Tu banner alternativo

Template talk:Infobox social media personality

In this article we are going to address the topic of Template talk:Infobox social media personality from different perspectives, with the aim of offering a complete and enriching vision of it. Throughout the text we will explore the multiple facets that Template talk:Infobox social media personality presents, analyzing its impact in different areas and its relevance today. With a critical and reflective approach, we will delve into the different aspects surrounding Template talk:Infobox social media personality, providing the reader with a deep and detailed understanding of the topic. Through research, analysis and testimonials, we will seek to shed light on Template talk:Infobox social media personality and offer an informed perspective that encourages debate and reflection.

Tu banner alternativo

Responses to feedback request made in creation

Since I came across the request for feedback from @Zackmann08 on certain aspects while looking into the merge proposal, I have a few thoughts:

  • There seems to be a (to my knowledge) unwritten rule of defaulting to human photos, and secondarily logos in social media infoboxes in the event that no usable human photo exists of all involved creators (i.e. large groups or companies like Glitch Productions) or the creator is faceless. My opinion is that it should be maintained and no additional parameters should be created for images.
  • Keep a stats-updated parameter for editor support, but for simplicity only have one stats-updated field total.
  • Links to the accounts of the subject should be ok to put in the infobox under WP:ELOFFICIAL.
  • I think the current order of websites is fine on account of matching the current number of transclusions on Wikipedia at the moment. I do not expect the addition of any extra accounts that are in their own right noteworthy to change how this (i.e. new additions of twitter accounts for the 3000 Youtubers).
  • I agree on the current name, though if it does change, I feel it should be more reflective of how some act on social media as groups as opposed to personalities, such as Corridor Digital.

UppercutPawnch (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@UppercutPawnch: this is still a WIP. Thanks for the feedback. Once the TFD closes I'm going to ping all those involved with a detailed list of items that need to be reviewed. This will definitely be a group project with lots of input. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Zackmann08, where is this TFD discussion? Mentioned everywhere, but (seemingly) linked nowhere. —Sladen (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request

@Prefall, Neegzistuoja, Mikeycdiamond, Earth605, PantheonRadiance, ViperSnake151, Pbrks, WikiCleanerMan, 1isall, Hansen Sebastian, Jjpachano, Kingsacrificer, XtraJovial, MinWat247, Cottagechez, HarukaAmaranth, Meena, QuicoleJR, A.Classical-Futurist, GeekInParadise, SpartanMazda, Jolielover, and DemocracyDeprivationDisorder: (I think i got everybody) you all participated in the TFD to create this template, so I'm pinging you now. If you have no interest in giving feedback on the merge, please ignore and forgive the ping, otherwise please subscribe to this thread and read on.

What I have done is to create a template wrapper for {{Infobox person}}, this way we get all the basic person information (|name=, |birth_date=, |spouse=, etc.) for free. Below that I have an Infobox module with sections for each of the different social media platforms.

There are a number of things that I opted to remove
  • The language the channel is in
  • Associated acts (who decides that anyway?)
  • YouTube creator awards. I'd argue this belongs in the article but am open to adding it back if there is opposition. Of course that opens the question does every social media platform get its own awards section? TBD...
There are a number of unresolved questions that I would love your input on.
  • What to do about the logo? Currently I have not included it. Should that be removed entirely? What if they have multiple accounts and therefore multiple logos? If we do keep it, where in the infobox does it belong?
  • Do we keep the |stats_updated=?? If so does each section get its own |youtube_stats_updated=, |instagram_stats_updated= etc... I would argue for NOT including this as so often people update the stats without updating the |stats_updated=. I think was is much better, and what seems to be the convention anyway, is to do |youtube_subscribers=123 {{small|(October 2025)}}
  • Should we autolink the channel_name/handle to the corresponding link on the social media site (this is done on the old infoboxes) or is that a violation of WP:EL?
  • What order do we put them in? I kind of did it by how much the separate infoboxes were used, but maybe alphabetical makes more sense? Don't want to give undue weight to one site over another... One thing I do NOT want to do, is write some complicated logic to allow you to custom set the order for each transclusion. I think the order should be the same whatever page you look at.
  • What do we think of the name? I have already redirected {{Infobox content creator}} & {{Infobox influencer}} to this, but are there others that should be redirected? Once the merge of each individual template from the TFD is done, those will each, in turn, be redirected here as well. Obviously if a better name is proposed this can be moved to that.
Comments
  • Given that X is still listed as Twitter on Wikipedia (despite nearly a dozen discussions about renaming it), I aliased the |x_parameters= to |twitter_parameters= so that either one will work. In the documentation I have gone with the |twitter_...= params since that is still the common name.
Request/Disclaimer
  • At this point, I don't think anyone has reviewed the code I've written so far. There are almost definitely typos somewhere so please help me flush those out.
  • Please give any and all feedback on the above questions. To avoid WP:edit conflicts I would ask that you try to limit the number of changes you make to the template. To be clear NOT trying to claim ownership here!! Just that if we have 20+ people making changes to a template that is under construction, it is going to cause havoc. Let's flush out the discussion here and make changes accordingly.
Way forward
  • Once we finish the template, I will write a WP:JWB script with the help of a substitution template (See User:Zackmann08/subst for a previous example). I will take on the process of converting all the transclusions of the old templates to this new one as a simple redirect will not work. Too many param names have changed.

Thanks in advance for all the feedback! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping. I don't have strong opinions on most of this stuff, but I agree with the removal of associated acts. I know that part will likely cause some controversy, but that whole thing was always a massive pile of original research that didn't add anything useful. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, if possible, I'd take out infobox person's occupation= parameter for this template, since this infobox is for a specific occupation and adding that parameter might cause confusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I am going to courtesy ping two people you did miss: @GrafiXal: and @Some1: do you guys have any thoughts on this? I currently don't. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I think it's fine to keep the occupations since this shouldn't be just for "sole" social media personalities. Alongside @Prefall's true statements, which I agree with, I also find it unnecessary to limit the usage on "sole" social media personalities since the way it is designed, which matches {{Infobox person}} in style and information priority, should also make it so that we use this for YouTubers, Twitchers, etc. with more than one "occupation" instead of using {{Infobox person}} and just embedding the infobox there to avoid headers in color (which we removed) and for any other reason there could be. GrafiXal (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that this template fits a specific occupation. They may be social media personalities, but their actual occupations can vary wildly. Some are streamers, some are YouTubers, some are writers, some are political commentators, etc. The scope is quite large. Prefall 20:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • I'm torn on including a logo parameter. I'm fine with logos in general, but not so sure that we want to support both a photo AND a logo at the same time.
  • Yes, I think a single, generalized "Updated" parameter should be added to the end of the infobox.
  • Linking should be fine, as long as it's kept to a minimum. A problem with the previous infoboxes is that it was too easy to overload it with non-notable secondary channels. I think the removal of the "channel2" and "channel3" parameters is good, though a custom override in the rare occasion that multiple channels need to be linked might be worth considering.
  • The current order looks good to me. This isn't a huge issue, but one worth considering: Is it possible to implement a way to customize the order of the sites? For example, a creator may be notable for both YouTube and Twitch, but their notability on Twitch may supersede that of YouTube, so listing Twitch first in that instance would be preferable.
  • I'm fine with "social media personality" or "internet personality". The latter, at least, should become a redirect. I also think Template:Infobox live streamer should redirect, even though the scope extends beyond that.
Other things that come to mind:
  • A parameter for YouTube ID needs to be added as an alternative to YouTube handle. Currently, 500+ transcriptions use ID rather than handle. A channel's ID is static and cannot be changed, even if its handle eventually is changed. These use different URL schemes.
  • Maybe a generic "Genres" and "Games" parameter not tied to a specific platform, for instances where multiple platforms are listed and each value is the same, as not to duplicate information.
  • Some parameters from the old infoboxes that might be worth re-adding:
  • A "display name" parameter to override handle or ID. This will be needed if we're adding ID support for YouTube.
  • A "Created by" and "Presented by" parameter for when the channel/page is not a person.
Thanks for working on this, and good job so far. Prefall 20:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your statement that Linking should be fine, as long as it's kept to a minimum. A problem with the previous infoboxes is that it was too easy to overload it with non-notable secondary channels. Primary accounts should be enough to satisfy the infobox's external links. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Agree with the ID part for YouTube. I'm starting to think colors rather than logos might be the way to go (similar to how it is now). Specifically for YouTube, IIRC they only really give awards for subscriber milestones so it'd be redundant to have it listed. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, but I think a logo wouldn't be bad to include in the infobox for the sake of visual recognition (though maybe we can place the parameter for logos towards the bottom rather than at the top of the infobox ).
In addition, the statement about considering the return of the "Created by" and "Presented by" parameters makes me question whether we will use this infobox on social media channels (operated by entities / groups of people) as well? I think it might be better if we had a seperate infobox for such since this infobox seems to be mostly designed for social media personalities, as in people with a (main) social media-based career. GrafiXal (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to logos at the bottom of the infobox, either. I'd like to see some testcases to visualize what these logos would look like in a normal case. That'd help us decide, I think.
It'll be easier if we go ahead and support non-person channels / groups in this same template. Every time we add a new site or make an adjustment to this template, we'd have to waste time applying the same changes to a secondary template, which is what we wanted to avoid in the first place. Prefall 01:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I am going to copy what Prefall did and answer in a list format:
  • I am fine with what you removed, as the creator awards are niche and implied except for the language the channel is in. I feel like it is like the native name in other infoboxes and could be a good context tool.
  • Yes, we need a logo as many social media accounts are practically businesses these days.
  • I think we need a single stats updated -if every social media had a stats updated it would be too cluttering- to serve as a reminder.
  • auto links are fine. Wikipedia:ELBODY makes an exemption for infoboxes "if applicable" (which it is).
  • Keep the format of the template the same as before, but do the social medias alphabetical order (as you suggested).
  • I don't care what it is called, but after I am done writing this I'm going to redirect {{Template:Infobox social media account}} to this.
Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't the one that answered in list format. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 23:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me! I was skimming other things before answering. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 23:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The one thing I wonder about is how (and if) it can be used for an infobox that's for a single show YouTube channel that's not a person but is mostly watched there (examples: Good Mythical Morning, BuzzFeed Unsolved, etc). GeekInParadise (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping (and apologizes for late reply). For me, I'm fine of what you've removed. I agreed with QuicoleJR about associated acts removed. I'm also fine with either "social media personality" or "internet personality" and the names like "YouTube personality" and others as redirects. However I do agree with GeekInParadise. I don't have much to add, but if I do. I will comment again. SpartanMazda (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
On removed features:
Language and associated acts, yeah those can go.
Youtube creator awards can probably stay but only if the Youtube section of the template is at the bottom. I'd probably reorder the template's segments in alphabetical order so that Youtube likely stays at the bottom for a while.
On unresolved problems:
Logo it depends. If it's the only free logo and no free photo of the individual exists it can probably go to the top, otherwise place it at the topmost located template section? You might need secondary parameters for Youtube though since some content creators are known to have multiple channels there.
Stats updated parameters, sure it can stay.
Autolinking, I'd lean against that because then we would have to handle unpleasantries like Chaya Raichik and I would prefer not doing that.
Order, as mentioned let's just go with alphabetical order and also we can do futureproofing by including Bluesky and maybe Reddit parameters per your TFD nom; I'd lean against including Pinterest though since that does not appear to have anything to do with social media personalities.
Name, not much I can add. Your suggestion works nicely.
On comments:
IMO you should take a look at if the content creator was active up to 2022, or stayed active after it. Maybe add parameters that determine whether it's pre-2023 or 2023-present so that the section reads Twitter or X .
Side note we can probably include colours for the title row of each section. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 03:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Earth605's message starts here
Removal of things:
I oppose excluding the language parameter. The others I agree to remove, even the awards, as it is not 100% important to feauture.
Unresolved questions:
Don't keep the logos. Not worth it for the multiple account mess.
The stats updates parameter is not useful; the suggested Youtube subs has more sense.
In other infoboxes, there is a little section sometimes saying: Official Website. I guess it wouldn't violate any rules.
The order: alphabetical. Only way to make everyone happy is to create something logical.
The name is fine.
Comments:
I agree with the decision.
Disclaimer
I could give a look into the code.
I think that is everything. Earth605talk 05:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the ping. I suggest that Youtube Creator awards be re-added and also a possible addition of Tiktok creator awards and Instagram Rings as well. I also suggest the inclusion of color coded banners separating each platform's section. In my opinion, while the channel's language should be mentioned in the article, I believe it's an unnecessary inclusion in the already vast infobox, and associated acts is effectively just original research. Stats updated could remain as it shows how up to date the statistics are; but the person updating would effectively have to change the data in a singular edit as I believe that a singular "Stats updated" section would be better than multiple cluttering ones. Next, I believe that for logos, there should be a drop down box (like for creator awards) showing the logo within it. P.S, Sorry this comment is in complete and utter disarray, it's true a mess. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Creator Awards (i.e. dates when certain subscriber threshholds were reached) are hyper-specific and belong in the article body, if at all. The purose of an mos:infobox is to summarize, not supplant, key facts; in the vast majority of articles, channel milestones are not discussed in the body because they just don't hold that much significance in the greater context of people's biographies. The plain subscriber count is sufficient. I'm glad the color-coded banners are gone, I always thought they were an eyesore. The plain-text subheadings sufficiently structure the infobox. Colors don't do much to aid navigation. If some form of coding is to be included, I would prefer small logos, which are much easier on the eyes. My 2¢ Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Update

@QuicoleJR, Prefall, GrafiXal, 1isall, GeekInParadise, GrafiXal, Mikeycdiamond, GeekInParadise, SpartanMazda, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, Earth605, and A.Classical-Futurist: Pinging everyone who has responded thus far.

I tried to read everyone's comments and take them to heart. If I haven't addressed your comments yet I apologize.

A few updates
  • I have implemented auto linking to the websites as was done in the previous Infoboxes.
  • Added a single logo option with a max_size set to keep it from getting out of hand. If for some reason you need to display multiple logos, you can always use {{multiple images}} as is done on a lot of settlement pages.
  • Re-sorted the social media sites to put them in alphabetical order. Got lucky that both Twitter and X would fall in the same place...
  • Added the ability to display up to 3 channels/handles per social site. There is also a pluralized option (example: |youtube_handles=) which takes a raw string so you can pass in a list of as many as you want. BUT in that case no autolinking will occur. I chose 3 because that was what all the previous infoboxes used. Easy to add more down the road if needed.
  • Added some basic documentation so that you all can get a look at how this will work without having to read through the code (which I of course welcome you to do).
  • Wrote a couple of testcases, need LOTS more though.
Still unresolved
  • Parameter names - I don't do social media so I need others to check me that the parameter names make sense. For example is it |tiktok_page= or |tiktok_channel=? I know nothing about TikTok so I don't know which one to use. Not a huge deal, but since we are starting fresh, might as well get it right from the start.
  • Language - Need to hear more people's thoughts on the removal of the language param... I've heard a few thoughts on both sides but want to get clear consensus before we convert existing transclusions of the old templates and thus potentially remove information. What is not clear to me is where it will go... I feel strongly we should NOT have a separate language displayed under each of the 7 headings, but if we put it before the headings, then it blends in with the personal info. Also if it were to be embeded (say in {{infobox company}} then it looks like it applies to the company info, not to the channels themselves. I really am leaning towards removing it. For those in favor of keeping it, what is the value of it that I am not seeing? What am I missing?
  • Stats update - I feel strongly this should go. I've been working on a different project where I am cleaning up Unknown parameters. I've been working on a lot of sportsperson pages and I cannot tell you how many pages I have come across where the stats reflect the current season with dates of 2024 or 2025, but the |stats_update= says they were last updated in the 2010s. I just don't think people update this parameter. IMHO we should document using a date when listing the stat. I.E. |youtube_subscribers=2.2 million (October 2025). Another point, how often does a reader even look at the stats update information and connect it to the data in question? If a reader is REALLY concerned about how recently the number was updated, they can look at the page history, or better yet, click on the link to the channel and see the current stats on the platform in question.
What we need now
  • Test cases - PLEASE look at the testcases page and add as many as you can think of. Need to test links to make sure that the URLs I put in the Infobox will actually direct you to the proper location on each separate site. For this we need to use real account/channel names/handles. We also need to check all 3 for each social to make sure there are no transliterations (I.E. I accidentally put {{{instagram_page2}}} where I need to have {{{instagram_page3}}}
  • Code review - Any errors should be flushed out in the testcases, but for those who are so inclined, please look through the code. I am open to any and all suggestions to make it more readable, easier to expand in the future, etc.

Thanks for all the good feedback and suggestions! Keep em coming. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't responded to the previous one but I'll state my thoughts here. Latest points on top.
1. Language - Remove. Doesn't add much, many people create multi-lingual content. There is not enough reason to include this here, as it will mostly be included in the article.
2. Stats - Remove. Keeps changing frequently. Milestones can be mentioned in the article.
3. Parameter names - TikTok page would be better, but either way doesn't matter since Visual Editor allows you to embed it without using the parameter name.
Associated acts and Awards can go too. A top, top award like Streamer of the Year can maybe stay.
Ordering according to importance of platform is ideal. Youtube -> Instagram -> Twitch, etc. But most people may have a primary app to use and that's why a custom ordering should be considered, if not now then atleast in the future. Kingsacrificer (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Re: unresolved:
  • For ease of use, I think we should prioritize consistency with parameter names for channels/pages and display names. |{{{platform}}}_handle= and |{{{platform}}}_display_name=, e.g. |tiktok_handle= and |tiktok_display_name=. I'm not overly familiar with TikTok, but I believed they were more commonly referred to as "pages". Looking at Google Search results, "TikTok page" returns 5.2 million results, while "TikTok channel" returns 4.6 million. They're very close and seem interchangeable. Regardless, I would prefer we only use "Channel" or "Page" as labels.
  • Regarding language, this is one of the problems I ran into myself when I was cleaning up the previous infoboxes. It is difficult to figure out where to place these generic, all-encompassing fields, because they can be misinterpreted or look out of place. If we're going to include language, I think our best bet would be to add a footer (with <hr>, or an equivalent, used as a divider) and place it there. Other generic fields from the person infobox, like website and signature, already appear at the bottom of this template, per the testcases.
  • I agree that "Stats update" is not aesthetically pleasing and generally not well maintained by contributors. I'm fine with leaving it out as long as it is recommended that statistics be followed by the year in parenthesis, as shown in the first testcase. This is much better looking, immediately lets readers know when the stat was updated without having to look at the absolute bottom of the infobox, and is generally harder for contributors to not update alongside the statistic itself since it is directly inline. Losing the exact date that an update occurred is a little unfortunate, but does not seem overly necessary; the year is what is important and will suffice for an infobox listing.
Other thoughts:
  • Currently, |youtube_handle=, |youtube_handle2=, |youtube_handle3= and |youtube_handles= can all be used in conjunction. Is this intended behavior? In the old infobox, you could either use the "built-in" parameters OR the custom/override parameter, but not all together.
  • In the documentation, it says YouTube ID is deprecated. I assume this is meant within the template itself rather than from YouTube's perspective, but I don't think this should be stated. ID-based URLs should probably be preferred since they never change. Handle-based URLs are simply easier and more front-facing for users, which is why they're more prominent.
  • How do you feel about including alternate, pluralized parameters? E.g., |twitch_genres= in addition to the singular |twitch_genre=. These were included in the previous infoboxes, and they seem to generally be used across other infoboxes as well. Prefall 11:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: excellent suggestions. Particularly appreciate the tip about YouTube IDs. That was 100% a complete lack of understanding on my part. Already fixed.
To your point about |youtube_handle#= and |youtube_handles= working in conjunction that was intended, though I'm open to changing it. My reasoning is that if for some reason a user were to use both, it can be very confusing as to why only half the information is displaying. Would require either parsing the code and understanding how the IF statements work, OR a thorough reading of the documentation (where we would need to explain that if |youtube_handle#= is not nil, then |youtube_handles= will be suppressed, or vise-versa). Also I don't see any downside to having both. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, readers can just view stats (subscribers, followers, etc.) when they go to the page of any social media account. Besides, they update constantly. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 21:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
About the language param, it should be kept as it is important. The purpose of the infobox is to tell you the important things. Sometimes, the channel has more than one language. Sometimes the person is (my example) Brazilian and Portuguese but makes content (edits) in English.
Another issue:
What do we display in the X/Twitter? Dual naming it is not pretty. I think we should call it Twitter per Turkey. Elon can't tell us what to do. Earth605talk 18:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Earth605: Thanks for the feedback. You say The purpose of the infobox is to tell you the important things. Agreed, BUT you cannot tell ALL the important things in the Infobox. You have to draw the line somewhere. I have zero issue with it being in the article, but I think the vast majority of cases are going to be people of one |nationality= whose channel is in that nationalities common language. Your example of someone who is Brazilian but makes content in English is not common.
To your second point, do you mean what is displayed in the header or what the param names are. I definitely want to support both x and twitter parameter names (they do the same thing). But I can get 100% get onboard with just displaying the name as Twitter, I'll do that now. I'm with you about Elon... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Dude. I used myself as an example. Also, Cathodography is also Brazilian. Earth605talk 18:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I think a more likely example would be an American content creator who makes Spanish-language content, or a country like Canada where the nationality doesn't reveal what language it is (English or French). I'd still support removing it for formatting reasons and getting this information across in the lead instead, but I don't have a strong opinion on it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Earth605: first off, not saying it doesn't happen, saying its uncommon. Second, not saying anything against Brazilian people so not sure you point that there is another Brazilian person on Wikipedia?
I agree with QuicoleJR's point about putting it in the lead... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not saying that you have something against Brazilians, I was just putting another valid example. Also, there are a loads of examples. I just put that one to throw a bit of humor there. Earth605talk 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Putting it in the lead works! Earth605talk 18:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Awesome. Sounds good. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the late response. So far I agree with everything proposed, but I just have a couple thoughts.
1: For the Stats, is it possible to extract data via an API or another data scraping technique, whether directly from the accounts themselves or a third-party like Social Blade? That way the stats could automatically be updated with the date as needed, instead of others constantly updating the stats without the date? If too time-consuming to implement, then I support using the method in the testcases.
2: Also, I wanted some clarification on how the infoboxes would work for an individual YouTuber with multiple channels of differing content, but each channel isn't notable enough for a separate page? For example, would we combine them into one like KSI, or keep multiple infoboxes like with TheRunawayGuys on Chuggaaconroy's page?
3: And finally, the name for it. I still prefer "Internet personality" over "Social media personality" because it's not only less wordy, it also includes people who became notable through the internet without YouTube, Twitch or platforms like these (some of which are arguably debatable as social media platforms). Maddox, The Brothers Chap, and webcomic writers like Andrew Hussie and Randall Munroe come to mind.
Other than that, I like the changes made to the template. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
The old YouTube template supported automatic fetching of Subscriber totals from Wikidata, which was being bot-updated periodically (once a year or so), but it was not used much at all. The update period was simply too long and no one seemingly wanted to maintain a bot to do it more often. And while YouTube's API is pretty generous, the other social sites are much more restrictive, even with basic data. And they're very combative with scraping as well, so it's unfortunately a difficult task to automate. Prefall 21:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@PantheonRadiance: Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your points on 1 at a time:
  1. Scraping the stats via an API seems beyond the scope of this project. Whether that data can be obtained via an API or Wikidata is certainly a neat idea and something consider as a future improvement, but I feel strongly it is beyond the scope of merging the infoboxes.
  2. You example of TheRunawayGuys is an interesting one. My gut says that it would stay the way it is now with multiple infoboxes. The bulk of the infobox is really designed to be used for a person, NOT for a channel. For exampel see Dude Perfect which uses {{Infobox company}} as the parent infobox. There was another one I saw that used {{Infobox web series}} as the parent, can't remember which page it was now. But those are more appropriate for a Show/Channel.
  3. I think we should stick with social media personality because that is really what this template addresses, the social media side. While certainly notable people, those that you listed simply don't fit the criteria of the intention of this template. Take Randall Munroe for example. He is an author and cartoonist who happened to get famous via writing stuff on the internet. He did NOT get famous through his social media presence. Therefore using him as an example, I think {{Infobox writer}} is much more appropriate. Now if he also happens to have a noteworthy YouTube channel or Instagram account, you can certainly embed this template via |module=. Another example would be a politician who has a noteworthy social media account. You would still want to use {{Infobox officeholder}} as the parent infobox.
On that note we need to do something about WP:NOTE. I for one would not be thrilled to see this template being embeded in every {{Infobox officeholder}} just because the person has a twitter account. IMHO the social media account needs to itself be noteworthy for it to be included in the Infobox. Not sure how best to document that.
- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Final hurdle

I think we are looking pretty darn good! The only unresolved issue I have at this point is the name of the primary parameters for each social media site (the channel/handle and display_name/name). We currently have the following (I've excluded the params that are the same for all platforms like years_active). Do we want to unify them to all be the same or does this look good? 

| kick_channel      = 
| kick_display_name = 

| instagram_page         = 
| instagram_display_name = 

| substack_url          = 

| tiktok_page         = 
| tiktok_display_name = 

| twitch_channel      = 
| twitch_display_name = 

| twitter_handle    = 
| x_handle          =

| youtube_handle    = 
| youtube_id        = 
| youtube_name      =

Additionally we have this difference below. I think this one is ok because on YouTube it definitely is subscribers not followers... 

| kick_followers = 
| instagram_followers = 
| substack_followers = 
| tiktok_followers = 
| twitch_followers =
| twitter_followers = 
| x_followers = 
      BUT
| youtube_subscribers =

Open to ideas and suggestions! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that the primary parameters should be |platform_handle= and |platform_display_name= for consistency and clarity. You could retain the other parameter names as aliases, but a unified primary naming style will make it much easier to use.
The lone exception to the above is Substack, as its parameter takes a raw URL rather than a handle. Now, I'm not familiar with Substack, but from a quick glance, that site seems to have two verticals: one is a newsletter with articles (URL scheme: https://meidastouch.substack.com), and one is a Twitter-like feed (URL scheme: https://substack.com/@meidastouch). I'm not sure if we should leave this as-is, or limit the scope with a handle parameter.
The "followers"/"subscribers" (for YouTube) discrepancy is fine. If you really want to be careful, you could add an alias |youtube_followers=, but I doubt it'll be much of an issue. Prefall 09:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: thanks for restating your thoughts. LOTS of feedback so I think I missed your first comment. Thanks for restating it. I'll go ahead and unify to handle and display_name as you suggested. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I have created a basic outline for the WP:TemplateData. If someone feels like taking the time to fill it in, that would be great... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I filled out most of it (except for |substack_newsletter=, someone more knowledgeable will have to handle that one). A lot of it was pulled/adjusted from the previous infoboxes' TemplateDate, so it can be refined further. Prefall 10:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
If I may give my two cents, maybe we can give Substack the Youtube treatment and allow both URL schemes the same way Youtube's parameters here allow both the handle and the id?
And also in your opinion if we are to futureproof (as Zackmann suggested back in the TfD nomination, he specifically listed out three social media platforms - Bluesky, Reddit, Pinterest) which ones should/could be included? Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 11:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Just noting Category:Reddit people and Category:Pinterest people already exist, though the ladder is only used for employees. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
In that case I suppose Reddit should have its parameters. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 11:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding two parameters for Substack URLs, like YouTube, but not sure if that's truly what's best in this case as I don't know anything about Substack. Pinging @Polarmadewell:, who created the Substack infobox, to hopefully get their insight on this. Prefall 12:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Prefall! I agree with unifying the primary parameter naming (|platform_handle= and |platform_display_name=) across platforms for consistency.
That said, Substack works a bit differently, so I think it makes the most sense to keep two separate parameters. Substack creators can have both a newsletter site (often a custom domain or *.substack.com) and a profile/Notes page (https://substack.com/@handle), which functions more like a social media feed. However, in most cases when people refer to a "Substack page," they’re talking about the newsletter, not the Notes profile.
  • |substack_url=: The newsletter URL (supports custom domains or *.substack.com)
  • |substack_handle=: Optional handle used to build a Notes/profile link (https://substack.com/@handle)
If both are provided, the newsletter URL should take precedence as the main link. This setup gives editors flexibility to include either or both without forcing one structure on all entries.
Polarmadewell (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Polarmadewell: Thanks. I updated the display of Substack per your recommendations here. Let me know if I misunderstood/misrepresented anything or should make further changes. I adjusted |substack_newsletter= to function as a display name for |substack_url=, and I added just one |substack_handle= for now, as Notes seems to be a secondary feature of the site? We can add more, if necessary. Prefall 20:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
This looks great! I'm wondering if it makes sense to rename |substack_newsletter= to |substack_name= (with |substack_newsletter= kept as an alias)?
“Name” might be a bit clearer for editors filling out the template since it directly describes the display label rather than the medium.
Polarmadewell (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I avoided using |substack_display_name= or |substack_name= because, unlike the other social sites in this template, there are two separate links displayed for Substack. Having "name" work on only one link seemed like it could be confusing. Maybe |substack_newsletter_name= would fit better? Prefall 19:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd say |substack_newsletter_name= works!
Polarmadewell (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
One quick edit suggestion @Prefall: changing |substack_followers= to |substack_subscribers= since people “subscribe” to |substack_newsletter_name= rather than “follow.” This wording feels a bit more intuitive for editors, similar to how you “subscribe” to a YouTube channel or “follow” an Instagram profile.
Polarmadewell (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your help. Prefall 14:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed that Twitter is currently the only platform to not have a display name parameter alongside handle. Should this be added too? @Zackmann08: Prefall 12:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall, Mikeycdiamond, and DemocracyDeprivationDisorder: All good points.
  1. Given that the current goal is merging of existing templates. I don't think we need to include Reddit or Pinterest at this time. I also think this warrants a WP:NOTABLITY discussion... The fact that a person who is independently Notable happens to use Reddit does NOT warrant inclusion of the link to their reddit account in an Infobox. Just like (IMHO) we don't want to start the slippery slope of adding this template to every {{Infobox officeholder}} who happens to have a Twitter account.
  2. In the name of complexity, I'd rather not implement the ID linking for anything that doesn't currently use it. {{Infobox YouTube personality}} has over 3,600 transclusions and at least 500 of them use the |channel_id=. Thus it is necessary to support that moving forward or the conversion is going to be a nightmare of having to manually find the channel_name for each link. That is NOT the case with Substack or any of the others so IMHO lets not complicate things...
  3. I have no objection to adding a display name parameter to twitter. I didn't do it before because it was displayed as a separate parameter on {{Infobox X account}} since on twitter/x people are really known by the @user_name. If we do add it, I think we should follow the format that {{Infobox X account}} currently uses of displaying it on a separate line, NOT in place of the twitter_handle.
-- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
While I am not entirely disagreeing with you, I would like to note that 9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9, Hector Janse van Rensburg, Keith Gill are notable for their actions on Reddit (though the last one is also notable because of YouTube). But I get how a parameter isn't worth making for three people. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I really appreciate that you came back at me with examples! Seriously that helps. If there is desire to implement reddit info, I'm not opposed to it. I might suggest we handle the merges first then come back and implement any new platforms. The nice thing about how the template is implemented is that adding platforms down the road will be quick and easy. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
From what I've seen, I think those are only examples. The intent of the examples was to refute your claim that no one with a Wikipedia article was only notable for their time on Reddit. I don't actually think that there needs to be a Reddit parameter. I am more or less neutral on that topic. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Mikeycdiamond. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 22:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

YouTube views

So one thing I noticed is that all of the different networks have Follower/Subscriber data, but ONLY YouTUbe has |youtube_views=. I'm wondering if that should stay... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, views are an important statistic highlighted by YouTube. I'm a bit late at noticing this, but I think it was a mistake to remove TikTok likes. They may seem extraneous, but it's a statistic that TikTok specifically highlights, listed right next to follower count. Prefall 01:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Cool. That's why I asked. I hate make those types of decisions so I like to defer to those who know that stuff better. I'm more of a technically guy . Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It has begun

I have started the process of merging. Going to do the easy ones first, leave YouTube for last and probably figure out a JWB script for it...

Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Congrats! Earth605talk 19:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
How's it going with the YouTube infobox? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@1isall: its... going? lol. There are a LOT of them so i'm trying to do it in batches. I think I'm down to about 1,600 or so (in the article name space, I'm not messing with people's sandboxes or drafts). If you feel like diving in to help I would sure as heck appreciate it, but otherwise should take me another week or 2 to get them all converted... I can only take doing so many of them before I need to take a break and work on something else. Note that I did add a {{preview warning}} to {{Infobox YouTube personality}} to encourage converting to the new infobox. -Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
 Done!!!! Great work Prefall --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I guess that's it. The merge is complete! Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 02:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Stats update

