Talk:Prokopy Petrovich Lyapunov

Biography: Military / Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Russia: History / Military Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.

Military history: Biography / Russian & Soviet / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Unsourced infobox

04:00, November 7, 2021 - «rv, not reliably sourced»

@Nikkimaria: The same as for Aleksander Józef Lisowski (see Talk:Aleksander Józef Lisowski#Unsourced infobox). Wikidata ~~keeps~~ provides sources, but they aren't displayed in the template yet. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, November 7, 2021 - «rv as per previous»

@Nikkimaria: Please, discuss it here, no need for pointless reverts. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: 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. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep it, don't remove!" is an essay; WP:CON and WP:BURDEN are policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: There are tonnes of references that Nikkimaria 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 […] Do not provide opinions recklessly […]? 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. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: 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. |dateBirth=3000{{citation needed|date=November 2021}} so one can detag accordingly. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: … the template brought in unreferenced or poorly referenced information …
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? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

… material is referenced, you are welcome to specify … As soon as Nikkimaria provides details. I asked several times here and in a separate, but related discussion: [15:22, Nov 8][15:22, Nov 7, 2021]; already.
… challenging it via removal is also entirely acceptable … 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!). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Wikidata infobox

Should we really replace {{Infobox noble}} by {{Infobox noble/Wikidata}} which automatically fetches Wikidata? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's not the case. Don't misrepresent facts. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No I'd like to control what goes into an infobox more precisely. This is more difficult with a Wikidata infoboxl. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, I spent time on filling wikidata entries already, and was going to add infobox/wikidata to several articles. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]