Talk:Susan Minns

Revert
To elaborate on this revert: in addition to the sourcing issue, the previous template had a number of disadvantages, including redundancy (eg inclusion of both "philanthropist" and "benefactor" as occupations) and display (eg showing just "Lincoln" for place of birth, requiring a reader to click for context). While I appreciate the local version doesn't update automatically, it seems clear to me that the issues in this case outweigh that consideration, given that nearly every automatic field would have required modification of one kind or another. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . I think I'm understanding your concerns here. With the possible exception of the birth state, I believe all of these could be/have been addressed by adjusting the fields at Wikidata. I think we'll eventually want to move towards widespread adoption of Wikidata anyway, so I'm interested in figuring out a way to make the Wikidata-sourced infoboxes display the way we want them to. First, I believe the sourcing issue has been cleared up. All of the Find-a-Grave references have been deleted. As to listing both benefactor and philanthopist, philanthropist is considered a subclass of benefactor on Wikidata. We could potentially remove benefactor entirely from the Wikidata entry. I saw that you also changed the resting place to burial place (the fields seem to be mismatched at Template:Infobox person/Wikidata). You also removed the awards and instead added the honorifics. These seem to convey the same information to me, but is this required by the MOS? Regardless, I can look into have the honorifics displayed based on Wikidata. That's just what I noticed. Was there anything else that didn't look right?  gobonobo  + c 00:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure to what extent the issues can or should be fixed at Wikidata rather than locally - for example, perhaps there's a reason both philanthropist and benefactor are used there? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason is simply that sources describe her as both a benefactor and a philanthropist. You have said that this is redundant. If they are, one solution would be to remove one of those values from Wikidata. Then the occupations could be sourced from Wikidata. gobonobo  + c 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your proposed solution; my question is whether that solution is acceptable on the Wikidata side. Also, is there a reason you've removed the burial place parameter? I don't think that's an improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to remove the benefactor bit from Wikidata if it is redundant. I don't know why removing the burial place wouldn't be an improvement. Presumably the resting place and burial place are the same, no? gobonobo  + c 02:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The value provided is the same; the display is not. Since she's buried it's appropriate to say burial place. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That level of specificity in an infobox seems like a matter of taste. The prose describes that she was buried. You've edited Template:Infobox person/Wikidata a fair bit, do you know whether it is feasible to have the infobox default to the burial place label if a Wikidata qualifier indicates that the resting place involved a burial? gobonobo  + c 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there such a qualifier? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is the qualifier 'burial plot reference', which is already being used for Minns. gobonobo  + c 15:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I would suggest you propose the switch at the template's talk page. In the interim though, given that the value for this parameter is unlikely to change and so there's no particular benefit to imported versus local data, I'd suggest we switch back to the precise version rather than continue using the euphemistic one. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a task for someone who understands how modules work better than I. After looking through that template's archives, I'm loathe to further overtax the editors who maintain it with something this trivial or to be perceived as a pawn in some kind of ongoing infobox drama. For what it's worth, I agree that 'resting place' is euphemistic and when it next comes up for discussion at infobox person, I'll be firmly in the rename or remove camp. gobonobo  + c 10:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)