Template talk:Lists of people editnotice

So does this template go on the talk page or article page? – S. Rich (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disputes about wording

As the wording of this template directly reflects policy and guidelines, any changes to its wording should be raised at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, and should only reflect changes in policy and guidelines made there. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists support the statement "that a reliable source that justifies inclusion in this list must be provided for any new entry". It's common practice for lists of blue-links not to require reliable sources, as these are contained in the separate articles. The wording of this template is thus overly harsh and discourages new editors from adding blue-linked entries to such lists.----Pontificalibus 13:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The sandbox holds one possible solution that still reflects the policy and guideline. Please check it out and let me know what you think. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

PS. Oops, To editors Pontificalibus and IronGargoyle: (forgot to ping ya'll). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this is definitely an improvement. I think one of the problems though is that this template is trying to be quite broad - there are a variety of lists of people, from navigational lists of blue-links through to lists with many non-notable entries where each must be supported by a source. Might I suggest adjusting it further? I also I think "blue link" is somewhat wiki-jargon, and since this is edit notice is primarily aimed at newer editors, perhaps something like "Each new entry must therefore be reliably sourced, either by linking to an existing Wikipedia article, or by an inline source". We could also lose the "Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list", because that's implicit in the first sentence and also might be an unduly onerous requirement for making a simple error correction for example. ----Pontificalibus 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, those changes are fine with me. I had contemplated doing some rewording along these lines, but I was stumbling over the wiki-jargon. I think this version of the wording is pretty clear. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted it a bit more. I disagree and think that something like "Please read both before adding a name," is essential and not implicit in the first sentence. Agree that "before editing" should be left out. And we cannot forget the first parameter, since this template is probably transcluded (not substituted) with it somewhere. Acceptable? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I like the rewording you've done, but I still think "Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list" should be omitted: Template:BLP_editintro contains no such instruction, and having it on a list article where there is less scope for the variety of BLP-violations found in a standard article is I think overkill - it also comes cross strongly to me as discouraging editing. We've told people they need a reliable source and which policies apply, that is sufficient. We should assume common sense and good faith, and not ask them to read 7000 words before adding Vincent van Gough to List of painters by name beginning with "V".----Pontificalibus 11:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pontificalibus! I ask that you notice again the change I made to the sentence in question. It's no longer the broad "Please familiarize yourself with both before editing this list" and has become "Please read both before adding a name." That was to address your concern about being "an unduly onerous requirement for making a simple error correction", and still retains the gentle reminder for name additions that are not just simple corrections. If that still isn't acceptable to you, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue and, not coming to consensus, a change to this template would be ill-advised at this time. Thanks again for your input. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes of course I read that change but copied from the wrong template. I guess my question to you is why do you think that sentence is needed here if there is nothing similar in Template:BLP_editintro? I can't think of anywhere else where we instruct editors to read entire policy documents rather than simply stating that edits should comply with the relevant policies. If you could answer this I could try and think of some alternatives which you might find acceptable. ----Pontificalibus 06:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oversized

This banner is oversized compared to other talk page banners. I'm not sure why. I have tried deleting the image and changing the font sizes, but nothing works. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)