Killing the stats update parameter creates an unfortunate and disgusting redundancy on bios where there are more than one platform listed (example). If you wanted to kill the parameter I simply think just having the stats w/o a date is fine, aesthetically speaking (example). I actually do not think at all there was an issue without going down to the bottom of the infobox to see when that number was last updated. It made sense and infoboxes are inherently quick and to the-point (by design, no?) so there wasn't really any issue with having to scroll, or honestly, in a lot of cases, just simply glance down to the bottom to check the date of the stats update. Sure, it was perhaps not as well maintained as it could have been, but that's true for a lot of things on Wikipedia. The solution is to just update/fix it when noticed, because I think the issue will still persist even if replaced by "x.x subscribers (insert date)"; many editors will likely still not bother to update the date. And like in the above example of a creator with multiple platforms listed, it will end up causing multiple out-of-date points of information instead of just one line at the bottom of the infobox. Soulbust (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The idea was to now simply use the year inline rather than the full date. Unfortunately, the automated conversion script does not trim the dates down, so feel free to change this yourself in articles that you come across. It will still typically be redundant in instances of multiple platforms, but in general it's intended to retain its informative nature, be less of an eyesore, and not require as much effort to update (see the example).
For what it's worth, I am also fine without any sort of date whatsoever, but not sure if that violates WP:ASOF. Prefall 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Soulbust: I was worried this was going to happen. Facepalm Facepalm Honestly I was already starting to have second thoughts about the killing of the parameter.
@Prefall: (and Soulbust), what should we do... Your point about WP:ASOF is a very valid one. I'm wary of pushing forward with the merge without consensus on this issue. Do we need to do an WP:RFC? Should we post on an WP:MOS page? open to suggestions... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Bring it back, maybe? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok so I went ahead and readded |stats_update=. It displays at the bottom and if {{Infobox social media personality}} is embeded it will display Socials last updated (this to distinguish from say the sports stats being updated). Obviously open to suggestions/improvements on how/where we display the |stats_update= value, but I am reversing my position... I think we need to keep it. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Looks like we have to preserve everything from the old infoboxes after all. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
1isall: yes. There are two separate parts: a technical conversion to a different template (which needs to preserve everything to ensure feature-parity), and a subsequent editorial discussion about how to show, and in what form. —Sladen (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Sladen your statement that this needs preserve everything is your opinion. It is NOT what the consensus has agreed to above. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Zackmann08, don't think there was a consensus to break stuff (if there is, please link to it). ("preserve everything" are the words 1isall used above). —Sladen (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@Sladen: again, ONE mistake and you are acting like the building is on fire... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Prefall, Soulbust: please do not "trim" dates: if you only what to display the year, that is a display choice (which may evolve over time); but please, pretty please do not use automated methods to "trim" information that editors have manually entered. —Sladen (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Can we remove from view (either for every page or optionally) the update date? It really doesn't seem that useful to readers, and is ugly and visually distracting. Or if it can't be removed entirely from view, maybe it could be put into a tooltip or footnote? If the consensus is that this can't be made less distracting, can we please remove the neologism "socials" from the update message? It's unencyclopedic and tacky. –jacobolus (t) 18:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: I am happy to improve the language, do you have a suggestion? Rather than just throwing insults ugly and visually distracting and unencyclopedic and tacky, how about a proposed solution?
I will point out that the fact that there is a huge precedent for including this in an infobox. See {{Infobox football biography}}, {{Infobox school}}, {{Infobox sportsperson}}, {{Infobox election}} or the myriad of other infoboxes that have some form of "last updated" in them.
Additionally, {{Infobox YouTube personality}} itself ALREADY HAD THIS parameter and displayed it... The only thing that has changed is that it now says "socials" when embeded. For the record, my reasoning for including the word "socials" is that there are many pages where (for example) {{Infobox sportsperson}} has this template as a child module. I wanted to differentiate between when the sports stats were updated and when the viewer/follower/subscriber statistics were updated.
Again, I'm open to improvements to the language... Simply removing this is not likely to happen though as consensus has clearly stated to keep it. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I know it already had this parameter; it was ugly and distracting before. I frankly don't think that the statistics about view/subscriber counts are that necessary on many pages, and if it were up to me I'd just as soon drop them from those pages, but a bot comes back to insert them, and I don't feel like fighting the bot. Maybe it's unavoidable to require inclusion of an update date; it would still be better for readers to minimize its visual impact, e.g. by putting it into a tooltip or footnote.
The word "socials" is a casual neologism, and seems entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (Cf. WP:NEO, MOS:NEO, WP:SLANG.) As an immediate fix, the word "socials" should be dropped. If someone wants to come up with some alternate wording, that would also be fine. –jacobolus (t) 18:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, sorry if this seems personal. I'm not trying to give anyone grief. When I say it looks "ugly and distracting", what I mean is: it causes me a minor annoyance, yoinking me out of the flow of skimming the infobox. We have a long list of properties expressed as "name content // name content ...", then suddenly BAM there's a horizontal rule with centered italics, then we immediately go back to the "name content ..." format for the person's website or whatever. –jacobolus (t) 18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Meh it's all a WIP. We will find a better solution. Appreciate the feedback! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
To be concrete, I'd personally prefer something more like the picture on the right for Burkard Polster, where I don't really feel that youtube view statistics are that important to the article about Polster:
While they're unnecessary, I don't absolutely mind having the subscriber and view counts, but the way the horizontal rule and italic message shows up seems distracting and a bit confusing. If there were a tooltip or footnote, it could go after the label "YouTube information". –jacobolus (t) 18:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: that warrants a MUCH larger discussion. I get your point, but subscribers and viewer counts are a notable metric when it comes to someone's social media presence. I would counter that if they aren't notable enough to be in the infobox, then the page in question should not have {{Infobox social media personality}} as an infobox at all... There is nothing to say that just because someone has a YouTube account (or twitch, instagram, etc) that it needs to be in the infobox. It could just be mentioned in the article. IF it is in the infobox, I think the stats are relevant. That being said I'm totally open to WP:CONSENSUS saying something different. My only point is that for a change of that magnitude, I would not be comfortable making it without a lot of input.
For example, when we chose to remove the bulky "youtube creator awards" section, I think something like 25-30 people weighed in and nearly all agreed that it should go. Perhaps a WP:RFC is needed? I'll leave that to you... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
One additional note that I meant to mention is that I don't think a tooltip is the way to go because of accessibility issues. But again, open to other opinions! - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment that, if statistics like Subscribers and Views don't seem notable enough to include in an article's infobox, then this infobox should likely not be included on that article at all. This infobox is intended for subjects whose notability comes from their social media presence, of which their statistics are integral.
With that said, I also completely agree that the "Last updated" formatting is not visually appealing. I'm just not sure how to change it for the better, at the moment. Prefall 19:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Or if not a tooltip or footnote, maybe it could just go directly below the view count, in the same column, in smaller font: (updated 2025-08-08) or (as of August 2025) or the like. –jacobolus (t) 19:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately we cannot use small font in the infobox per MOS:FONTSIZE. And while slotting it in normally under the lowest-level statistic would work for that platform, a problem arises when multiple platforms are used. Then, either it looks like it only applies to that one platform rather than the infobox as a whole, or you're duplicating the date multiple times throughout the infobox. Prefall 19:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issue with that is that there are many cases where people have accounts on multiple social media platforms... YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Twitch for example, now instead of displaying the date once at the bottom, are we displaying the same date 4 times after each of the view/subscriber/follower counts?
I'll echo what Prefall said. I'm not wild about the current formatting of "Last updated" but I truly think it is the best solution for a not easy to solve problem. It also follows the convention of other infoboxes with a "last updated" type parameter.
One suggestion for ya jacobolus, if you are so inclined, play around in the sandbox. See if you can come up with a better display solution? I think we all would be happy for a better solution, just make sure you are taking into account the various use cases (i.e. multiple accounts on the same platform as well as on multiple platforms). Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
The easiest "better solution" is to just leave the update date out (many of those other infoboxes presented as precedent would also be fine with the update date removed). Someone very curious could see it in the source markup or click through to the relevant social media site where the data comes from. –jacobolus (t) 19:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, a week ago, I agreed with you actually advocated for removing it. The first iteration DID remove it... I've since had my mind changed. WP:ASOF is the primary concern, as well as pretty clear consensus that it needs to stay. I'm not indifferent to your opinion, as I said, if you read through all the discussions on this page, you will see that I shared it as recently as a week ago. I just think WP:CONSENSUS says otherwise. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
"Socials last updated" is twee, unencyclopedic and, worst of all, unclear. When I see that, I don't know what it means. Does it refer to the last time that they changed their primary social-media account (e.g., moving from Xtwitter to Bluesky)? Does it refer to the date on which subscriber statistics were last tallied? If this information is to be included, it should be described in a way that is actually informative. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction "socials" was already removed... - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I have an idea for an alternative, perhaps more visually pleasing, way of displaying the date. In some infoboxes, there are parameters that modify another parameter, e.g. |budget=20 million and |budget_year=2020 produce "20 million (2020)" in the budget row in Template:Infobox organization. We could add |x_stats_update= for each platform, the value being the , which appends "(as of )" to the |x_subscribers= and |x_views= parameters for each platform. What do you think? Pinging editors who commented Zackmann08, jacobolus, Prefall, Soulbust. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
@Throast: so that was actually what I advocated for in the beginning... The problem is that it looks horrendous. There are so many different stats that you end up with a lot of extra information that makes the infobox much harder to read. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The previous infoboxes had parameters for that alternate type of format, but it was rarely used as it duplicates the date throughout the infobox. This is made noticeably worse when multiple platforms are listed, which is what sparked this issue. Prefall 18:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes I see how it could look too cluttered with the full date. Prefall, you mentioned earlier how using just the year inline would casue issues with the automated conversion script. If someone managed to convert full dates into years-only in every article, could the year inline be reconsidered? Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Throast as the one doing the bulk of the converting, (Not to say that Prefall isn't being VERY helpful), the conversion script can handle any type of date. It just moves the value to a new location. So it can handle straight dates (2024, October 2025, etc) as well as dates that are in template format ({{dts|2024-10-12}} for example). So that is definitely not an issue. It is a matter of how it would look. I'd encourage you to try playing around with some of the testcases... If you have 1 youtube channel, it doesn't look too bad to have the date inline like you suggest, but when you have multiple... Or when you have a youtube channel AND an instagram account AND a tiktok account suddenly you have 4+ dates (all of which should be the same value since you should update all stats at the same time). Again, full disclosure, when we started this project I was 100% in your camp... It was the process of actually converting pages that made us realize how horrible it looked. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed these discussions, didn't mean to relitigate things. Back to the drawing board... :) Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Can we please make the "stats update" field grayer, as it was in the previous YouTube infobox, at least when used as a module? To whatever extent the stats field can be de-emphasized is an improvement. (The horizontal rule also doesn't work with the hierarchy with the templates.) –jacobolus (t) 18:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: I worry about WP:ACCESSIBILITY if we alter the color too much... Regarding The horizontal rule also doesn't work with the hierarchy with the templates. Can you elaborate? Would be super helpful if you could link to an example or provide a code snippet here showing what you mean. This is very much a WIP and any improvements would be great. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I gave a screenshot above showing the then-current version on the left and my preferred alternative on the right. There have been some changes since but the horizontal rule hasn't changed:
To be specific: the update-date message goes on the outside of a horizontal rule, together with (in this case) the "website" field. This makes for a very confusing hierarchy, since the update date applies to the content before the line, but is visually grouped with the content after the line. –jacobolus (t) 18:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for missing your earlier comment... Too many irons in the fire at the moment... So I see what you are saying, but what I don't know is what to do about it... I.E. what a good solution is. Simply removing the subscriber/views stats from the infobox entirely is not an option as this goes directly to the notability of the channel. If you don't want to explain the vital stats of the channel, then I would argue that you shouldn't have it in the Infobox at all. Just put it in the External links section, which I will note is present on Burkard Polster. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
"goes directly to the notability" – subscriber numbers are not a relevant feature for "notability" by Wikipedia standard. Notability depends on coverage in reliable secondary sources, not popularity as counted by view numbers. Whether view numbers are important should ideally, like most other aspects of article content, be left to local consensus. Personally I think it would be a lot better if all of the infoboxes gave more editor flexibility to add custom fields on specific articles, to re-arrange field order, etc., but unfortunately that's not currently how they're set up. –jacobolus (t) 19:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Follow up comment, I think it is important to note that this is NOT new behavior. If you look at Burkard Polster from before the conversion (see here) the same issue was present... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it was also broken before. –jacobolus (t) 19:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I view it as more of a footer. While the "Last updated" message technically only applies to the statistics, it can be (and should be) interpreted as applying to the infobox as a whole. And the website is intended to be at the very bottom and separate from the YouTube information, so the horizontal line still makes sense there, as well. Prefall 19:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
As for accessibility: de-emphasizing unimportant information improves accessibility by making salient information more visible. The gray should be something just a bit lighter than the main content rather than completely blended with the background. –jacobolus (t) 19:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: behold the monstrosity that is Vicente Ndongo's infobox... Thoughts on the duplicate update of stats???? do we move it above the {{{module}}}? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I removed the football template's stats note to make it look nicer. Hopefully their infobox doesn't track non-uses of that parameter. Prefall 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Removing the actual update date from the sport stats gives the misleading impression that the youtube update date applies to the sports stats. I'd instead recommend leaving the sport update date and removing the youtube update date, since the former seems much more relevant to the person. –jacobolus (t) 21:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Again jacobolus your eagerness to remove data related to this template that you have decided is not relevant, is unhelpful. Prefall's approach is def the right one. Vicente Ndongo retired from football 10 years ago. Their sports stats are not going to change. They are currently a youtuber. Those stats will continue to change. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
All anyone will see is a generic "Last updated" banner, which they will assume applies to the infobox as a whole. They will have no idea that its implementation was intended for the social media template. Prefall 21:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

