Talk:Eugene Fitch Ware

Infobox
I don't want to edit war with you about this, but I really don't see your point. cites Kansapedia and Find a Grave. Are you seriously telling me that if I delete the Find a Grave ref on Wikidata and revert you again, you'll be OK with it? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not considered a reliable source for content here. If you replace it with something else it would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , So you think Kansapedia isn't reliable either? I fully understand that Find a Grave isn't reliable, but the wikidata item cited both. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no particular opinion on Kansapedia. My objection is to the other "source", which we shouldn't be using to support content here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. But seriously, what's the harm if both are cited to corroborate the data on Wikidata? Can you give me some policy that says "if the relevant Wikidata item cites X and Y, and only Y is reliable on Wikipedia, but the data is corroborated by both X and Y, we must not have a Wikidata infobox until X is removed"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you give me any policy that supports using sources we know to be unreliable? Particularly if there are other sources that are reliable, I don't see any reason why we should. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikidata statements often have numerous references. I regularly see 5+. Bots add them all the time. If one source is the Dictionary of National Biography, for instance, and another is Find a Grave, and the information is corroborated by the DNB, it strikes me as disruptive to demand a local infobox when Find a Grave is there too. WP:V says verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source (emphasis added). If a reader checks the Wikidata item in this hypothetical example, they can see that the DNB supports the date given.
 * I—and, I imagine, many of the other editors whose Wikidata infoboxes you have removed—often begin my enwiki content creation by building out the corresponding Wikidata item. I rarely remove the pre-existing citations on Wikidata, because that would disrupt the Wikidata infrastructure (where there is no such thing as "too many citations", and cross-referencing is pretty much what the whole project is about). If we are to have Wikidata infoboxes at all, Wikipedia should not be able to demand that editors disrupt Wikidata to use its data on WP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely understand and agree that differing standards and practices between the two sites complicate the cross-import of data. But if you feel removing or replacing this source there would be disruptive, then local entry is a viable alternative (particularly for biographical data that is unlikely to change in future). "Wikipedia" isn't forcing disruption, just that data displayed here - whether added here or brought in from elsewhere - complies with local standards and practices. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely understand and agree that differing standards and practices between the two sites complicate the cross-import of data. But if you feel removing or replacing this source there would be disruptive, then local entry is a viable alternative (particularly for biographical data that is unlikely to change in future). "Wikipedia" isn't forcing disruption, just that data displayed here - whether added here or brought in from elsewhere - complies with local standards and practices. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)