Talk:Prokopy Petrovich Lyapunov

Unsourced infobox
- «rv, not reliably sourced»
 * The same as for Aleksander Józef Lisowski (see Talk:Aleksander Józef Lisowski). Wikidata keeps provides sources, but they aren't displayed in the template yet. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

- «rv as per previous»
 * Please, discuss it here, no need for pointless reverts. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Keep it, don't remove!" is an essay; WP:CON and WP:BURDEN are policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It has useful clues on which policies you have to follow in order to avoid being disruptive here; take a look; I've requested WP:3O AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 23:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are tonnes of references that either failed or didn't want to checkout in the article/Wikidata. He/she is also failed to WP:PRESERVE or WP:TAG it. I also don't get which information I'm supposed to give sources to. Did you actually read discussion? Did you read ? I suggest you to withdraw your opinions (revert the [02:19, Nov 13] and [21:17, Nov 12, 2021]) and let someone else to provide it as the WP:3OR question (see [17:49, Nov 8, 2021]) was about template insertion and not about sources per se. Thank you.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The template you want to insert pulls unsourced and poorly sourced data by design - that's a sourcing issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. 3000 so one can detag accordingly. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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? AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As soon as provides details. I asked several times here and in a separate, but related discussion: [15:22, Nov 8][15:22, Nov 7, 2021]; already.  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!).  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Wikidata infobox
Should we really replace Infobox noble by Infobox noble/Wikidata which automatically fetches Wikidata? -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * 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. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. A template designed to import data that is unsourced or sourced only to Wikipedia is not appropriate for mainspace use. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. Don't misrepresent facts. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is easily confirmed by comparing the output of the template to what is and is not sourced at Wikidata. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No I'd like to control what goes into an infobox more precisely. This is more difficult with a Wikidata infoboxl. --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can do it. Read the first reply and template docs. Such replies aren't going to get counted per lack of weight when RfC is closed. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not until the problems with referencing that this template introduces have been properly addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It saves users from filling out all the fields of infoboxes manually; the said data may be added in more controllable manner into the Wikidata database itself; please see Help:Wikidata. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, I spent time on filling wikidata entries already, and was going to add infobox/wikidata to several articles. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)