Talk:H. A. Willis

Children, one deceased

Per the article history (today), there is a disagreement about whether "one deceased, 1998" belongs in the "Children" field. I don't think it belongs there, but 106.68.179.238, asserting (presumably correctly) to be H. A. Willis, thinks it should. I'd like some other editor's opinions.

I don't think it belongs there because:

• In general it's not feasible to note in the infobox that relatives have died - if we did, we'd end up with many such entries, and much infobox clutter.
• The purpose of an infobox is to "summarize key facts that appear in the article" - and the article does not mention the death of a child.
• The reference (mentioned in edit summary and [1]) does not directly state that the cemetery record is for a child of the HA Willis who is the subject of the Wikipedia article. At best it is synthesis. While Mr Willis may know for sure that it is his son, Wikipedia requires that we be able to verify the information using independent reliable sources.

Is there enough published source material to create a "Personal life" section, to which we could add the death of that child? That would be a better solution all round, I think. If not a separate section, is there something stating that the death had an impact on his career, so we could put it into the Career section?

Otherwise I maintain it does not belong in the infobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I realise that my personal attestation is not enough, but I know Willis i.r.l. and have done for about 25 years.

It occurs to me that if, for example, a family tree or other genealogical source (via a site such as Wikitree, Geni, Ancestry.com) was available, it might meet the criteria of a reliable source?

Grant | Talk 15:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I meant also to confirm that Howard Alan Willis (subject of the article) is:

* the same Howard Alan Willis named as "grantee" in the cemetery record, and;

* editor 106.68.179.238

Yesterday, via private communication (personal email), Willis sought advice from me, as an long-standing editor, about WP policy re. sources and standard of proof.

I suggest that a somewhat analogous situation exists in regard to media, such as images, in WP:BLP articles? And in this case it is also documented that Willis himself provided the image for the article, which was allowed after a established process – (i.i.r.c.) completion of a WP form, including a declaration that he was waiving copyright, witnessed by myself.

Grant | Talk 02:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source is only part of if. The main issue is that the information does not belong in the infobox - although as I previously mentioned, with an RS, we could move the information into the article body.

I've posted requests for more input from the relevant wikiprojects. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this shouldn't be in the infobox, regardless of sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Children should be linked if notable (has an article), otherwise simple numbers as a count.. if supported by article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

After re-digesting the comments above, it seemed to me that a solution was at hand. That is, since "two sons" were already mentioned in the main text (with reference), I have now added mention of the death of one to that same passage + the cemetery reference – as part of a broader clean-up.

I trust that this addition to the main text represents an adequate basis for mention of the children in the infobox?

Grant | Talk 15:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, and agreed by other editors, the "deceased" does not belong in the infobox. A simple count is sufficient. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)