Talk:Influencer

Here is a description of influencer I would use for a page. I wanted to stay away from dictionary definitions. I'll keep reading up on this. Nnev66 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Influencers are opinion leaders who independently shape audience attitudes through content like blogs, tweets, and other social media posts. Unlike traditional endorsers, influencers are perceived as more authentic and credible because they build trust by positioning themselves as experts in specific niches. They interact closely with their followers, fostering a sense of familiarity and forming what is known as a para-social relationship, which makes their recommendations more persuasive.^[1] Nnev66 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I edited the article today with a different but related definition for influencer/social media influencer. Was hoping to have a more expansive one rather than a dictionary-style one, but if the consensus is to go with shorter we can leave it at that and return to it later. Nnev66 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I saw the “Influencer” page was moved to ”Social media influencer” by InfiniteNexus who also changed the opening sentence to start with "A social media influencer,..." instead of "An influencer,...". The page was then moved back to "Influencer" by Polyamorph and moved again by request to ”Social media influencer”; I asked why it kept changing and it's been moved back again to "Influencer".

Below is a list of opening sentences for the article.

• Original (by TonyTheTiger): Influencer is a term traditionally associated with someone who influences others using inspiration and guidance, however, more recently the term has been associated specifically with people who influence and guide the interest of others using social media (also referred to as a social media influencer).
• Changed to this (by CommunityNotesContributor): An influencer, also referred to as a social media influencer, is a term traditionally associated with someone who influences others using inspiration and guidance.
• A more recent variation (also by CommunityNotesContributor): An influencer, also referred to as an online influencer, social media influencer, or social media personality, is a term traditionally associated with someone who is considered influential.
• Most recent (by InfiniteNexus): A social media influencer, or simply influencer, is a type of Internet celebrity who is influential and well-known on social media.

I think the article name “Influencer” makes more sense as "Social media influencer" is a subset of this term. Also, I think the opening sentence should begin with "An influencer,..." (perhaps the most recent version using this structure) to be consistent with an article name of "Influencer". Can this please be discussed to see if consensus can be reached? Nnev66 (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nnev66: Happy New Year, and thanks for starting this discussion. Looking at the page history, it looks like Polyamorph reverted my BOLD move at Jack Lennon Robbinson's request, but then this was re-reverted by CFA because JLR was a sockpuppet, and then again reverted by CFA following your request on their talk page. Although it was within your and JLR's rights to request that my BOLD move be reverted per WP:BOLDMOVE, "undiscussed move" is not a valid rationale per WP:BOLD, WP:IMPLICIT, and WP:CCC, as it does not say anything about why this title is problematic and consensus is not permanent. I invite you to share your reasons if you believe influencer is a better title. Both you and JLR cited past discussion in support of "Influencer" as the page title, but I see no record of this on this page; could you point me to that discussion?

In any case, I stand by the rationale I cited for my initial move to "Social media influencer": influencer, in the context of this article, is merely a shortened form of social media influencer, similar to how a pickup truck is sometimes shortened to truck or the World Wide Web is often shortened to web. By itself, influencer is a generic term that simply means "a person or thing that influences another", and the term is also used in marketing to mean something else entirely. A social media influencer is a specific type of influencer that this article exclusively covers, and just because some have taken to using influencer for short doesn't mean this is the more formal and accurate term. For example, we still use disc jockey rather than its less formal but arguably more "popular" short form, DJ.

I am happy to open a formal WP:RM if need be, but I hope this can be speedily resolved through this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur that the proper page name is more likely the long form for the subject of this page. We are not really talking about people who use their name, image and likeness to endorse over the radio, on TV, in print or other manner/media with this article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @InfiniteNexus: for explaining why you wanted the page moved to "Social media influencer". I hadn't realized the page was mostly about SMIs. I still prefer "Influencer" as I see the term more as described in the Definition section, but if you and the authors of the article prefer "Social media influencer" I won't object now that I better understand your rationale. Note I don't like the article's introductory sentence so when I have time I plan to work on revising it and adding to the article. I'll try to do things in chunks that can be easily reverted if there's disagreement. Nnev66 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Nnev66, if you intend to make significant changes to the WP:LEAD, please try to do so with haste. This page was originally scheduled to make a main page appearance in WP:DYK on January 7. I asked for a slight delay because the page name and contents seem to be getting discrepant reactions. I am hoping to have interested parties resolve conflict so that people protecting the page will know what they are suppose to be protecting. Since Queue 3 has places that remain open, it may be put back in that slot for January 7 if things seem to settle down contentwise. Thus, it would be best if you tried to make LEAD changes sooner rather than later.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I expanded the lead sentence of "social media influencer". If you don't like this sentence feel free to revert, and I won't edit the article for a couple of weeks until it clears DYK. Nnev66 (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Nnev66, I must say that I chuckled to look at your User page talking about working on female scientists and rabbis and finding you here cleaning up Influencer. I am looking for content in the article about female scientist and rabbi influencers:-! The WP:LEAD is now a total mess in the sense that it is in no way a summary of the article. At the DYK stage, it is of course not important to have an exemplary article and we are just trying to get things ready for a main page appearance at DYK. However, a LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the article. Nothing should be mentioned in the lead that does not have greater or equal detail in the main body of the article. Right now the LEAD has a lot of stuff that is not mentioned anywhere else, which means that stuff should be moved to the main body with at least as much detail if not more. Some of this is my fault and preexists your involvement. However, you added to the issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:) I’ve been participating in AfD’s the past six months and the term “influencer” keeps coming up so I went down a rabbit hole. In August I’d planned to work on it but I had other pages more in my interest area. I think my lead sentence is better but if you want to revert it that’s fine for now. I can come back to this after the DYK as I’d like to add to the body as well while trying to keep everything coherent. Nnev66 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it back per the consensus here. Future move requests should be handled through WP:RM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• @CFA, Polyamorph, and Jack Lennon Robbinson:, I would just like to make sure all editors who have been involved in the page moves forth and back and forth are on board with this page name. P.S. it seems that WP:SPA Jack Lennon Robinson has bee blocked and locked.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment not sure why I didn't receive any notification of the page move drama here. Thanks TonyTheTiger for the recent ping which I did receive. I moved the page following a request at WP:RM/TR as an undiscussed move. If a bold undiscussed page move is contested, then the page should revert back to its original name and a formal WP:RM should opened, as detailed at WP:RM:

  Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.

