Talk:Mary Dimmick Harrison

message: It would seem that per guideline, the seperation of the lede from the body of an article, whether a BLP or no, is quite proper. Had the article been a mere stub, sectioning would not be neccessary, but the Manual of Style covers this in detail, supported by Wikipedia:Layout and Wikipedia:Lead section. The edit without summary that began this discussion, followed by reversions 1 and 2, that brought editors to the talk page, should have been based on the MOS, not on WP:OSE or personal opinion. It may be alledged that the sectioning of this article is only the wish of one editor, but his edits are well supported by guideline. This said, and no favoritism here, I support the sectioning as proffered by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).  Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: However, if the only major concern is the creation of a TOC, I was a bit BOLD and have performed a suitable edit myself. Revert if wished, but I hope it will be seen as an acceptable compromise for both sides from an outside party.  Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't address the issue of "Biography" as a heading; if you want to put a nice printer's dingbat or some heading that makes sense, that would be fine. If you want the syntax for suppressing a TOC, see my edit. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: DGG's comment below is quite helpful, and per guideline. Is your wishing that guideline be made clearer a reason to then edit war and nudge at 3RR    in order to promote your personal opinion over MOS's perceived lack of clarity?   Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think DGG's comment supports the use of the single heading "Biography", I think you've misread it. But it appears that though only one person actually supports that use, we're going to genuflect to him. - Nunh-huh 15:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: RAN invited me to comment me to comment.  there's a general practice: don't do something non-standard unless there is a good  reason, but if it already done and not harmful, don't fix it, especially not over opposition.  The reason for it is that we need more to write articles and add content, than to format them perfectly.  That said, one mark of a professional-level product is consistency, and we are trying to reach a professional level.. There is a policy on using lead sections: We use them except on stubs-- see , where it  says that there is no fixed demarcation, but that if it's > 400 or 500 words, to use them (this article is just over 400 words).  I see no specific policy about whether the lede must be divided by a section heading from the rest of the article.  Myself, I use lots of section headings--I tend to think in outline format. But if there is only one section--yes, that can look over-structured. The way I'd resolve it is to divide the bio so it is more than one section. In the sort of articles I work most with, there's personal life and professional; here it's a little less obvious. I'd divide it as Early life (through 1892), Marriage, and Family. That gives three short sections. That I like it that way does not mean anyone else has to, or that I intend to edit it.  What might help most is adding more material.    DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All stories start with a lede, that's not the issue: the issue is whether to add a header after it, and whether "biography" as a header in a biography is sensible.  If the policy is unclear, it should be made clearer: we use section headings only where the length of the sections would make it necessary, and that's certainly at a length longer than the current article. If anyone's devotion to using such headers makes them want to add material to the article in order to be able to add a header, well, then, that's a strange priority, but it's theirs. But the material added should be material that deserves to be added and not just pointless blather and trivia so that a header can be made to seem reasonable. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  When in doubt, always consult [[WP:MOS]] 

message: Hi there.
Mary was 24 years, 8 months, and 10 days younger than Benjamin Harrison. Since its inception in 2005, the article has stated that "She was 25 years younger than Harrison." I think it's unlikely that a reader is going to take that to mean she was 25 years younger to the day. Rather, they will know it's an approximation, and, for the very rare reader who wants a more precise number, it is fairly easy to calculate, either by hand or by using a website such as www.timeanddate.com. Benjamin's birthdate is but a click away.
You made it "nearly 25 years" with the edit summary "make true". Now we are implying more precision than we did before, and I would interpret that as "somewhere between 24 years 11 months and 25 years." I strongly believe there are far more people like me in that respect than people who think 24 years 8 months is "nearly 25 years". Thus you didn't "make [it] true", you made it misleading.
Words like "nearly" are very vague and mean different things to different people, so it's best to avoid them in Wikipedia articles; see WP:WEASEL.
To be truly "true", we would have to say "She was 24 years, 8 months, and 10 days younger than Harrison, and was the niece of his first wife." I think that would be a very strange thing to say in the article's lead, and I much prefer "25 years". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not dealing with a scientific paper here, and applying a standard of significant digits to standard English is no substitute for a good ear here. What we say should be true; if you want to use the precise calculated ymd I won't oppose. But I much prefer "nearly 25 years" or "almost 25 years".  - Nunh-huh 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I think the precise calculated ymd would be a very strange thing to say in the lead, so I obviously don't want to say it. I continue to disagree that "25 years" is not "true" here, with the reasoning stated above. Humans instinctively understand approximations. And I continue to feel that the word "nearly" is more misleading than accurate in this case. Maybe we can get more opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: More opinions are always welcome. - Nunh-huh 02:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nearly" 25 years