Talk:Liza Koshy

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

I would like to change her picture, it is absolutly horrible, it is an unflateriing angle, think you

                                                       -Gabbie Hanna Gabbie Hanna (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: If you would like to change the photo, then please give a replacement. st170e 16:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the picture is horrid. Msprimeminister (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a particularly flattering image, but it is the only Free image that I know of. Do you have a better free image that you can upload? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I noticed the infobox was missing. I could've sworn this article had, so I checked the discussion in the archive. Is the infobox not there because of the discussion? Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no WP:CONSENSUS to include an infobox in this article. If you look at that archived discussion, you will see many reasons not to include one in this article. See WP:INFOBOXUSE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. It is astonishing that you would do that without first establishing a consensus to add the box. Here is the archived discussion referenced above so that other editors can easily find it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No consensus for an infobox here and it is not required. Jack1956 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's absolutely silly to need consensus for an infobox to be included, but I'm not about to start an edit war, so here we are to discuss it. I think it should be added for multiple reasons, notably the birthdate and age template and years active fields, which are not available at a glance. I understand previous discussion has shown some users consider Infoboxes to be unnecessary (something I completely disagree with) because it contains info that's already in the lead of the article, but it dosn't have to be cluttered with extra info. RF23 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No infobox for the reason put so eloquently above by RF23 at the end of their comment. Jack1956 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Removed with this edit about a month ago. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And ping @Ringerfan23:. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Would {{Template:Infobox YouTube personality}} be more appropriate? Although it states she is an actress, I believe her Youtube career should be first. I think that is what she is mainly known for, unless I'm wrong. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that any infobox in this article would be not only redundant, but misleading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

An info-box would be mere clutter and duplication. Stick with the existing consensus to omit such a thing. They can be useful in some articles, but not here. Tim riley talk 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And when would it be more appropriate to add one? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

For example, it is appropriate to include an infobox in an article about a politician or athlete, where the infoboxes contain important information culled from the person's entire career that is not contained in the WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is just absurd. How would an infobox be misleading? And like I pointed out earlier, it would contain information that's not directly in the article, such as the birth date and age template and years active (giving the reader of the page information that's there, but not available at a glance). Plus aesthetically I think the picture looks better in an infbox than just sitting there. RF23 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The birth date is in the first sentence of the WP:LEAD. "Years active" is an overused and largely unnecessary parameter, and, in any case, it is very easy to see this info in the first text section of the article, "Social media". Personally, I don't think that parameter should be included in infoboxes for most living subjects. Aesthetically, I don't think the picture looks better in an infobox box, so we can agree to disagree about that. There were some Arbcon cases about this. The rule Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use of Infoboxes stated in those cases is: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Continue with the status quo omission of IB. I see no arguments above that would overturn my thoughts about whether or not to include an IB here. None of the arguments are either compelling, or based in policy or guideline. The important information is in the lead, along with the supporting context that provides more understanding than the factoids-in-a-box do. – SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Some specific edits?

Can I put that her middle name is Shalia and she is of Malayali descent? I tried so on two separate occasions (with citations) and was shot down so lets talk about it in the talk page? Msprimeminister (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. New comments go at the bottom of Talk pages. Do you have WP:RSs that state clearly that her middle name is Shalia? See WP:BLP regarding this. As for her alleged Malayali descent, why do you want to be so specific? She is half-Indian. First of all, you would need to cite WP:RSs that satisfy the requirements of WP:BLP. In addition, however, this level of specificity is probably not Encyclopedic under the requirements of WP:BALASP. Please consider that we are writing an encyclopedia article, not an entertainment magazine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)