  It is highly disruptive to move the page back and forth without discussion. Next time, if your move is contested, open a flippin' RM and do not engage in a move revert war. Polyamorph (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've stayed out of this mini-drama, but just to say per above, I agree this would be better done as an RM. This is flimsy consensus to move the page again after bold move was contested and reverted per WP:BCR. CNC (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  User:CommunityNotesContributor, What is WP:BCR?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Bold, contested, revert. CNC (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Polyamorph: and @CommunityNotesContributor:, please give me advice on where we go from here. This page is nominated for a main page appearance via WP:DYK. Since it was nominated based on a December 2 move to article space, we kind of have until about the beginning of February before all issues have to be resolved for the nomination to proceed in good faith. Thus, any process that is likely to be resolved in less than 3 weeks would not interfere with a DYK nomination. Would a more robust page name discussion be advised and would it likely be resolved in less than 3 weeks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  RM can easily be resolved in a week per minimum time-frame for discussion. CNC (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, it needs a formal WP:RM, there is no clear consensus. Although for that, the page should really go back to its original location first. @Amakuru and Robertsky: Pinging a couple of admins at WP:RM for their expert input. Polyamorph (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Although I created the page at Influencer, I would support the move to this name. However, my objective is to find the most correct name. If an RM is proper to achieve that, then move the page to where it needs to be so that the RM can commence.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's the thing, I wouldn't unless there was considerable support for such a move. CNC (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:IAR could be sensible here, but it's messy, which is why we have rules and procedures for such things. I don't intend to weigh in any further than this, hopefully one of the aforementioned admins will be able to help resolve this. Polyamorph (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  IAR only really applies to bold moves, not move cycles like bold, contested, revert. CNC (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been away for the past few days, so I missed the messages above. I am perplexed by this talk of there being "not enough" consensus for the move; consensus is implied if there is no opposition, not necessarily through explicit !voting on a talk page, and consensus doesn't have to be strong and clear for an action to be made. I already acknowledged that it was the two users' right per WP:BOLDMOVE to request that the initial move be reverted; however, the first user was a sockpuppet, and neither provided an actual reason for opposing the move and merely did so on procedural grounds. I then elaborated on my rationale on this talk page, and multiple users expressed agreement, indicating consensus. No new opposition has emerged, not even from you two (Polyamorph and CNC). As I wrote above, I will gladly open a formal RM if there is no consensus for the move, but as it stands now, we basically have unanimous consensus as no one has raised an objection (other than on procedural grounds citing a lack of consensus, which is a circular argument — you are saying that you believe there is no consensus because you oppose the move based on the fact that you believe there is no consensus). InfiniteNexus (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:InfiniteNexus, I was the page creator and have nominated this article at WP:DYK. I am trying to button up this page before it appears on the main page through DYK. I don't want it to be in prominent display and then have contentious issues related to its page location and then have no procedural basis to say there is a consensus in order to quiet things down. I would like to thus go through the formality of a WP:RM, which I think will relocate it to this name, but who knows. The proper way to go through an RM is to start at its original name when all the disputes began and then nominate it. That is why I asked if you would kindly revert it back to the original location. I know it sounds like unnecessary hoop jumping, but it will give us a basis to claim consensus should things become contentious when this is in prominent display on the main page. Regardless of where the page is now, I don't think there is anything wrong with finding out where it would end up if we followed procedure, which requires reversion back to the original page location. Circularity aside, it would be good if you would be kind enough to facilitate proper procedure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify from my end, true I did not oppose the move within the discussion, though I did support it's reversion (which does not require explict !voting or commenting on this talkpage either it's worth noting, even if helpful in hindsight). This was because the bold move had already been opposed and reverted, the reasons why being irrelevant at the time, because I didn't expect in a month of Sundays for the page to be boldly moved again to the same target without an RM. Especially by an experienced user who is very familiar with the process of WP:BUILD. If this was any other editor, it's more likely I would of raised objections or concerns earlier, had I thought the same editor would move the page again. I'd otherwise request that you move the page back to the status quo and create an RM for broader input and consensus. Beyond the procedural norms of why, the other reason is because I'm far from convinced you moved the page to the correct title. Even if 90% of the content is based on SM influencers, it misrepresents the 10% that are not SM-based influencers, such as traditional influencers. Hence "influencers" is the catch-all WP:COMMONNAME, whereas "social media influencers" falls just short of that imo. CNC (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Also what about sports influencers? I realise they are mostly on social media, but the reason they are not called "social media influencers" is because the reason they are influential (usually) does not primarily come from SM, but instead the sport they play. The entire basis of naming an influencer X, Y, or Z, is based on where/how they draw their influence (ie, sports, fashion, makeup, etc), rather than the medium of platforms they use to influence others. Hopefully that adds more context here. I realise there is a lot missing in the article, but the title should be based on WP:SCOPE, not the article quality itself, which remains extremely low. CNC (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for triple replying here, here are otherwise my thoughts on the article and it's scope #Types of influencers and scope, which is directly related to the discussion over the article name. Thanks. CNC (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I view sports influencers as celebrity endorsers and normal brand ambassadors. They get paid to advertise on traditional media where they are recognized for their sports excellence and cross over to social media pay for hire because their sports excellence has gotten them a following. Social media influencer is a new thing where a person builds a social media following and then gets companies to pay to market to their personal following. I feel that this article should be about the latter. We don't need a new article to talk about celebrity endorsers. However, this should all be hashed out at a formal RM which could happen if someone would just move this page back to the original location.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This is part of the point at #Types of influencers and scope, I'm not 100% sure on what types of influencers this article should be about. Potentially as you put it, it would only be social media influencers as that is where the notability lies. However historically influencers have existed prior to this, and while it wouldn't be due a standalone article per WP:N, it would be a relevant part of the history here (as touched upon to some degree in article, but not really enough or indepth). This is why a formal RM with broader input would help to settle the discussion, and also help me to make up my own mind in the process ideally. CNC (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't feel there is a strong consensus for the current location. I think an WP:RM is warranted. On the advice of @Polyamorph: and @CommunityNotesContributor:, I have requested the page be moved back so that a formal RM can happen. I have been at User_talk:CFA, User talk:InfiniteNexus WT:RM, WT:DYK and here to try to get someone to just move the page so we can have an RM with formal resolution of the page name. Can someone just move the page so we can have a formal resolution.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see now there's something called WP:BRD, which refers to a "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle, but I wish it was BDR, i.e. discuss first before reverting after the WP:BOLD move. I just had a question for the latest page mover, who was CFA, to find out what was going on but wasn't expecting them to revert it, i.e. I didn't understand my question constituted contesting the page move. InfiniteNexus's explanation helped me understand that the way the term "Influencer" is used today usually refers to a "Social media influencer"; the term "influencer" while used historically before social media times, wasn't used nearly as frequently as it is today. I'd recommend anyone moving a prominent page name to put a note on it's Talk page so that folks like me with questions can ask them and avoid what happened here. I can understand TonyTheTiger wanting to make sure no one else comes out of the woodwork to protest the name of the "Social media influencer" article, but hopefully now that there has been discussion about it, if someone had an opinion they would have jumped in here by now. Just to be clear, I do not oppose keeping the page name "Social media influencer" instead of "Influencer". I don't fully understand the WP:RM process and whether this discussion here can stand in for it or if something formal needs to happen. Nnev66 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  BRD is how wikipedia works. For page moves, a formal RM is required regardless of the reason a bold page move is contested. It's far from clear why we should use a title that isn't the common name. After the formal RM a page mover or admin will assess consensus neutrally and close the discussion. RM discussions are always marked prominently on the talk page when they are closed, whether the result is moved or not moved. Polyamorph (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done page moved per Tony's request. Please open a formal WP:RM if you want to change the title. Polyamorph (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This was (surprisingly) a lot of messages in a span of a few hours, so I'll respond to each part separately:

