A fact from Eugene W. Chafin appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 April 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Temperance and Prohibition, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Temperance and ProhibitionWikipedia:WikiProject Temperance and ProhibitionTemplate:WikiProject Temperance and ProhibitionTemperance and Prohibition articles
(1) "Chafin married Carrie Arvilla, daughter of
Robert Hastings Hunkins and Hannah Emerson on November 24, 1881."
"Chafin married Carrie Arvilla Hunkins on November 24, 1881. She was the daughter of
Robert Hastings Hunkins and Hannah Emerson Hunkins."
The standard way to deal with biographic information in Wikiepdia articles is to include the wife as daughter of someone. This is because the wife may or may not be a widow and so her surname can vary. Usually her father's will not.
(2) "They had a daughter Desdemona Eleanor (born March 17, 1893)."
"Together, they had a daughter, Desdemona Eleanor Chaffin born on March 17, 1893."
2.a There is no need for "Together" as it is implicit in "They" more so only one child is named.
2.b There is no need to include her surname she is their child and so the surname should only be included if for some reason it is different.
2.c Placing the DOB in brackets is standard formatting, and if there was a DOD of say "January 1, 1921" it would be "Desdemona Eleanor (March 17, 1893 – January 1, 1921)" -- you have probably seen the style used on disambiguation pages.
All of this is standard notation in hundreds of biography articles from this period.
(3) The final part of the revert was to keep the small tree. It is useful because it shows how this man who was notable in his community had a family connection with a brother-in-law. Whether or not that is a significant connection is for the reader to decide. But family connections are often useful in politics, so although it show a connection to a brother-in-law that is informative.
The tree is undue weight as it isn't Chafin's but that of his wife. The other edits just make sense. It is now clear to me you are more interested in keeping articles you watch list at their status quo, a state you prefer, than to see articles change and improve readability for the reader. Your actions smack of ownership, to be frank. -- WV ● ✉✓ 14:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
(4)What do you mean by "undue weight"?
"The other edits just make sense" Lets put the tree to one side and discuss the other edits, without the personal attacks. I have numbered the points I raised to make it easier to discuss them. (1) Why do you think that your form is clearer? There are I would propose that the date is mover to the start of the sentence so it reads
"On November 24, 1881 Chafin married Carrie Arvilla, daughter of
Robert Hastings Hunkins and Hannah Emerson.
If it was changed to that format how is it clearer to have two sentences when they can be wrapped into one in a standard format used in such biography articles -- I have explained above why the daughter's surname is not usually used. --
PBS (
talk) 15:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I have made no personal attacks, just like I wasn't insulting you yesterday by using a canned response from Twinkle. By undue weight, I mean that the tree is about Chafin's wife's family, not his. The article is about Chafin. To put in a tree that is about someone else is giving undue weight to someone other than the article subject. Not to mention it makes no logical sense. By not using Carrie's last name, you are putting emphasis on her father. Keeping her last name out makes no sense. -- WV ● ✉✓ 15:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
"I have made no personal attacks" The to sentences that starts "It is now clear to me..." is a personal attack, or put another way is hardly likely to "
Win Friends and Influence People".
What name would you put after Carrie if she had been widowed twice? The advantage of not including the woman's name is that she can be identified precisely through her father's name.
Had she been widowed twice at the time of her marriage to Chafin? -- WV ● ✉✓ 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I have no idea, but that is not the point, using the style of "first-names, daughter of ..." avoids any problems like that and is also accurate for a woman who has not been married. As I said if she had been married twice before how would you handle it? --
PBS (
talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
If you don't know, then why would you bring up such a strawman? If she had no other names, then the question is silly and a red-herring, having absolutely no bearing on this discussion. There's no logical reason why omitting her last name in the content is called-for. -- WV ● ✉✓ 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
There is, because we can not be sure what her second name is (to know that we would need to know more about her), and not include the name is a common style for this type of historical biography. --
PBS (
talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply