Talk:Mary Dimmick Harrison

Biography header
The header is used to separate the lede from the point where the chronology restarts with their birth. It is standard for a biography .... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's completely unnecessary in a biography this short. It has the effect of generating a Table of Contents where none is needed, and it's marginally illiterate, as the entire article (lede and all) is a biography. - Nunh-huh 12:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at both versions and I think I agree it is better without the biography header because of the specific ToCs generated. The ToC just reads:


 * 1 Biography
 * 2 References
 * 3 Further reading
 * 4 External links


 * As short as the article is, and from the perspective of a reader, I find the ToC interferes with reading the article, looks silly, and doesn't help navigate the article (rather makes navigation harder). The article needs a little more work in the editing, but it's a good brief biography, imo, and I hope you leave the split out until the article is larger. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets get the timeline straight first:
 * 16:27, December 30, 2009 My appeal removed from 3O
 * 17:08, December 30, 2009 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I readded my appeal to 3O
 * 17:19, December 30, 2009 IP69.226.103.13 The third opinion finally is added here at article


 * I find headers helpful in articles beyond the lead, perhaps an expanded article could be divided into something like "Early life," "Death," etc.? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has argued that sections aren't useful in long articles. But this isn't a long article, and adding a single heading is like having an "outline" that has an "A" and no "B", and a "1" and no "2". Subdivisions should make sense, and a heading that reads "Biography" is uninformative and unhelpful, unless there's a second section that is something other than biography, of approximately equal length, from which it should be separated. Adding a section header that doesn't spring organically from the organization of the article just for the sake of having a section header is silly and unnecessary. And many of our articles suffer from excessive subdivision—a kind of dumbing-down that we don't need and makes us look bad. - Nunh-huh 01:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should be thinking then in terms of expanding the article's content to allow for the additional headings? I found and added some additional information of her exploits.  Let us all pitch in!  :)  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point to Wikipedia guideline that expresses this. We all have our own aesthetic opinions, but they are just opinions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to, right after you show me the guideline that a "Biography" section "is standard for a biography". We all have our aesthetic opinions, and it seems yours is one without much support here. - Nunh-huh 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been asked to comment on this issue following a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. From what I can see here, the dispute seems to stem from the fact that adding more sections will create a table of contents. If we add more sections but force the table of contents to disappear would that be acceptable to both sides? Road Wizard (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is only one of the problems of adding a single header called "Biography" to an article that is all a biography. I think it is probably more important that Wikiproject Biography embrace the concept that section headings should arise organically from the structure of an article rather than be imposed in cookie-cutter fashion simply for the sake of having a heading. - Nunh-huh 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to follow the link and read the discussion. The point about having a section called "biography" was raised before I was given a link to this article. I will provide further comment later, but I think it is important that we clear up misconceptions on what you think the WikiProject is trying to achieve at the outset. Road Wizard (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion before my previous comment. What "misconceptions" are you referring to? - Nunh-huh 19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That WikiProject Biography thinks a section header called "Biography" is a good idea and that we impose section headers on articles in a "cookie-cutter fashion simply for the sake of having a heading". I have come here to try and help resolve a dispute and it is not a good start when there is a misunderstanding of other people's motives. Road Wizard (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one suggested that you advocated inserting a silly section header in such a manner, since you quite clearly indicated you were against it; I'm glad to hear that WikiProject Biography also is so soundly against it. The editor who inserted it here seems to insert it in every biography he sees, under the misconception that "it is standard for a biography". Perhaps the project could have some influence in stopping this practice.  - Nunh-huh 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(→) Can we please keep comments about editing patterns on other articles out of this discussion for the moment? While it is something that you may wish to resolve between yourselves in the long term, it will not help to resolve the current situation and may even distract from the key issues. It should also be noted that WikiProject Biography is not against the use of section headers, only that the statement that they be introduced in a "cookie-cutter fashion" is incorrect. All articles should be treated on their individual merits. Nunh-huh, you said that the Table of Contents is not the only problem with inserting a section header. Can you please explain what other concerns you have? Are there any areas where you may consider giving ground to offer a compromise (for example, if the article was divided into subject related sections)? Road Wizard (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I think that the editing pattern is pertinent. The only "current situation" is that a single editor is insisting on inserting this inappropriate section heading in several articles. I've already detailed the problems with "dividing" an article into only one section, and with naming that section "Biography", but I'll be happy to repeat it: This isn't a long article, and adding a single heading is like having an "outline" that has an "A" and no "B", or a "1" and no "2". Subdivisions should make sense, and a heading that reads "Biography" is uninformative and unhelpful, unless its content is being distinguished from a second section that is something other than biography, which should be of approximately equal length. Adding a section header that doesn't spring organically from the organization of the article just for the sake of having a section header is formulaic and silly–neither of which are attributes we want in articles. Many of our articles suffer from excessive subdivision—including headings for "sections" that consist of only one or two sentences. It's bad organization, and it makes the articles read poorly. - Nunh-huh 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, always consult WP:MOS
It would seem that per guideline, the seperation of the lede from the body of an article, whether a BLP or no, is quite proper. Had the article been a mere stub, sectioning would not be neccessary, but the Manual of Style covers this in detail, supported by Layout and Lead section. The edit without summary that began this discussion, followed by reversions 1 and 2, that brought editors to the talk page, should have been based on the MOS, not on WP:OSE or personal opinion. It may be alledged that the sectioning of this article is only the wish of one editor, but his edits are well supported by guideline. This said, and no favoritism here, I support the sectioning as proffered by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, if the only major concern is the creation of a TOC, I was a bit BOLD and have performed a suitable edit myself. Revert if wished, but I hope it will be seen as an acceptable compromise for both sides from an outside party.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't address the issue of "Biography" as a heading; if you want to put a nice printer's dingbat or some heading that makes sense, that would be fine. If you want the syntax for suppressing a TOC, see my edit. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG's comment below is quite helpful, and per guideline. Is your wishing that guideline be made clearer a reason to then edit war and nudge at 3RR   in order to promote your personal opinion over MOS's perceived lack of clarity?    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think DGG's comment supports the use of the single heading "Biography", I think you've misread it. But it appears that though only one person actually supports that use, we're going to genuflect to him. - Nunh-huh 15:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * RAN invited me to comment me to comment. there's a general practice: don't do something non-standard unless there is a good  reason, but if it already done and not harmful, don't fix it, especially not over opposition.  The reason for it is that we need more to write articles and add content, than to format them perfectly.  That said, one mark of a professional-level product is consistency, and we are trying to reach a professional level.. There is a policy on using lead sections: We use them except on stubs-- see, where it  says that there is no fixed demarcation, but that if it's > 400 or 500 words, to use them (this article is just over 400 words).  I see no specific policy about whether the lede must be divided by a section heading from the rest of the article.  Myself, I use lots of section headings--I tend to think in outline format. But if there is only one section--yes, that can look over-structured. The way I'd resolve it is to divide the bio so it is more than one section. In the sort of articles I work most with, there's personal life and professional; here it's a little less obvious. I'd divide it as Early life (through 1892), Marriage, and Family. That gives three short sections. That I like it that way does not mean anyone else has to, or that I intend to edit it.  What might help most is adding more material.    DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All stories start with a lede, that's not the issue: the issue is whether to add a header after it, and whether "biography" as a header in a biography is sensible. If the policy is unclear, it should be made clearer: we use section headings only where the length of the sections would make it necessary, and that's certainly at a length longer than the current article. If anyone's devotion to using such headers makes them want to add material to the article in order to be able to add a header, well, then, that's a strange priority, but it's theirs. But the material added should be material that deserves to be added and not just pointless blather and trivia so that a header can be made to seem reasonable. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Nearly" 25 years
Hi there.

Mary was 24 years, 8 months, and 10 days younger than Benjamin Harrison. Since its inception in 2005, the article has stated that "She was 25 years younger than Harrison." I think it's unlikely that a reader is going to take that to mean she was 25 years younger to the day. Rather, they will know it's an approximation, and, for the very rare reader who wants a more precise number, it is fairly easy to calculate, either by hand or by using a website such as www.timeanddate.com. Benjamin's birthdate is but a click away.

You made it "nearly 25 years" with the edit summary "make true". Now we are implying more precision than we did before, and I would interpret that as "somewhere between 24 years 11 months and 25 years." I strongly believe there are far more people like me in that respect than people who think 24 years 8 months is "nearly 25 years". Thus you didn't "make [it] true", you made it misleading.

Words like "nearly" are very vague and mean different things to different people, so it's best to avoid them in Wikipedia articles; see WP:WEASEL.

To be truly "true", we would have to say "She was 24 years, 8 months, and 10 days younger than Harrison, and was the niece of his first wife." I think that would be a very strange thing to say in the article's lead, and I much prefer "25 years". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not dealing with a scientific paper here, and applying a standard of significant digits to standard English is no substitute for a good ear here. What we say should be true; if you want to use the precise calculated ymd I won't oppose. But I much prefer "nearly 25 years" or "almost 25 years". - Nunh-huh 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think the precise calculated ymd would be a very strange thing to say in the lead, so I obviously don't want to say it. I continue to disagree that "25 years" is not "true" here, with the reasoning stated above. Humans instinctively understand approximations. And I continue to feel that the word "nearly" is more misleading than accurate in this case. Maybe we can get more opinions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * More opinions are always welcome. - Nunh-huh 02:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)