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 Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
You've got the
onus backwards here - you want to make an addition, it's up to you to get consensus for it, and to
provide reliable sourcing for it. And as already noted
elsewhere, if the template imports data derived from other Wikipedias rather than from reliable sources – or in this case, imports completely unsourced data – that's a deficiency in the template that precludes its use.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Nikkimaria: What entries do you want the sources on? You can't just revert everything under a pretext of lacking certain reference. See
Keep it, don't remove!.
WP:Notability isn't relevant here as its the subject is as notable as he could be. I strongly disagree that this policy can justify disputed reverts; you also can just go to Wikidata and remove entries without references, that's it. AXONOV(talk)⚑15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
3O Response:WP:BURDEN is clear: If an edit is challenged due to unreferenced or poorly referenced information, the editor who wishes to make the edit is responsible to correct the referencing deficiencies before reinstating the material.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Nikkimaria: One doesn't reject or go into source code of a template if someone invoked the said template with a wrong data. You can for instance copy the information and put {{citation needed}} tag next to a questionable parameter (e.g. |dateBirth=3000{{
citation needed|date=November 2021}} so one can detag accordingly. AXONOV(talk)⚑18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Nikkimaria's objection was that the template brought in unreferenced or poorly referenced information. So, while you are asking if I read the discussion, I might question whether you have. I fully stand by what I said.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Seraphimblade:… the template brought in unreferenced or poorly referenced information … I argue that any other template may potentially bring unreferenced information, whether it's provided by user or not. As I said earlier this doesn't make up a fair reason to revert it. Did you also fail to see that sources are few clicks away in the article's body? Did you check Wikidata entry? AXONOV(talk)⚑18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
If you believe that the material is referenced, you are welcome to specify, rather than handwave at, what references you believe do so. Thus far, however, your argument seems to be that the unreferenced information should not have been removed or reverted, and that is flatly incorrect. References are a requirement, not an optional nicety, and while tagging unreferenced information is one option, challenging it via removal is also entirely acceptable. That applies whether it is edited in directly or transcluded via a template. And please stop pinging me; I keep discussions I'm participating in on watch.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
… material is referenced, you are welcome to specify … As soon as
Nikkimaria provides details. I asked several times here and in a separate, but related discussion:
[15:22, Nov 8][15:22, Nov 7, 2021]; already. … challenging it via removal is also entirely acceptable … No, it's not. It may touch a lot of information. One is assumed to tell which part of the text requires sourcing at last. Nothing warrants speedy reverts/removals anyway (see
Keep it, don't remove!). AXONOV(talk)⚑19:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
"Keep it, don't remove" is an essay, and a poor one at that. On the other hand,
verifiability is one of our core policies, and it is entirely clear: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Not "tagged", removed. That has happened here, so if you would like to reinstate it, ensure that the sourcing deficiencies are corrected and then you may do so. You could be doing that right now instead of this, and it would be far more productive.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Please disengage. You failed to understand what actually this thread is about. I also ask you to revert your recent 3OR edits mentioned above. One has to follow
WP:PAGs equally of face sanctions. We don't need here any superficial approach on answering
WP:3OR. If you don't have enough time - just move on. My best. AXONOV(talk)⚑22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Support (as nominator) Parameters of both templates allow to request or provide citations in case of problems. If some data fetched from Wikidata is unsourced, related to it entries may be suppressed by |suppressfields= parameter or dealt with by other means (see discussion above). One may provide citations manually; the {{Infobox noble/Wikidata}} won't keep in check text and citations if they are specified manually however; it also doesn't fetch references specified on the Wikidata. --AXONOV(talk)⚑22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
No, given lack of sourcing for info from Wikidata.
BubbaJoe123456 (
talk)
Comment - I see many comments giving reasons for not using the automated Wikidata info, but I'm not sure what the advantages of doing so would be.
PraiseVivec (
talk)
11:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)reply
OK, fair enough, but this is a change that would only affect this one page, not the whole template or category. Surely adding the data by hand would take less time and effort than has already been spent on this RfC.
PraiseVivec (
talk)
17:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)reply