YouTube Creator Awards

Just throwing it out there, why were the YouTuber Creator Award parameters removed from the infobox? I think they are crucial milestones and good for readers to know. It also seems some other editors would like it to be brung back too. WhatADrag07 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatADrag07: consensus was reached in the TFD and in the discussions above to remove for multiple reasons. The largest is that they violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I would encourage you to read through the TFD and the LENGTHY discussion above involving more than 2 dozen editors. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
For ease of referencing, original TfD discussion as linked: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_30#Social_media_personality_infoboxes. – robertsky (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but I don't see a consensus to remove the YouTube Creator Award parameters. There are a few comments mentioning that parameters could be removed, but nothing about these parameters specifically. I will note that User:Sladen wrote a statement as a postscript to the discussion, saying that the new and improved "Infobox social media personality" does not include all of the features of its predecessors. I think this indicates that there is not a consensus to remove any features.
I'm not necessarily saying I oppose the removal of these parameters—I can see the argument that they are unimportant details. Still, I just want to make sure this change isn't being made without a consensus. I propose that we hold a separate discussion about which features from each template should be maintained. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Zackmann08 (talk · contribs), I don't see a consensus to remove the YouTube Creator Award parameters in the TfD or on this page. The opinions are split at Template talk:Infobox social media personality#Feedback request:

  1. Mikeycdiamond: "I am fine with what you removed, as the creator awards are niche and implied except for the language the channel is in."
  2. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder: "Youtube creator awards can probably stay but only if the Youtube section of the template is at the bottom. I'd probably reorder the template's segments in alphabetical order so that Youtube likely stays at the bottom for a while."
  3. Earth605: "I oppose excluding the language parameter. The others I agree to remove, even the awards, as it is not 100% important to feauture."
  4. A.Classical-Futurist: "I suggest that Youtube Creator awards be re-added and also a possible addition of Tiktok creator awards and Instagram Rings as well."
  5. Throast: "Creator Awards (i.e. dates when certain subscriber threshholds were reached) are hyper-specific and belong in the article body, if at all. The purose of an mos:infobox is to summarize, not supplant, key facts; in the vast majority of articles, channel milestones are not discussed in the body because they just don't hold that much significance in the greater context of people's biographies. The plain subscriber count is sufficient."

The conversion to Template:Infobox social media personality should be paused if the conversions remove the YouTube Creator Award parameters since there is no consensus to do so. I recommend creating an RfC to determine the consensus on whether to retain or delete the YouTube Creator Award parameters along with the "Tiktok creator awards and Instagram Rings" mentioned by A.Classical-Futurist. If the eventual consensus is against removing the YouTube Creator Award parameters, they will need to be added back to every infobox they had been removed from. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Prefall: what are you thoughts here... I felt like we had resolved this issue but it seems like there is at least some objection. You've been very involved with this from the beginning. Do we have consensus or is a broader discussion needed? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
While I do think there has been much more support for removal rather than retain, I'm fine with a broader RfC being created to fully establish a consensus. Prefall 07:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
An RfC is needed to gain consensus for this major change. The TfD concluded that the templates should be merged. It did not conclude that the YouTube Creator Awards should be removed. On this talk page, there are comments from WhatADrag07, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, and A.Classical-Futurist supporting the inclusion of these awards. There are comments from Zackmann08, Mikeycdiamond, and Throast opposing the inclusion of these awards. I haven't formed a strong opinion on whether the parameters should be retained or removed and would like to hear more input from the community in the form of an RfC. Right now, I hold a similar view to Vigilantcosmicpenguin, who wrote I'm not necessarily saying I oppose the removal of these parameters—I can see the argument that they are unimportant details. Still, I just want to make sure this change isn't being made without a consensus. An RfC about the YouTube Creator Awards should also discuss any similar parameters that were removed from the other social media templates. See A.Classical-Futurist's comment about "Tiktok creator awards and Instagram Rings" for examples. Cunard (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that YouTube was the only social media infobox that had awards parameters. Prefall 08:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. I tried checking the other templates but couldn't see their old content since they all pointed to Template:Infobox social media personality (example for the TikTok personality template). Cunard (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Cunard: see the RFC filed below. To be clear, the merge is on hold until the RFC does its thing. I will also tell you, as the one who merged the other templates, Prefall is correct. It was the only one that had any sort of awards parameter. If you go to the link you provided above, you can still click edit and view the old code, it is just hard to see its result since the documentation is also redirected. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Layout

There seem to be some extra lines appearing in the infobox on mobile. Any idea what’s causing this? See image: https://imgur.com/a/irkqMlW Cosmo Skerry (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Investigating... @Cosmo Skerry: thanks for the tip.
@Gonnym: Any chance this is related to the use of autoheaders?
@Prefall: any thoughts?
--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
At least one of those spaces were present when I checked mobile a few days ago, before autoheaders were implemented. They were also sometimes present in the old infoboxes. I believe the use of modules auto-inserts a space on both desktop and mobile on certain occasions. Maybe there's a way to fix this, but I'm not aware of it.
Slightly separate issue, but we should hide the <hr> on mobile since the mobile infobox uses borders, making the line redundant. I hid this in the previous infoboxes using custom template styles, but maybe there's an easier way. Prefall 21:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Well I'm at a loss for what is causing this... @Jonesey95: do you have any ideas? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Not offhand. I think I've seen this mentioned before, but searching within Wikipedia is not great. I would ask at Template talk:Infobox. Link to some testcases or a sandbox page that shows the issue, especially if you can show a sandbox version of the template that didn't do this in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 and Zackmann08: Okay, I understand why it's happening now. It is related to embedding using |child=yes. Almost all of the testcases have a blank line or two, on both desktop and mobile, with this markup:
<tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1316064257"></td></tr>
One blank line is always created at the beginning of this wrapper template (in-between {{Infobox person}}'s rows and the custom rows for this infobox), and a second is created when embedding this template into another. Both are direct results of |child=yes, which creates a blank row where |title= would be listed. It simply does not suppress this row if the title is left blank. The blank row does NOT occur if you embed using |subbox=yes instead.
This issue is actually already mentioned at Template:Infobox#Embedding. A workaround/solution is listed but it would have to be applied everywhere that |child=yes is used. This is something that should be fixed directly at Module:Infobox instead. Prefall 15:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: THANK YOU for investigating and getting to an answer. Can I get you to post what you learned on Module talk:Infobox in hopes that this will get resolved? - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Posted. Hopefully someone can fix it. Prefall 21:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Module:YouTubeSubscribers

So I stumbled upon Module:YouTubeSubscribers which was used in the old YouTube infobox. It pulls Subscriber/view count data from Wikidata. I've asked BrokenSegue (the original creator of the module) to work on implementing it in the sandbox of this infobox. Seems like a worthwhile and useful improvement. Want to shift the conversation that I started on their talk page to here so others can join. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I do think pulling from Wikidata is ideal, but it's worth noting that automated stats were rarely used on the old YouTube infobox. People didn't like how restrictive it is (see the initial discussion about its implementation). The stats would only be updated once a year. And it would only include stats for a single channel, not taking any notable secondary channels into account. With the combining of all platforms into this one template, it is also going to make updating |stats_update= more tricky if other platforms are present.
If the functionality could be expanded and certain issues addressed, that would be fantastic. Prefall 20:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm willing to work on changing how its implemented and put work into migrating this (and including support for other networks when possible). My time is a little limited nowadays though so I would want someone to deal with the consensus building and I can just implement the tech (and handle the wikidata consensus building).
So I guess my question are:
  • how often does it need to update? i believe currently it's ~quarterly or as soon as sub count is up by ~15%? what if we use that rule but then there's a button you can press to trigger an immediate update rather than have people learn how to use wikidata?
  • how do we handle multiple youtube channels? (we can't just add sub counts? how do we know which ones to include?)
Optimally you would just tell me "please implement a lua module that takes and returns ". My hope is that this work could be shared across all languages and save lots of effort. BrokenSegue 03:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: give me a couple hours. I'll whip up a spec for ya to work from. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: Ok so first a few thoughts...
  • While a lot of the code from Module:YouTubeSubscribers will probably be reused, the name doesn't work anymore so I would encourage you to start Module:SocialMediaStats or something similar. If you want to do a cut and paste move or a true move to maintain the edit history, that's up to you. Doesn't really matter in the long run.
For now I'm going to focus exclusively on YouTube. Let's get this working with YouTube and then we can worry about Instagram, TikTok, etc.
  • In {{Infobox social media personality}}, you can have up to three channels. Those channels are identified by either |youtube_handle=/|youtube_handle2=/|youtube_handle3= or |youtube_id=/|youtube_id2=/|youtube_id3=.
  • Note that you can mix and match, so you can have channel 1 indentified by the handle and channel 2 identified by the id (for example)
  • There are 2 statistics we are concerned with, views and subscribers.
What should be taken in
  • In the simplest case, a channel (identified by either a handle or id)
  • In the more complex case, up to 3 channels, again, identified by either a handle or an id.
What should be returned
  • In the simplest case, 2 values (ideally 2 separate function calls). The view count for the channel and the subscriber count for the channel
  • In the complex case of multiple channels, stats for each channel in some easily readable format. My recommendation would be to use {{ubl}} and have each one display on its own line under the 2 labels. So you would essentially get {{ubl|VIEW_COUNT1 (CHAN_1)|VIEW_COUNT2 (CHAN_2)|VIEW_COUNT3 (CHAN_3)}} and the same idea for subscriber counts. I wouldn't worry too much about the exact formatting, we can mess with that once you have a working prototype.
  • Additionally there should be a function call that will return the date of the statistics (Can we assume that the views count and subscriber count have the same date?
Notes
  • This should use the existing parameter names not require any new custom parameters be passed in.
  • This should not have any effect on existing pages UNLESS there are blanks (I.E. no value provided for the views stats), but it should not override values that are manually provided on the page.
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
cool i'll take a swing at this BrokenSegue 19:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
take a look at Module talk:SocialMediaStats/testcases. It's still a WIP (views isn't working properly) but want to see if this is what you are talking about. I think we should just return the maximum or minimum date if the dates don't match as this should be rare and it adds complexity to deal with. BrokenSegue 00:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Two things. First that looks amazing. Very promising! Second, there is now objection to the way we are implementing this new template, with regards to removal of youtube creator awards. I don't want to try to handle two problems at once. Module:SocialMediaStats looks VERY promising, and I def think it will end up being used, but it might be delayed longer than I had hoped. Just to keep you up to date. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
ok. ping me when you're ready to move forward again? BrokenSegue 05:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Will do! Keep up the good work. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: you are in the clear to continue (if you ever stopped)! The RFC resulted in WP:SNOW. I do want to finish the conversion process from the old YouTube template before we implement your new code, but no reason you can't continue your work. I'm guessing about another week or so? I'm down to about 900 pages still using {{infobox YouTube personality}}. Getting through about 125/day (that's about all I can take before my eyes start to bleed....) - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: ok I think it's now in a good situation to be used. My bot is going through and updating some of the information that was missing. I'm not sure how you plan to decide which ones to move over to automatic fetching. Can it be designed to just pull if wikidata is more up to date? BrokenSegue 03:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: so that is an entirely different issue... That will require some work. Figuring out which pages are linked to wikidata... I have some thoughts on queries we can run, but first I want to get your code up and running. For now, can you test how your code will work at Template:Infobox social media personality/wikidata? I'll add that to the testcases so we can see it side by side with the main and sandbox. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
i took at stab at it but one issue i'm running into is that the module looks at the current page's wikidata item. but when run on the test page it fails since there is no wikidata item. you can override that by specifying "qid" as an argument to the module but that isn't supported by the core template. not sure if you have suggestions on this BrokenSegue 16:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
That is not a unique problem. Your "hack" of adding {{{qid}}} is exactly the way to go! It will also be helpful in the rare instance where the infobox is called on a page where the QID of that page doesn't match the QID of the YouTube channel. As an example off the to of my head, if the infobox was placed on a page for one of the Sidemen members. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: So I setup Category:Social media pages with Wikidata (2,025) to track pages which have wikidata that we might be able to use... Will take a while to populate but should be useful for testing and whatnot. One concern I have though... You are using Wikidata:Property:P5436. That seems to be a generic "viewers/listeners". It does NOT appear to be specifically "YouTube views"... Similarly Wikidata:Property:P8687 appears to be "social media followers" NOT specifically "YouTube subscribers". Compare these to Wikidata:Property:P11245 which very specifically is "YouTube handle". Help me understand this, what am I missing because at first look these do not seem like they will work... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

