. (8) It would discourage casual readers from reading the article, or even the Lead, which present the information better. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Keeganvmccarthy. I see there is a dispute about infoboxes, I read everything but I still don't entirely understand or agree with the decision to not have an info box, and in particular, why Colleen Ballinger of all pages. I came to this page to find some basic information about Colleen but was shocked to find no infobox with easily accessible information; it makes her page seem incomplete or of low importance. Seeing things all in one place like age, occupation, genre, years active, channel information, what sites she uses, spouses, siblings, children, etc is all useful information, and is relevant to the type of content she produces. Seeing information like her family members and associated acts laid out cleanly in an infobox is useful, as a primary focus of her content is her interactions with her extensive family and frequent collaborators. This would be valuable to plenty of users yet I am forced to sift through a wall of text to find this basic info that is offered in a clean organized manner within an IB on nearly every other actress's page. Do we have actual data on how users react to infoboxes and if it hampers their experience? Eliminating the infobox as a means to force users to read the lead seems to sacrifice a useful organizational tool and is counterproductive to Wikipedia's emphasis on accessibility. Ecstaticaaron (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox (2020)[edit]

Let's just add an infobox. No need to be all high-minded and philosophical about it, infoboxes are good let's add one. --Volvlogia (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, infoboxes are often bad. 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". Also, see above, where it was thoroughly discussed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The header of the linked report (by a later blocked user) was "Infoboxes: After the war", dated 2013. It would be nice if that could be believed to be true. Some seem still to think that there is war. (I don't.) If you read that report, don't miss the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not, Volvlogia. And I'd ask you to be a bit more civil with regards to accusing others of being "high-minded", unless you want things to be uncivil in response, which of course you do, so you can run off to the drama boards. Now shoo, disappear, go and do something constructive with your time. CassiantoTalk 07:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto... so we meet again ;) --Volvlogia (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020[edit]

Colleen Ballinger and Erik Stocklin began 'dating' in 2017 at the very latest (if not late 2016) - they have clarified many times themselves that they fell in love quickly and evidence can be found on several Instagram pages and other online sources of them as a couple, the earliest confirmed picture dating back to June 2017. Not to mention that they have said they don't have an anniversary of any sort as they had always planned on getting married starting a family etc, so by saying they began 'dating by early 2018' is misleading information as they were a thing long before that. Erikleen (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​I wasn't able to verify this with a quick Google search. Have reliable sources said this and are they better than the currently cited sources? – Thjarkur (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a picture is considered a reliable source, then yes? I'm probably wrong, just thought it was helpful to mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikleen (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, a picture is not a reliable source. You would need to prove that they were no longer "just friends", but had begun a romantic relationship. See WP:Reliable source for a description of the kind of sources you would need to cite for such a claim. See also WP:V for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Miscarriage and pregnancy announcement[edit]

Why is Colleen's miscarriage in February not considered notable enough to appear in the "personal life" section, and how long must we wait until her recent pregnancy announcement can appear here? According to the Wikipedia Notability page that Jack1956 and Ssilvers linked, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." How does this apply to mentioning something in this article? Besides, "a topic is 'notable' in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already 'taken notice of it'." The miscarriage happened way back in February and she still talks about it commonly, so it was not a brief burst of news or anything like that and it deserves to be mentioned. Also, why must we wait until the twins are born to add information about her new pregnancy? According to the same page, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability," so I could maybe understand not adding it now, but I don't see the point in waiting another 8 months to add it when it will still be a significant part of her life until then.

Pregnancy and miscarriage are not of encyclopedic importance for most biography articles. Indeed, per the WP:BLP rules, we don't usually even state the name of non-notable minor children. After Ms. Ballinger has her babies, we will add that information to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not an entertainment website. Also, we did NOT cite the notability guideline. We mentioned NoteWORTHINESS. See, e.g. WP:BALASP and WP:RECENT. Also WP:NOT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. But also, "WP:NOTEWORTHY" redirects to "WP:NOTABILITY" anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapSignificant (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. The top paragraph, which is the Noteworthy paragraph, says, in part: "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you.MapSignificant (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Erik Stocklin in the lead[edit]

As I was just reading though the lead, I came to notice that the very last sentence seems to be out of place. Ballinger's marriage to Erik Stocklin takes up only a couple of sentences of the article body, so a mention in the lead seems disproportionate. I'm in favor of omitting it from the lead, what do you think? Throast (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. She is married to a notable person, and she has even co-starred with him in a 2-year long TV series, and they also do a podcast together. He is mentioned twice in the body of the article. I think it is worth making the very brief mention in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford comma[edit]

The Oxford comma is used at various points throughout the article. Here are some examples:

  • posting videos of the character on YouTube, performing her one-woman comedy act on tour in theatres worldwide, and creating and starring in a Netflix original series
I generally think the Oxford comma adds clutter to expository writing. It could be removed from this sentence, but in this instance, the listed items are long enough that I think the comma adds clarity, rather than clutter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • gives inept "tutorials", collaborates with other YouTubers, and rants about her critics
I would remove it here.
  • has appeared as an actress and singer in theatre, on television, in recordings, and web series
Definitely should be removed here.
  • played Dawn [...], guest-starred as Miranda Sings [...], and has appeared three times on The Tonight Show
Again, the sentence is so long that I think the comma adds clarity, but happy to remove it.
  • she was interviewed [...], starred in a Todrick Hall video [...], and appeared in [...]
I'd remove it.
  • Her personal channel features comedy, question and answer videos, YouTube challenges, and Ballinger discussing culture
Borderline.
  • rants about internet haters, gives "tutorials", and sometimes discusses the character's backstory
Remove.
  • appeared on The Tonight Show a second and third time, Chelsea, Live with Kelly and Ryan three times, and Total Request Live
Remove.

At other points, the comma is not used. Since it seems to be used in the majority of instances, I'm in favor of using it in the entire article to keep the style consistent. What do you think? Throast (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, I am in favor, generally of removing it, as it clutters up short sentences, and I believe that it is *not* used in this article far more often than it *is* used. However, where a sentence is long or complex so that the reader may lose sight of the fact that it is presenting a list, the comma can add clarity. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". In other words, WP:IAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss with this article. A comma, taking up 1-2 pixels in width on a screen, is considered clutter? Is there not widespread agreement that keeping a consistent writing/formatting style is a good thing? Also, WP:IAR is a funny policy I'd never heard of until now. Anyway, happy editing. Throast (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox 2021[edit]

Personally i genuinely cant understand why there cant be an Infobox. All this writing to find small pieces on information can be overwhelming and can discourage people from using this article. I cant understand why a fellow youtuber, such as Gabbie Hanna or even Zoella have infobox's but Colleen doesn't. Please can someone explain why we can feature an infobox LaVozSA (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." 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 vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (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) 23:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info-boxes are great for articles about people where the subject can be summarised in a few bullet points: they are excellent for sportspeople (career stats), politicians and clergy (posts held), but they are unhelpful to our readers for creative and performing artists whose achievements cannot be meaningfully turned into bullet points. Yes, you could say in an I-B she's a performer, but that doesn't get the reader any further forward than the first sentence of the lead. An I-B just stating the totally obvious makes Wikipedia look rather silly, which I should rather avoid. Tim riley talk 23:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, infoboxes can be useful in some biographical articles where a few short sharp facts can briefly summarise a career but are useless when used on a biography of some one working in the arts. Dreamspy (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2021 (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 feature her age, a list of all her channels, her combined totals of views and subscribers, and her Creator Awards. All of these are in proper context and important information which aren't present 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 Ballinger'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, if you don't like the way the infobox looks, you are under no obligation to read it or even glance at it. You are free to read the article as you please. But many of us do appreciate the brevity and convenience of infoboxes, and that should be respected. Songwaters (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to adding an infobox because of the reasons that had been fully explained during the previous discussions of this issue. Somambulant1 (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose an infobox on this article, per all the the very good arguments that Ssilvers has put forward. I oppose it even more having read all the counter reasons Songwaters has mentioned. 2A02:C7F:76D6:600:9941:948A:19CA:B903 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also Oppose an infobox for the many excellent reasons stated above. They contain nothing that isn't in a well-written lead. They cause problems for subjects in the arts as they can be cumbersome and overdetailed. Jack1956 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice for YouTubers' Wikipedia pages to include an infobox. While I absolutely agree that in the liberal arts field it may be unsuited, Colleen's profession is a YouTuber. Her main source of income and notoriety is from her YouTube channels, and her presence on the platform is what has allowed her to pursue other ventures like her Netflix series. While we know as editors and appreciators of Colleen that she had musical theatre experience BEFORE YouTube, most people coming across her page will be from YouTube. The infobox would include critical information like her subscriber count/play buttons, her personal details AT A GLANCE - and forcing people who may just want a quick insight into Colleen's information to read the whole lead makes this article inaccessible. By omitting the infobox, it strips Colleen's article of the typical appearance of her peer's articles and diminishes her successes as the article looks incomplete. The main purpose of Wikipedia is to make information accessible to everyone, and labouring the point about a decision that was made by editors YEARS ago is not in the best interest of the reader. I will be waiting for responses on this talk page as I truly hope we do reach a consensus. If there is no opposition from other editors in the immediate future, I will create an infobox to give this article the structure and legibility it has long deserved. --Chicken Mango (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I support having an infobox as well. I disagree with how an infobox would be overly detailed. In a way it would also help visually to locate information that isn't in prose. lullabying (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit request on 18 November 2021[edit]

