Talk:Aleksander Józef Lisowski

Untitled

Does anybody know if he had a family or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.75.178 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced infobox

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

@Nikkimaria: Wikidata provides "reference" fields for sources where links are stored, checkout; currently template {{Infobox noble/Wikidata}} doesn't provide a way to have these links extracted and converted into a {{cite web}} tags automatically.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

AXO: I'm aware of how the template works, and stand by my objection. For example, the birthplace field is sourced on Wikidata to Russian Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. The previous iteration filters out fields that are unsourced or sourced only to Wikimedia projects. If you wish to keep using this template, at minimum it should be redesigned to do the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I agree that references to other Wikis are unreliable (I've seen that too) but that doesn't justify your reverting. All references are already/usually given in the article's body and that's why Wikidata refers to it like that.
Currently, both {{infobox noble}}/{{infobox noble/Wikidata}} are completely interchangeable (save to few fields): they both provide a way to keep {{cite web}}/{{citation needed}} tags via |fieldXYZ=. On the other side nothing prevents you from upgrading Wikidata information with reliable sources yourself. For this article for instance there are barely 2 sources and all can be linked. I propose to keep my template. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. If the template imports data derived from other Wikipedias rather than from reliable sources, that's a deficiency in the template that precludes its use. 12:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Which other wikipedias? You can provide an example? I don't get what Wikidata entry/field you are talking about. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

See example provided above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata provides enough references; just bring list here if you think otherwise; I will request WP:3O AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The present template imports values from Wikidata that actually have valid references. The version you prefer imports values that are unsourced or sourced only to Wikimedia projects. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

… you prefer imports values that are unsourced … I'm completely confused; which one exactly? the {{Infobox noble/Wikidata}} fetches data from Wikidata; it's his sole point. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox noble/Wikidata}} imports data from Wikidata, regardless of whether that data is sourced to Wikipedia or at all. That's the problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't remove a template if one of its entries (parameter's value) refers to an WP:UNRELIABLE source. It's a problem of wikidata data base itself. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is inherent to the template's design and not limited to a single parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: "The problem"? The {{infobox noble}} doesn't import (or "filter") anything from Wikidata or else; both templates mutually replaceable; at this point I basically see no reasoning behind your reverts. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 00:00, 9 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)

@Seraphimblade: Please see reply in [14:15, November 13, 2021] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)