so wikidata likes to use generic properties but then use them in more specific scenarios with special "qualifiers" to distinguish them. in both these cases the "claims" are qualified with youtube specific qualifiers which links them to the specific youtube channel the views/follows happened on. this is just how wikidata works. they don't want to create a property for "views" or "followers" on each social network. i manage the bot that actually updates these claims so I can be sure what they mean. BrokenSegue 23:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! I'm still learning Wikidata so I appreciate your patience with my naïvete... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
take a look at the DudePerfect example on your test page. I think that is doing what we want? Unless you want no parenthesis in the 1 chan case. In any case I think we're pretty close. The only detail is the date. I'm not sure how we'll handle the date since it seems the date is meant to be the date for the entire section and not just YouTube information. BrokenSegue 03:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
And now things get complicated... So I do think that if there is only one channel we do not want the parentheses... That is just extra clutter for the bulk of the cases where there is just the 1 channel, def want it for 2 or more tho!
@Prefall: what are your thoughts on the date... Ideally this Module will pull data for ALL the social media platforms... But what do we do about the case where the instagram stats were manually updated (on wikipedia) October 2025 but the YouTube stats are being pulled from Wikidata and THAT data is from July of 2025? Which date do we show? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, no parenthesis on single-channel listings. As for how to handle the date, I'm not really sure. Ideally, this template would pull all stats from Wikidata, and if any statistics are manually provided, it wouldn't pull from Wikidata at all.
I haven't fully followed this discussion or looked at the code, but I do think we might have to manually provide the channels to pull from Wikidata, because Wikidata stores information indiscriminately, not just what is notable, which means it will link to secondary accounts that we may not want to list on Wikipedia, as well as things like Twitter and Instagram accounts for people who are not notable for their presence on those platforms. I'm not aware of an easier way to filter those non-notable channels/platforms out.
Also, not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but the date function will have to determine if the article uses DMY or MDY format to avoid inconsistency. Prefall 15:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
by any statistics you include non-youtube? that's gonna be a giant if/else and hard to do.
it's already manually providing the channels. it only shows what was requested in the template (either by ID or handle)
for date it's using Format date. is there a template that auto-detects the right format? BrokenSegue 15:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, any non-YouTube statistics (or, if this module is expanded to include other platforms, any statistics whatsoever). That's the only way I can see to avoid the date conflict. Either it pulls everything it's listing from Wikidata, or it ignores Wikidata completely.
Okay, that's good to know.
Module:Auto date formatter should help. Prefall 15:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
ok i swapped to using that module. i can exclude it if /any/ other stats are manually provided. but it does feel weird to intentionally serve older data when we have newer for formatting reasons. BrokenSegue 21:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: do you have thoughts on disabling the wikidata sourced info if /any/ other stats are provided? I could start trying to source more stats from other providers but it's sort of inevitable the dates won't all align. BrokenSegue 16:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Logo placement is jarring

I was in the process of converting Sidemen to the new infobox and I noticed the logo placement is extremely jarring. Before, it was at the very top, right alongside a regular image. Now, it's in the middle, which looks strange visually and hinders readability. Having an image break up the flow of the infobox like this does not seem like a good idea.

The bigger problem is that I'm not exactly sure how to fix it. We could place it at the bottom instead, but that would also look jarring alongside a signature. And this template is a wrapper of {{Infobox person}}, so the logo is technically placed at the very top of our custom parameters. The person infobox only has one |image= parameter, and as far as I know, a second |image= parameter cannot be passed and placed at the very top. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if you know any workarounds. Prefall 23:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sidemen
Top to bottom from left column: Brown, Lewis, Olatunji, Barn, Payne, Bradley, and Minter.
@Prefall: one workaround is to use {{Multiple image}}. What we could do is write a series of if (or maybe a switch?) statement..
  1. If just image is not null, then in the code |image={{{image}}}
  2. If just logo is not null, then in the code |image={{{logo}}}
  3. If BOTH values are not null, the call {{multiple image}}.
The big problem with that is that IF someone tries to supply a multiple image in a transclusion it wont work. So if in the template code we are calling multiple image, and a transclusion supplies |image={{multiple image}} then it will blow up. Found this out the hard way on {{Infobox Australian place}}.
What I would suggest, investigate how likely case 3 is? How many pages have both a logo and an image? If that count is very low, then I would say convert those to use multiple image and alias logo→image? If that count is higher then look into the switch statement and just be ok that the extremely rare case of supplying a {{Multiple image}} will cause an issue (but document that somewhere).
Also, whatever implementation you/we go with, make sure you test the case of {{Infobox social media personality}} being imbedded. I want to make sure that the image doesn't get suppressed by the fact that |child=yes. I don't THINK it does, but I want to be sure...
--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there would be any necessary reason to manually use {{Multiple image}} on this template outside of the very instance we are looking to support (regular image + logo combo), so in theory, your suggestion should work. Prefall 08:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: I'm going to try to focus on finishing the conversion from the old YouTube template, but I've added this to my todo list and will mock something up in the sandbox when I get a chance! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: so I got sick of converting pages and went ahead and did this.... It is in the sandbox. See these testcases. The biggest unknown at this point is that in the case where BOTH images are provided, I am currently ignoring the size parameters. I.E. |image_size= & |logo_size= will do nothing if both an image and logo are provided. This is because {{multiple image}} doesn't play nicely with numbers, I'd have to strip out the px as it expects just a number. There are other issues as well... In any case, I think this is much better than what we had before. Take a look, test it out a bit and let me know your thoughts! -- Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
That looks good. It does suck a bit that the template doesn't work well with different sizes for vertical images, but it should be fine. I see it defaults to 200px for the images if both are used---should we bump it up to the site-wide default 250px or leave it as-is since there's two images instead of one? Prefall 17:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Honestly I'm indifferent. Personally I prefer the smaller images, but I do my editing on a tablet in desktop mode these days so I'm not the best use case. My argument is you can always click on the image to see it larger if needed/desired. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
It should be fine to go ahead and push this to the main template now, since it is already a significant improvement to the logo placement. If someone complains about the multiple image size, we can adjust it later. Prefall 18:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Infobox social media personality
]

@Prefall: so found a problem... If you specify anything more than just Filename.extension it blows up. Both of these should work... 