• BRD is how wikipedia works. For page moves, a formal RM is required regardless of the reason a bold page move is contested. This is not correct: a formal RM is not required to move a page. WP:BOLD moves are encouraged, and consensus does not need to be achieved explicitly. If a BOLD move is disputed, a discussion should be held to determine consensus, but this can be done formally or informally. In fact, the top of WP:RM states quite clearly: A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus. [...] The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus. Furthermore, as BRD has been brought up a few times, I would like to point out that it has WP:ESSAY status and is an optional process, as stated in its first line. However, it is good practice to still follow it, and I immediately did so on the talk page after my initial page move was reverted.
• I didn't expect in a month of Sundays for the page to be boldly moved again to the same target without an RM. My most recent move was not a BOLD move because consensus had already been established on the talk page. You can argue that the consensus was "weak" or whatever, but again, strong consensus is not a requirement for an action to be taken. I felt it was appropriate to move the page again because multiple editors had expressed a desire to resolve this issue speedily before this article appears on DYK and I anticipated being away for the next several days, not because I wanted to sidestep the consensus-building process. I ask that other editors assume good faith.
• Even if 90% of the content is based on SM influencers, it misrepresents the 10% that are not SM-based influencers, such as traditional influencers. [...] Also what about sports influencers? [...] We don't need a new article to talk about celebrity endorsers. All of you are talking about influencers in the marketing sense, i.e. celebrity brand endorsements. An article for that already exists: Influencer marketing. This article is not about that; it only discusses social media influencers, who do not fit the definition of a person with the ability to influence potential buyers of a product or service by promoting or recommending the items on social media (see sense 2). That's essentially just a brand ambassador, but I'm not an expert in marketing and am probably missing the nuances between the two. Anyway, the OED lists three definitions, the last of which is the most recent and arguably least notable (as we must be mindful of WP:RECENTISM), so there is probably no primary topic for influencer. Thus, influencer needs to be disambiguated, and our choices are either Influencer (social media) or Social media influencer. This isn't even a debate, because our WP:NATURAL policy states that the latter is preferable. I will respond more in depth in the RM below.
• I have been at User_talk:CFA, User talk:InfiniteNexus WT:RM, WT:DYK and here to try to get someone to just move the page so we can have an RM with formal resolution of the page name. In the future, please use WP:RM/TR for urgent requests to move a page when you cannot do so; this is mentioned at WP:BOLDMOVE. Had I seen the new messages today earlier, I would have likely moved the page back, but I am not active on-wiki 24/7 and probably most of us cannot. Hence, RM/TR is the best and fastest way to make this kind of request.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

From WP:RM:

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Kindly admit your mistake and move on gracefully. The RM is below which is now the only place the article title needs to be discussed. Polyamorph (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Polyamorph, it does not seem you are assuming good faith. The first user who objected to the initial move was blocked as a sockpuppet, so their objection was invalidated; the second user who objected to the move rescinded their objection following the discussion above; a third user expressed support for the move, and no other users objected to the move (including yourself and CNC until just now). I followed the appropriate steps after my BOLD move was reverted, that is, to discuss on the talk page to gauge the community's consensus, and I have already explained why I moved the page again so soon (to facilitate the DYK process, and beacuse the consensus was unanimous). Consensus is not only achievable through RMs, as noted on numerous PAGs, but I don't think WP:WIKILAWYERING is productive, so I am not going to delve into this procedural matter further unless you believe there was a legitimate policy violation. I understand you and CNC believe the consensus achieved through informal discussion was not strong enough to justify a move, and while our PAGs do not support that notion, to prevent further disruption and needless escalation, I have responded in the RM below. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I am assuming that you made a mistake in good faith. I understand it can be difficult to accept their mistakes. Polyamorph (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to drag things out and blow this out of proportion, so I'll end with this: if I had moved the page back after it was reverted without discussion or explanation, then that would certainly be problematic. This wasn't the case here, and what happened can hardly be classified as a "move war". Moving on now to more substantive issues... InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I do believe there was a policy violation, and when a user with advanced tools is unable to recognise that they have misused those tools, even if mistakenly, and is unable to accept this, then it is a matter that can and should be escalated. Polyamorph (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thenewwave: You reverted, so per BRD I guess let's talk about this out here. I don't have a huge stake in whether the article mentions the section or not, but I'm puzzled as to why it should stay in when the cited source doesn't verify half the content or even explain why student athletes are relevant to this topic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

user:theleekycauldron, I just added some sourced content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the new content! However, it doesn't really fix the problems with the original content, and also, I'm not quite sure how one can use the name, image and likelness [sic] of their personal brand as influencers? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

user:theleekycauldron, First off, I have fixed the typo. Thx for noticing and pointing it out. Secondly, you have just prompted me to read Personal branding. Let me absorb this and consider how to address your concerns. Would you care to chime in at WT:DYK whether this page should maintain its current slotting to run on the main page in 3 days or whether we should ask for it to be pulled for a week as I have requested. As experienced as I am at DYK, I rarely am involved in content discrepancies in the final days before a DYK run and you may have a different perspective than me on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The first of the four citations I added says: "college athletes can now earn money from sponsorship or public appearance". For starters, I read sponsorship to mean influencer for hire. Further, it is the name, image and likeness that is being transacted for.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand personal brand to be the strategy behind the way one presents one's name, image and likeness. For example, Nunez' brand is humorous and carefree, often presented in the context of hip music with in scenarios that sometime involve dancing. His brand is also conscious of the confusion involved in interpreting how perceptions of actions are interpretted in the context of a significant relationship. His brand is also fashion conscious. Other celebrity endorsers might decide that their personal brand presents name, image and likeness in contexts that focus on fast cars, makeup, fashion accessories, modern technology, family, home decor, sporting activity or whatever.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

user:theleekycauldron, I see that you did remove this from the January 7/Queue3/Prep3 position. I am certainly open to any thoughts regarding my interpretation of sources and the content that is included. Feel free to speak up if I am not thinking clearly or seem to just be wrong.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have just swapped in better sources for Nunez, that address your points a little more clearly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

user:theleekycauldron, Although I don't think it should be required for DYK, I am wondering if you want to comment with any suggested wording change. Maybe I need to change a proposition or something minor.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, may take me a bit to respond here, but have read :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I only reverted due to a new account reverting with no edit summary (which is rarely ever a good revert). I've since read WP:BRANDNEW, and am not invested in the content after helping to assemble this misshapen article. CNC (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the topic above, #Article name, I thought it'd be worth some pre-RM brainstorming regarding the WP:SCOPE of the article, that based on previous consensus (albeit weak consensus imo) that the scope is "Influencer".

As this subject has become my nemesis in regards to finding reliable sources, I'm adding sub-topics that require expanding or including into the article based on such scope. Please reference any RS if you have them.

• Social media influencer  Done, referenced in article, could do with expansion/distinguishing
  • Fashion influencer Partly done, referenced in lead, no summary of child article in body
  • Travel influencer Partly done, referenced in lead, no summary of child article in body
  • Virtual influencer Partly done, referenced in lead, no summary of child article in body
• Sports influencer  Not done, no reference, requires reliable sourcing
• Traditional influencer  Not done, no reference, requires reliable sourcing

Are there any others I am missing? I won't bother referencing TikTok influencers or Instagrammers, etc, as these would all come under the bracket of social media influencers that doesn't require further distinguishing. CNC (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, this proposal to transform this article into a broad-concept article is beyond the scope of the RM. If the scope of this article was changed, obviously, Social media influencer would not be an appropriate title. But given that social media influencers are a substantially notable topic, they are probably deserving of a standalone article (I am admittedly baffled as to why Internet celebrity wasn't just renamed, given they're basically the same thing, but that just opens up a can of worms), so a hypothetical broad-concept article should be a separate, brand-new page — or, it can just take the form of a disambiguation page as it currently is. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Per CNC's ask and journal articles I've come across, other sub-topics include beauty influencer, health-related in general including fitness, plastic surgery, breast augmentation. Also political influencer. Regarding "sports influencer", I suspect there's enough for it's own page but in the meantime there could be a sub-section under the #Categorization heading of this article if not it's own section name that discusses all of these sub-topics. I'd move the #Student athletes section out of #Definition and into a heading that discusses these sub-topics. Nnev66 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to fashion influencer, travel influencer and virtual influencer already mentioned in this article, there are other influencer types that either already have pages or eventually should: beauty influencer, fitness influencer, health influencer, journalist influencer, kid influencer. If I come across more that already exist or are potential pages I'll add them here. Nnev66 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Having the photo of a single influencer in the lead strikes me as an odd choice. If it were the one listed as the most influential, it would make some sense. It also looks odd when one looks up influencer in the search bar and the photo of one guy pops up, as if he were the influencer. Surtsicna (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a huge problem with it but if there's a freely available photo you think would be appropriate you could make a bold edit or present some options here. Another approach is to arrange multiple separate images that are representative of the topic (New York City and Carnivora are good examples). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone keeps trying to change this citation:

• Neff, Jack (October 1, 2018). "CLEAN BREAK: J&J departs from conventional influencer marketing by signing on teens with small followings". Advertising Age. 89 – via ProQuest.

to this citation:

• Sharma, Gaurav (October 1, 2023). "Influencer Marketing Pricing: How Much Should You Pay?". Advertising Age. 91 – via Attrock.

without explaining why. Advertising Age is a proper journal; i.e. a reliable source. Attrock.com describes itself as a digital marketing company.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2025 and 4 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thomas Mankowski, Vincent Aldewereld (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wyatt.Rahe (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No one likes to talk about the naughty parts of internet history. 76.171.166.95 (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This article should probably mention deinfluencing and have a redirect to this article.

• Forget the influencers. Here come the ‘deinfluencers’ (CNN)
• What Is Deinfluencing? Unpacking TikTok’s Unlikeliest Shopping Trend (Vogue)
• 'This is garbage': Step aside, influencers — we're now in the era of de-influencing (NPR)
• The lie of “deinfluencing” (Vox)

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The article begins with thumbnail photographs of a dozen people. I have heard of four of them! I presume they are considered "influencers". However, there is no overall caption for the group of photographs, no individual captions other than the name, and no definition of them as influencers when I follow the links. I don't think the articles should assume prior knowledge of the subject; encyclopedia articles should stand alone.

Humpster (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)