Talk:Strauss Zelnick

My First Article/Page/Creation

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I am still getting used to creating my first page (which I will also cite alot) and any help will be welcomed.

Thanks, BBMatBLOOD BBMatBlood (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Strauss Zelnick

On a second thought, i think Mr SZ deserve his own page per wikipedia rule he runs Take-Two, own and run a global private equity investment firm in ZMC (which should remaining stand-alone) and now a board member of CBS Corporation . BBMatBlood (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see you agree with me. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

WOW!

Strauss-Zelnick-owned ZMC is so Huge! i think we need to add a history section (he started the company with $300,000 that a start and grew it into a $14B in assets private equity investment conglomerate). ZMC with all these do not only deserved to be stand-alone and expanded but the founder and owner Strauss Zelnick also need his own page. What A Legend. 78.16.82.179 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Education profile doesn’t match

Early Life Education is completely different than table summary 2601:1C0:4380:8EB0:34AA:7865:48D1:583F (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

On September 17, 2024, a lawsuit was filed against Harry Strauss Zelnick for sexual harassment by a male that he had done business with. The lawsuit is still ongoing, but alleges that Zelnick invited the male to his hotel room for a business meeting where Zelnick stripped naked and instructed the victim to shower while he watched. Stevenmarks1987 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

State suffix

@Wamalotpark: I'd prefer if you stick to the WP:BRD protocol instead of undoing the WP:STATUSQUO four times in 48 hours. Your arguments thus far were:

• "MOS:GEOLINK" – This guideline says nothing about when or not to add state names anywhere.
• "Not necessary for the early life but the infobox it is always present." – I wouldn't say always; I don't primarily edit biographies and even then I've seen multiple in the past that followed this article's format. It also is a vague wave towards WP:OSE. Regardless, your edit also restored the mention in the prose, despite your statement to the contrary.
• "This is the only article I have ever seen with no state and you are the only person that claims this." – An argument being new to you does not automatically invalidate it. This feels like arguing in bad faith and should never be grounds for a revert.
• "Please see template:infobox person birth_place "Place of birth: city, administrative region, country." (...) the example they gave is the one United States city that is typically omitted because it is the same name as the state." – Your argument asserts that whoever edited the documentation formulated an example that holds in exactly one situation. If this was the case, "Omit unnecessary or redundant details." would be a rather useless line. Furthermore, New York City being unambiguous "because it is the same name as the state" means you assume every reader associates a stateless "New York City" with New York City, New York, solely because "New York" is in the name, not because it is the best-known city by that name or the only one in the United States, yet you wouldn't say the same for Iowa City, Iowa, or Idaho City, Idaho.

My sole argument is that Boston should not be disambiguated here in the same way as in the AP Stylebook, which we already use as the basis for the section on WP:USPLACE. Yes, that guideline targets article names, but the stated logic follows the exact same principle. There is no guideline that forces or forbids the use of state names in cases like that, nor does the template's documentation dispute this. Whether something "conveys essentially the same information more concisely" is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, "Los Angeles, US", "Seattle, US", and "Boston, US" convey "essentially the same information" as they would with the state modifier, based upon the assumptions the AP Stylebook presents. As such, I believe the status quo was correct. IceWelder [✉] 21:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

If you look at any highly notable figure that was born or died in the United States, New York City is the only one that I have seen that does not have a state in the infobox. I have stated my arguments and believe their logic when combined with the vast majority of articles it provides the least astonishment to the reader and is most consistent with other articles. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, yes I would not say the same for Iowa City, Iowa, or Idaho City, Idaho, because those articles actually have the state in their article's title because they are not notable cities. Wamalotpark (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Neither the exclusion of "New York" for New York City nor the inclusion of "Massachusetts" for Boston are particularly consistent; examples for both inverses are easily found by an on-wiki search (e.g. Preston Robert Tisch/Gaspar G. Bacon), but that would be an OSE argument in either direction regardless. I sincerely do not believe that one would consider New York City the only city capable of being unambiguos on its own, as if only saying "Los Angeles" could lead readers into thinking we mean the 20-people town in Texas. If the edits are merely based on your gut feeling, we should rather strive for a consistency based on existing written principles, where USPLACE is an ideal starting point. Your second reply also seems to directly contradict your prior points and agree with mine. If the inclusion of the state in article title is crucial to how it is linked, then USPLACE would be the basis of judgement. IceWelder [✉] 23:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The first article you linked is clearly against the Omit unnecessary or redundant details section of template:infobox person birth place, and I'm sure it's easy to find random articles that don't include Massachusetts like you did. You'll struggle to find a (truly notable) or featured article like Michael Jackson that does not include "California" after Los Angeles or similar. It's seems to be clear the preferred style even for notable "AP Stylebook" cities. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The United States places a much higher emphasis on states than for instance, EU countries like Spain or Germany. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It also provides a level of consistency within the article for those who have died or when they die, for all US cities can have a state listed. But if we start only including the city and country, if they die in a city with the state in the article title like Austin, Texas, it creates a disconnect. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, random examples for or against certain styles will be anecdotal and fall under OSE. The desired consistency would stem from mirroring USPLACE, which has a clearly defined list of cities that need no disambiguation. Austin is not on that list, for that matter. IceWelder [✉] 00:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Austin has "Texas" in its article title. So if someone was born in Houston and died in Austin, which does not, their infobox should read

Born: Houston, Texas, US

Died: Austin, Texas, US

Which is preferable to

Born: Houston, US

Died: Austin, Texas, US

for consistency. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Also the "major cities" section of USPLACE only discusses the titles of article names. By your logic, we wouldn't even need to include "US" in the infobox either, but it was included. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The same logic would apply to "Born: New York City, US; Died: Albany, New York, US". I personally don't find it that problematic, but it's not even something relevant to this article. The inclusion of country names is completely divorced from both USPLACE and this discussion, so I'm not sure why you are making this an argument. IceWelder [✉] 07:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)