{{Infobox social media personality
| logo  = ]
| image = Image:Sidemen collage 5.jpg
}}

The only way I can think of to do this is to add a |image2= to {{Infobox person}} and I DO NOT think that will be a popular option. Modifying something used on over a half million pages to fix a use case that arises on maybe a few dozen just seems like a terrible idea... Now the second use case (Where it just has the Image: prefix) could be fixed with a call to {{Trim leading}}... But the first case... That would require a complicated regex... Not sure it is worth it. Thoughts? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, but I don't think it's worth adding edge case checks for. Not only are those not standard formats for infobox images, but if someone happens to submit those, they will immediately recognize that it's broken and fix it themselves. Surely...
A second image in {{Infobox person}} seems to be the only genuine way to get the exact issue-free formatting we want, but it's not a big deal. And yes, I agree that it wouldn't be a popular suggestion at all. Prefall 02:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Prefall: had to get very creative with Viva La Dirt League. Would love your thoughts... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
That looks pretty good actually. I do think the logo could be a little smaller and individual photos a little larger, but that's just a nitpick.
Another issue, though, is that it's listing photos for people who are not mentioned in the infobox at all. This is where something along the lines of |current_members=, |created_by= or |presented_by= would come into play. Prefall 21:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm can we get around it by use {{Infobox comedian}} as the parent? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)


References

RFC: Should the YouTube Creator Awards section be removed?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW result. 13 comments, all supporting removal. Original requester withdrew need for further discussion. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Should YouTube's creator awards section be removed from the Infobox moving forward? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Background
  • Nearly a month ago a TFD was filed (by me) to merge all the social media Infoboxes (TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X, etc) into one unified infobox.
  • That TFD received overwhelming support and the decision was to merge
  • For the past few weeks a number of editors have worked together to design the unified template you find here at {{Infobox social media personality}}. For the detailed discussion about what was kept and why scroll to the top of the page
  • All the templates listed in the TFD have already been completely merged and redirected here except for {{Infobox YouTube personality}} which is about halfway done. (NOTE that merge is on hold pending the outcome of this RFC)
  • Multiple editors have raised concerns about the removal of the Creator Awards section of the Youtube Template (for an example of what those look like, see this testcase.) It was my and other editors impression that this issue had been addressed but an RFC has been asked for before moving forward further.
Arguments for removal
  • MOS:INFOBOX states that An infobox is a panel that summarizes key facts about the page's subject. (emphasis added).
  • The Infobox already lists the subscriber count of the youtube channel, cluttering it with an additional section that lists when arbitrary thresholds were met is redundant. I.E. I already know that Joe Smith has 433 million subscribers. I don't need a list of the dates he hit 100,000 subs, 1 million subs, 10 million subs, 50 million subs, 100 million subs, 200 million subs, 300 million subs, and 400 million subs in the infobox. If it is that important, include it in the body of the article.
  • Now that all the social media platforms have been merged into one Infobox, we are working hard to not give one undue weight and to treat each as equal. Why does YouTube get its own awards section in the Infobox? If we include that do we start an award section for reaching subscriber thresholds on Twitch? TikTok? Instagram? Suddenly we have an Infobox that is longer than the content of the article...

--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

@QuicoleJR, Prefall, GrafiXal, 1isall, GeekInParadise, GrafiXal, Mikeycdiamond, GeekInParadise, SpartanMazda, DemocracyDeprivationDisorder, Earth605, A.Classical-Futurist, and PantheonRadiance: Pinging everyone who participated in the initial discussion about how to implement this template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Remove As the awards are only given for reaching Subscriber milestones, and the Subscriber count is already included in the infobox, the inclusion of these awards in the infobox is redundant and simply results in visual bloat. The date that these milestones were reached is not significant enough to warrant such distinction in the infobox, and any mentions of these milestones or awards will generally be better served in prose, if at all. Plus, these awards are rarely sourced, and even when so, are usually cited to self-published sources or routine database archives as third-party sources generally do not cover such milestones or awards unless it's a record. Prefall 08:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove per the above. - Earth605talk 12:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove Otherwise, we run into the problem of privileging YouTube over other platforms. If we say yes, what's to stop the Jacob Awards from becoming a thing in infoboxes? JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 12:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove It really isn't necessary to include those when we already have the subscriber count. It also goes against the infobox purpose as it is not a key fact the subscriber count is. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove - Does not fit defined purpose of infobox. Shotgunheist 💬 19:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove: Creator Awards (i.e. dates when certain subscriber milestones were reached) are hyper-specific and belong in the article body, if at all. The purose of an mos:infobox is to summarize, not supplant, key facts; in the vast majority of articles, subscriber milestones are not even discussed in the body because they don't hold much significance in the greater context of people's biographies. As such, such a parameter encourages editors to supplant rather than summarize information. A plain subscriber count is sufficient. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove - as sad as it is to see it go, I agree with concerns regarding its relevance and sourcing. The reality is the vast majority of articles with those awards generally lacked sources confirming so anyways. Outside of few creators, most RSs don't exactly point out the exact date an individual channel reaches 100k or even 1 million, let alone when it received such an award. Plus, since other platforms don't give awards to creators who reach such milestones (IIRC), I also see how it's quite undue. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Remove. Excessive detail for an infobox that often is not covered in the body of an article. I also share concerns with reliable sourcing of the award information. ⇌ Synpath 02:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support removal - (Summoned by bot) Superfluous information per Zackmann08 that is better served in prose, if necessary to include. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support removal. When I was working on some YTers BLPs, I noticed that most Creator Awards are issued upon request nowadays. While for trailblazers like MrBeast would likely get a personalised call from YT to get the award, for many other YTers, it is likely a self-reporting milestone or a response to a system triggered email. – robertsky (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
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.

Groups using the infobox

Moved to Template talk:Infobox person § Groups using infobox
 – Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

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.

I noticed that Sidemen uses the YouTube template but needs to hack it to work for multiple people which isn't ideal as the key/value way a table works fails here. The "birth_date" parameter with a value Olajide Olayinka Williams Olatunji (KSI) 19 June 1993 (age 32) isn't correct as that obviously isn't a birth date.

One option would be to add multiple |birth_namex= and |birth_placex= parameters. Another would be to just use |current_members= and |past_members= like {{Infobox musical artist}} (without birth date and location). There probably are other ways to handle this. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, isn't it possible to just say X (birth date) Y (birth date) Z (birth date)? Earth605talk 12:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Not if you want the data to be meaningful for screen readers. The infobox is basically a table so for each cell you should have one type of data. If the label is "Born" and your value is "X (birth date) Y (birth date) Z (birth date)" that is meaningless (It's also meaningless for those that can see the text, but at least they can more easily understand the context). Gonnym (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I'm glad you brought this up. I have stumbled across a few of these as I've been working on the conversion. This is not a new problem. For example, see Penn & Teller. I think it it is a fairly rare use case, BUT I am 100% open to any way to improve it. I would suggest that this conversation be moved to Template talk:Infobox person as it is not unique to this template and any fix to Infobox person will fix it for all the wrappers including this one. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
I just went to check how this is done on other articles, and it looks like the Wright brothers have found a solution. This article uses Template:Infobox person embedded within another use of the same template, which essentially divides the infobox into sections for Orville and Wilbur. I think this is the right way to do it, as it is clearly readable, so there is no need to change the template itself. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
So I think that is an excellent solution when you have TWO people who are equally notable. Would certainly work for Penn & Teller. But going back to the original example, I don't think that is a good solution for Sidemen where you have seven people. The infobox would be absurdly long. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
I also don't think this is the same situation. Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright don't have stand-alone articles so their complete bio information is located in the group article (Wright brothers). Penn Jillette and Teller (magician) have stand-alone articles, so the infobox at Penn & Teller should be about the act, not the individuals, as that information is already located a click away. The same is true for the Sidemen, which each has a stand-alone article. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Very valid point... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 08:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
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.

Making "YouTube" blue (more specifically, it's formatted as YouTube information, so there's also bold and a color change) is distracting and doesn't seem that helpful: it seems extremely unlikely that readers will be trying to figure out what YouTube is from an infobox. It's also very often redundant with a wikilink on the word YouTube in the article body (whether such a link is helpful in the body can be decided on a case by case basis according to local consensus). –jacobolus (t) 18:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The link is both to aid readers and to maintain consistency. Sure, pretty much everyone knows YouTube, but it would look strange to exclude a link for one site yet have links for the others. At least to me
And the infobox is generally viewed before the article body, so I don't think the link being present in the body should factor in to our decision. Prefall 21:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Consistency with what? I've only seen YouTube ones, but if there are other links those should probably also be removed. The previous YouTube person infobox didn't have such a link, and adding it seems like a significant regression. –jacobolus (t) 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jacobolus: Consistency with what? I've only seen YouTube ones you would benefit from spending some time actually looking at the code and the testcases... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this was a reference to other infobox modules. As for this one specifically: I've never heard of Kick, but I think links on Instagram, Substack, TikTok, Twitch, and Twitter are unhelpful here and should be removed. Are there other examples of infobox modules containing this kind of header wikilink? –jacobolus (t) 21:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
{{Infobox professional wrestler}} and {{Infobox martial artist}} immediately come to mind as infoboxes that link to their professions. Prefall 21:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
There are MANY examples... And these are only ones that start with a link, i.e. |header#=[
To list a few from that search {{Infobox drug}}, {{Infobox element}}, {{Infobox television channel}}, {{Infobox spaceflight}}, etc. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the links in {{infobox element}} or {{infobox drug}}, but {{infobox professional wrestler}}, {{infobox martial artist}}, {{infobox television channel}}, and {{infobox spaceflight}} all seem like inappropriate and unhelpful wikilinks. Maybe there should be a wider effort to get infobox template creators to pay more tasteful attention to eliminating distracting clutter. –jacobolus (t) 21:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Consistency within the infobox itself. Either we should have links for every site, or none at all. The former just seems more helpful to me. Prefall 21:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia