Talk:Prokopy Petrovich Lyapunov

message: - «rv, not reliably sourced»
: 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)
replies: text: Please, discuss it here, no need for pointless reverts. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: "Keep it, don't remove!" is an essay; WP:CON and WP:BURDEN are policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: There are tonnes of references that  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 ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  tag next to a questionable parameter (e.g.  so one can detag accordingly. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  As soon as  provides details. I asked several times here and in a separate, but related discussion: [15:22, Nov 8][15:22, Nov 7, 2021]; already. 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)
replies: text: "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:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced infobox 

message: Should we really replace  by  which automatically fetches Wikidata?  --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Wikidata infobox 

message: * 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  parameter or dealt with by other means (see discussion above). One may provide citations manually; the  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)
thread_title:  Survey