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 Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Hey Nikkimaria. 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
There is the qualifier 'burial plot reference', which is already being used for Minns. gobonobo+c 15:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
.svg){kind=small}