On November sixth, two of Colleen Ballinger's children were brought into the world by an emergency C - section. Colleen had a very dangerous cord prolapse, and was very unhappy with her experience. Colleen brought a female child, and a male child into the world. The two children were given their names four days after birth. Colleen Ballinger and Erik Stocklin named the female child Maisy Joanne Stocklin. The male child had been named Wesley Koy Stocklin. Colleen Ballinger shared her story of her very traumatic C - Section four days after the event took place on her YouTube channel, "Colleen Ballinger". Emamamama (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this is already in the article, and the rest of it is unencyclopedic trivia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox 2023[edit]

It's been roughly two years since the last time this discussion end, however, I cannot for the life of me see why there isn't an infobox. For a bit Peter Sellers and Laurence Olivier didn't have infoboxes until a consensus was reached in which the community found that infoboxes were in fact useful for these articles. The same can be said for Ballinger. I can't see why she should be given an exception whereas other influential YouTubers such as Markiplier, JackSepticEye, PewDiePie, etc. all have infoboxes. Liza Koshy's article was in the same boat, however an infobox was added later. Just curious to see if a consensus changed over the years. 2601:249:8E00:420:2DF8:9704:B86A:6716 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support an infobox for all the above. Not to sound villainous, but resistance to infoboxes is becoming more and more futile by the day. I think that DISINFOBOX is too easily refutable, and that the benefits to adding an infobox considering their ubiquity on Wikipedia is too great to deny, even if the emphasis is on small details. It's a small price to pay for greater consistent gain. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support infobox as well. I expect to be able to find snapshot info there on a biography article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:48, 16 April 2023 (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 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 information in the box must already be discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format would distract readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard 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) IBs in arts bios 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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose infobox for the many excellent reasons cited by Ssilvers above. Infoboxes are not necessary in articles of this type as they contain nothing that isn’t in a well-written lead section. Jack1956 (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This again? Nothing has changed to justify a change in the inclusion of an IB, so the arguments stated in previous attempts are still pertinent. What happens on other articles has no bearing on this one - as the MOS on IBs makes very clear. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The infobox is not unnecessary clutter that discourages people from editing or reading the article. It's simply a biographical backbone and a quick and easy place to look for basic information that's harder to find in the article itself. Many viewers do find them valuable and the inclusion of an infobox would benefit them; just because a few others just don't like them doesn't mean others can't find them useful. And just because this conversation has happened before doesn't mean it can't happen again when a good number of viewers and editors find infoboxes to be beneficial. Addressing Ssilvers's bullet points:
  1. There is literally nothing in the infobox that would be out-of-context or unimportant. It would feature her age, a list of all her channels, her combined totals of views and subscribers, and her Creator Awards. All of these are in proper context and important information which aren't present 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. And not everyone who comes to this page came from a search engine.
  3. There is no basis for this claim. There's no reason anyone who intends to extensively read about Ballinger'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.
  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. Vandalism is not a good enough reason to remove something.
  5. 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.
  6. This is simply false. On any page, only a handful of edits relate to the infobox.
The bottom line is, if you don't like the way the infobox looks, you are under no obligation to read it or even glance at it. You are free to read the article as you please. But many of us do appreciate the brevity and convenience of infoboxes, and that should be respected. Songwaters (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. God in Heaven! Not this doctrinaire nonsense again! Wikipedia's agreed policy is that there are articles that benefit from an info-box and articles that don't. This one doesn't. What could one confect that would add anything of benefit to the visiting reader? Tim riley talk 18:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox RFC 2023[edit]

There is clear consensus to include an infobox in the article. Although some of the opposition arguments were stronger than some of the supporting arguments, there was no gotcha, amazingly solid policy rationale opposing that would overcome ~74% support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Should an infobox be added to this article? Songwaters (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Ballinger
Ballinger in 2019
Personal information
Born
Colleen Mae Ballinger

(1986-11-21) November 21, 1986 (age 37)
NationalityAmerican
OccupationComedian
YouTube information
Channels
Years active2006–present
Subscribers22.9 million
Total views5.1 billion
Associated acts
100,000 subscribers
1,000,000 subscribers
Last updated: April 26, 2023
  • Support. For the following reasons:
  1. Not everyone who opens a Wikipedia page is here to read extensively; many are just seeking for basic info like age or years active. These would be much faster to find in an infobox than in the text of the article.
  2. For those who do want to read extensively about Ballinger's life and career, there's no reason to think that the infobox would stop them.
  3. It's probable that many people discover this article while looking for famous YouTubers they haven't heard of before; they may choose Wikipedia to do that since we have lists and categories that YouTube doesn't have to help them do that. So the argument that "they should go to YouTube to find stuff like their subscriber and view counts" is not valid if they're looking for YouTubers they haven't heard of.
  4. The overwhelming majority of YouTuber articles also have infoboxes, which makes the absence of one for Ballinger feel jarring.
  5. Just because this conversation has happened before doesn't mean it can't happen again when a good number of viewers and editors find infoboxes to be beneficial.

