Talk:Eric Jerome Dickey

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eric Jerome Dickey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	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
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Eric Jerome Dickey is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikidata template

@Jonny Nixon and Nikkimaria: Why the opposition to using {{Infobox writer/Wikidata}}? It imports all the relevant information and avoids minor differences between different wikis. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, if you compare the two versions, not all of the relevant information is imported. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, The only significant change is the addition of "author" in the local template, which would be immediately apparent to readers of this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And nationality, but as I recall that's deprecated in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every field differs in some way between the two. As to the "author" question: pretty much everything in both templates would be immediately apparently to readers of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think the differences are trivial, and that the value of using the Wikidata template outweighs the differences. But I seem to be outvoted. This, of course, begs the question of when using a Wikidata infobox (which I think is an excellent idea that should be promoted) would ever be acceptable to enwiki editors. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings:: I changed it because A) it wasn't including the image caption and the other additions that were removed, and B) because I don't think I've ever seen an article using a Wikidata-imported infobox permanently, which in my opinion also looks tacky with the little edit option on each parameter. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia infoboxes are better than Wikidata in my opinion, because Wikidata is less well monitored and has lower standards of referencing (as they often import things from other language wikis with lower referencing standards). So it's easier for the information on Wikidata to be unsourced or vandalised than information on a Wikipedia infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]