It's way past time we give this article its infobox. Songwaters (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the discussion directly above this the same question, with replies from a week ago? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When people demand an infobox, in my experience (which is, unfortunately, vast), they always repeat the demand over and over, even after they fail to get a consensus to add it the first time. You can see that this one includes truly trivial stuff like the claimed "associated acts" who have not appeared with Ballinger for half a dozen years or more (Graceffa is not even mentioned in the article) and silly "creator awards", and errors like the number of subscribers and views, which will become something to argue about interminably if the infobox becomes part of the article. All the other information in the proposed box merely repeats information that is prominently and clearly presented (and better contextualized) in the article's Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish and Ssilvers: 1. An RFC is needed in order to form an official consensus on this matter given its contentious history. 2. Associated acts and creator awards are commonplace in YouTuber infoboxes and there's no reason for this one to be any different. But even if we were to remove them, that doesn't negate the value of seeing other non-trivial things, like her age, subscriber count and years active, in the infobox. 3. Calling something "trivial" or "silly" doesn't make it so. 4. Subscriber and view counts are not something to argue about; as of today, those are her numbers on YouTube. 5. I already mentioned that there things like her age which are not immediately available in the lead section, but are immediately available in the infobox. It's faster to for viewers who aren't here to extensively read to look at them than in an infobox than to have to do the mental math or scroll down to the bottom of the page. 6. Please do not make this debate personal by accusing people who bring up this matter of being "demanding." Songwaters (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Her subscriber and view numbers are shown at each of her three YouTube accounts and add up to far more than you have listed. The numbers from the Miranda Sings account alone are much higher (10.8M subscribers and 2.3 billion views). It is hard to understand how you cannot have seen that, but you intend to make false information the first thing that people see in the article. If you are not demanding the infobox, that is wonderful. Please withdraw your demand. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please dial this back about 30 percent? Infobox discussions are contentious enough without commentary like you intend to make false information the first thing that people see in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers: I mistakenly only included the numbers from her main channel (Colleen Ballinger), and for that I apologize. However, it's incredibly rude and frankly very aggressive to accuse me of intentionally putting in misinformation when it was not intentional or malicious at all. You have no good reason to be so hostile towards people who support an infobox. Songwaters (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean that you intended it to be false, I just meant that by adding an infobox, false information like that, which, as you just demonstrated, is so frequently contained in infoboxes, would be much more likely to be the first thing that people see when they look at the article. Also, I note that her YouTube subscriber figure in the box is arrived at by adding together her subscribers from the three accounts, but most of those are the same people subscribing to two or three of the accounts, so the figure is not very meaningful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I generally support infoboxes in articles about people for precisely the reasons given by the nominator here-- it's useful for at-a-glance information, the kind of quick reference a LOT of people come to wikipedia to discover. The goal of wikipedia is to give people the information they are looking for, not to make people read prose. Arguments against infoboxes have historically been "I think they are ugly" and "people should be made to read if they want to learn", the first of which is pure opinion and can be countered simply by having the opposite opinion (which I do-- I think infoboxes lend a nice aesthetic to articles), and the second of which is pure meanspirited gatekeeping, which I believe goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Now, there may be arguments for WHAT, exactly, should be included in the infobox. I believe this is a valid debate... we're not an indiscriminate list of facts, after all. But that is not the question of this RFC. I presume the example infobox is just that-- an example. If this RFC is successful, as I think it should be, then further discussion (and RFCs iff necessary) can be held to determine what information should be included or excluded from said infobox. At this time, I will contribute nothing to that debate... what the infobox should contain is a topic for a later day-- although I will say I have no objection to the example infobox going up immediately if this RFC is successful. Easy enough to remove specific crufty elements from an infobox once a baseline exists to get editors started. Fieari (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for the many excellent reasons suggested by Ssilvers above. While I accept that some readers may want a short and pithy account of a subject, I believe this can be found in a well-written lead section without having to add an infobox. Jack1956 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose. This again? This is getting disruptive now, given the last thread was running until a month ago. WP:REHASH is part of WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING. There has been no change in the situation or circumstances since the last thread on this subject and no new arguments to justify yet another attempt on this tiresome quest. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for the reasons that have been repeatedly stated in previous infobox discussions. Somambulant1 (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow support (originally narrow oppose and then withdrawn): As I understand the inquiry, the question is whether a user would find this infobox useful. To be frank, I'm not totally convinced. Sure, I suppose if someone just really wanted to quickly see how many subscribers Ballinger has, they could click on Wikipedia and want that info to be highlighted in the top right. But couldn't they just as easily just click on YouTube? (And, frankly, wouldn't doing so yield a more accurate number?) And the creator awards here are just another way of reflecting that subscriber number. 23(ish) million subscribes is also "more than 100,000 subscribes" and "more than a million subscribers". The personal information is all stated in the first sentence of the article. And, so, other than those things, we have a start year and the names of other performers who, per Ssilvers, haven't appeared with Ballinger for 6+years; and some external links. Still, from my perspective, the bar for infoboxes should be relatively low. The infobox does list information that is not obvious from a mere skim of the first part of the body text. As such, I narrowly support it.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Users expect to be able to quickly reference information via the infobox. Yes, that information is generally found in the lead, but it’s not summarized in a way that’s quick to consume.
    Infoboxes are a valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. Data analysis of Wikipedia articles show that users find the information contained in the infobox valuable.[8] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities and that's the purpose of an infobox. This article would be improved if one were included. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ Just want to add that I think this is a decent point, but I take the ArbCom decision to dictate that the use (or nonuse) of an infobox should be one tailored to the article subject, and not made on a general "all infoboxes are good" basis.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that some articles don't need infoboxes, but this article has a lot of content. The ability to quick reference, age, occupation, years active, and how many YouTube subscribers she has is information I'd expect to find in an infobox for an article this size. I'm not surprised this topic has come up a few times because I'm sure general editors are perplexed why the infobox is missing. Nemov (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised either. Some editors make a habit of continually pushing the IB point beyond any reasonable point. The indication that "general editors are perplexed" (my emphasis) is the key one: it's editors who are continually pushing the IB argument here and elsewhere, not the readers. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT position is the key driver for too many editors in pushing the ongoing arguments across multiple articles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If the infobox repeats the content that already exists in the lede, shorten the lede. Infoboxes are quite informational and there seems to be no meaningful reason to exclude one from this article; it neatly summarizes the main points of the biographical article. I'd also like to see more uninvolved editors !voting on this RfC. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I support infoboxes in articles about people because they provide useful information at a glance. Wikipedia's goal is to give people the information they are looking for, not to make them read. Arguments against infoboxes are often based on personal opinion or gatekeeping. The question of what should be included in the infobox is a valid debate for another time. If this RFC is successful, further discussion can be held to determine what information should be included or excluded from the infobox. Rockyscreen (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia's policy, with which I fully agree, is that info-boxes are appropriate in some but not all articles. I think this is one of the articles in which an i-b would be inappropriate, there being nothing helpful to the reader that we could put in it. Tim riley talk 22:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tim riley, here's a test: select any average article with a relatively short infobox and try transferring the information from inside of the infobox to the lede. Like I said above, there's nothing wrong with shortening the lede if it contains too much information. This odd concept of removing infoboxes should probably become more popular before it is considered to be meaningful. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove information from the lead to support an IB?That’s a little against all tenets of WP:LEAD and what it is supposed to do.
        No-one is talking about removing an IB. The conversation is supposed to be generating debate on why one should be added. No article is ‘born’ with a box and its inclusion or addition is not automatic. So far I’ve not seen any good arguments why this article should have one included. (ArbCom decisions have clarified that IB discussions should be about the use of an IB on the specific article in question, not general arguments in favour of the concept, nor should they be based on the IDONTLIKEIT lack of a box on an article). At the moment I’m not seeing any arguments that fall into that area. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • SchroCat, the infobox above contains information that does not currently exist in the lede; for example, links to multiple social media profiles. It also contains her current age (36) and the "years active" parameter (2006–present); both do not exist in the lede. The infobox also provides us with the ability to add the date we last updated the view count & subscriber count, which is quite useful for readers who want to be up-to-date; this option does not exist in the lede. It also contains her creator awards (these too do not exist in the lede). On top of all of this, the infobox is simply a well summarized (and thus more informative) item that would greatly enhance the appearance of this article. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • As someone has pointed out further up, some of the information is wrong. Why would we want to highlight incorrect information—and information that goes out of date—so prominently? Years active is a real bug-bear of mine: it's not really information people would actively think about if it wasn't presented as a field in an IB (no-one asks of an live performer what years they've been "active"). As it is, 2006 isn't supported by a citation or anything in the article. "Creator awards": are these actually important enough to appear prominently? If they're not in the lead, then you have to ask if we need to give them additional prominence of an IB (if they are that important, then maybe they should be added to the lead too, but if it's not in the lead it possibly shouldn't be in a piece of formatting that, research shows, draws the eye away from text and onto the factoids - and this is why IBs have to be carefully considered). Appearance? That's just IDONTLIKEIT under another name and not a argument that holds any water - de gustibus non est disputandum and all that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • SchroCat: "if they are that important, then maybe they should be added to the lead too" <-- that sounds like something someone would say if they had a particular dislike for infoboxes, and isn't that far off from other IDONTLIKEIT arguments. As you can see in this diff here, an infobox that someone added a few days ago, it contains both her former and her current husband's names; the current lede configuration mentions her current husband, not her former husband. It also doesn't mention any of her children (3). See, there are more than enough reasons to support an infobox. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your logic is flawed. What I am suggesting with that comment is that you should consider if they are important enough to appear in the top right-hand corner, then they should be in the lead. I have no idea on their status, so wouldn’t say they should appear there or not. Including her family, including a former husband? Is that what she’s notable for? No, there aren’t enough reasons to clear my threshold for adding an IB here, although YMMV.
                I’m going to step away now. I’ve already posted more than I want to, and your arguments are as unlikely to change my mind on this particular article as mine are likely to change yours. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support addition of infobox. The article is sufficient rich in content. I don't see how the version presented in this RfC cluttering up the article given how short it is. (came by the way of WP:AN.) – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - its addition or exclusion, won't make a major difference. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having read the article for the first time after seeing the note the village pump, I really don't understand why there is objection to an infobox here? The article is more than long enough and contains enough information to support one in exactly the same way as the majority of comparable biographies do, and none of the arguments in opposition have convincingly explained why or how this biography is different or special (not all even attempt to). Please feel free to correct the positioning of formatting of this comment, the talk page function of the app clearly wasn't designed rfcs in mind. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)]
  • Support per nom and Awkward42. I too, am also a fan of consistency between similar articles despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I feel that the opposing comments have very minor arguments. Sure the infobox can repeat information from the lead and attract WP:FANCRUFT (you can always trim down information in the infobox and revert vandalism / WP:PROTECT the page), but the article's job is to also present information as plainly and neatly as possible.
Sparkltalk 22:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Repeating my comment from two weeks ago – I expect to be able to look at an infobox for certain things on this kind of article – Awkward42 has said this well already. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: Infoboxes exist to make reading articles easier, and this article has long suffered from readers being unable to quickly find key information without having to skim through blocks of text. This should have been added years ago. No matter how well-written the lead may be, readers who do not want to read paragraphs to find basic information should be able to have that option since we can make it so easily available. I have no idea why there has been so much resistance to putting an infobox on this article for years, and I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be here. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as I have in some other infobox-related discussions. It seems like the core argument among oppose voters here is that the information in the proposed box merely repeats information that is prominently and clearly presented (and better contextualized) in the article's Lead section. I see two issues with this thought process. First, the added contextualization is useful, but not particularly necessary to form a basic understanding of the article subject. I can look in the infobox and see that she has three channels and a total of 22.9 million subscribers, and I can look in the article to see exactly what the breakdown is if I want to. Second, there's no real benefit in forcing somebody to read three paragraphs of text to find basic biographical information - In this case, the article subject's name, DOB, occupation, and YouTube information. Presenting the most basic information in a clearly structured way is helpful, not a hindrance. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The whole point of the infobox is to repeat information elsewhere in the lead/article but in a structured format. Readers expect consistent information about people and this article isn't special to not have an infobox. Galobtter (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's clearly more than enough "meat on the bones" here for an infobox to be beneficial and I fail to see any downside to having one. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support She's a popular YouTuber and an infobox with her YouTube info and stats, like the one shown above, will be helpful and useful to readers. Some1 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm generally in favour of infoboxes, and include one in all the articles I write. I am also in favour of consistency, and think that readers generally expect to see them. However, I am also in favour of tactfully and respectfully acceding to the stylistic preferences (where those fall within editorial discretion) of the main authors of an article. Ssilvers wrote this article, and has been maintaining it for nearly ten years; if they don't think an Infobox is needed, and the MOS does not require it to be added, then I am not going to make a drive-by !vote against their wishes at an article I'm never likely to look at again. Girth Summit (blether) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to say I think this is a really intriguing and valuable point. I mean, in the face of no consensus, I realize the approach is usually (barring, e.g., BLP concerns) to keep the status quo. Since this is, a pretty close case, perhaps it's best that we treat it like, say, a date-format or American-English/British-English question.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because Ssilvers created this article does not mean that they own it. This article, like any other, is the property of the website, and decisions regarding it should be made with respect to the interests of the readers, not the original creator or the editors. Songwaters (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have plenty of policies that essentially endorse a status quo absent good reason to deviate. WP:NOCON, MOS:RETAIN, MOS:DATERET, etc. I think what Girth Summit is suggesting is that, unless one side clearly has better arguments as to whether this infobox would be useful to readers (rather than general comments about how infoboxes are useful / not useful / pretty / an eyesore / highlight important info / distract from important in of, etc.) ... then there's maybe a good reason to find no consensus and keep the status quo—which also seems to be the preference of the editors (including Ssilvers) who've been editing and maintaining the page.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at data from 2015, it seems difficult to argue that readers don't find infoboxes useful when a study found that although the lead and the infobox contain only 17% and 4% of the links of an article, they receive 32% and 18% of clicks, respectively. Outside of that study I know I use infoboxes quite regularly to assist in finding information. Nemov (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But, unless I'm misunderstanding, that seems like a general argument for using infoboxes, not an argument tailored to this page. (Or are you just responding to my example of the types of general arguments people make?)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more of a general argument, but I would find this infobox useful if I came here looking for the person's age or to find out how many years they had been active without having to do math or read the lead. Nemov (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more a general point of politeness, with a side order of editor retention. If someone has written a high-quality, MOS-compliant article, and has put the hours in to keep it up to date for ten years, I think it's the height of rudeness to rock up and tell them that they need an infobox. And if it gets imposed against their wishes, and the result is that they say to themselves 'Well, screw that, let someone else look after it,' then we have collectively shot ourselves in the foot. No, nobody owns any particular article, but I put a lot of weight in the views of people who have shown that they are willing to put their shoulder to the wheel for a long period of time. If Ssilvers doesn't want an IB here, then I am happy to support their position. Girth Summit (blether) 18:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course! I think all biographies should have infoboxes, it seems to be just as a feature of the type of page normally. Even if it's short, it makes the page look better and more fictional. BhamBoi (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (I think "more fictional" might have been a typo)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing "functional" was the word they were looking for, but I kind of hope it was fictional because I'd love to learn more about that POV. Nemov (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heading over to the Village Pump policy proposals to demand that all Wikipedia articles start with children's drawings of the person or event, because Wikipedia must, above all, look fictional.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I read an article the other day about a lead singer of a band who was literally an anime character. Better-looking and fictional is the reality of the 21st century. Pistongrinder (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proposed infobox contains enough information to make it worthwhile to have in the article. --Jayron32 13:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think all individual and company pages should have an infobox as it provides a summary in a glance. Downinit9 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support... Time and time again an RfC comes by and it's always a case where an infobox would be beneficial to readers and to an encyclopedia. I find arguments in opposition to infobox cite a 10 year old Signpost article making a false claim that "liberal arts fields", when infoboxes are focused on the person, not on their work. Infoboxes are not suitable for all articles, which is why it should never be mandatory, but they add basic biographical information on people that would be monotonous if made to be in the lead section. Infoboxes do not focus on what they're known for. That is for the body. They serve two disparate purposes. There are cases where information in the infobox isn't anywhere in the article (e.g. coordinates) which there is no nice place to put them, but remains relevant to the subject. The lead, being a summary, cannot include every facet of the article, and naturally excludes information. If the infobox repeated information that was in the lead section, there would be no need for an infobox. And it isn't, so there are. Contentious or misleading parts of an infobox can be omitted. Lastly, if there is a problem with the infoboxes themselves, then that's a separate issue. Indeed, there is sentiment towards removing the 'associated acts' field in {{Infobox YouTuber}} which I think had an RfC that was no consensus or something. That is worth bringing up again because consensus likely has changed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SWinxy (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Ssilvers's well thought out analysis - Paragraphs within the article do a better job and are more in-depth, The infobox just repeats what's already there thus adding no real value to the article. –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, infoboxes are supposed to just repeat what's already there. That's MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions. Perhaps read through the MOS and see if your reasoning still resonates. You may not change your vote, but you may change your perspective. Then again, maybe not. I'm interested to see your take. (Hope you like my link; it's good for a chortle.) Pistongrinder (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Does the infobox summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style for Infoboxes? Yes? Excellent. I'm not sure I agree that the "Creator Awards" bit needs to be included, since referencing the MOS leaves me inclined to pare it down (the less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose), but I'm less particular about what the editors think is the most vital "at-a-glance" information for readers to have and more particular about including an infobox on a BLP. Ultimately, an infobox supports the article, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. That should be enough. Pistongrinder (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@Jack1956, Hameltion, InvadingInvader, Lullabying, Chicken Mango, LaVozSA, and Volvlogia: Pinging the other editors who have discussed this topic since 2020. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023‎

If you're going to ping others who have discussed the topic since 2020, then @Dreamspy: also commented in February 2021 and should be pinged. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping didn't work by the way (edit was unsigned), fixing presently. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 the infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes 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 information in the is already discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format distracts readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box. (5) In this case, as seen above, major errors easily creep into the box that are seriously misleading to readers and become the first thing they see in the article; even though I have pointed it out, this box still includes false "associated acts" who hardly ever perform with Ballinger and have not done so in many years. (6) The box will attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (7) The box will distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they will spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: I think some of your points are legitimate, but I think others might be overstated. Surely, if my understanding of the infobox question above is correct (that inclusion or exclusion has to be tailored to the article), general concerns about infoboxes shouldn't weigh too heavily on the issue. How to tell which claims are general? Well, you've made almost these exact points before, on a different page. Excepting only minor wording changes, your first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh points were all made on Talk:Mozart.
Of course, sometimes specific arguments can be pertinent to other pages, so, in fairness, I would only say that your 3rd and 7th points—that infoboxes will distract readers and editors from focusing on the content of the article—are explicitly general and not page-specific. I also think maybe the redundancy argument as to Google Knowledge Graph is probably too general, although I take your point that, given the relative dearth of useful information, most of what's in the infobox will be duplicated by the Google Knowledge Graph. Finally, in reference to your 7th point ... I have to admit I'm a little skeptical. I've never been involved in an infobox dispute before, I typically work on articles that, very uncontroversially, include infoboxes. And I've never thought to myself, "Shoot! The infobox is stealing the focus of way too many edits and editors!"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly some articles that don't need infoboxes. This came up recently at Rupert Frazer where the IB was completely unnecessary and I removed it[9]. Generally speaking I come from an IT/stats background and I know consistency of UI helps end users find information easier. Something as easy as getting the age from the box without having to do simple math helps readers. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been to many of these 'add infobox' RFCs. The trend does appear to be that 'eventually', all bios will have one. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Ballinger/Archive_1&oldid=1159610882"