Template talk:Uw-badlistentry

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, please discuss this template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace instead of here.

Comment

This template is not meant to imply "no redlinks". It is to discourage new editors from adding, for example, their own name to the year of their birth, high school, etc. Evil saltine (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I would suggest that the template refer to the relevant guideline. Which, when it comes to people, is WP:LISTPEOPLE.

And make clear, per the guideline, that a person may be included in a list of people if they do not have an article in Wikipedia about them, but a citation (or link to another article) is provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To "establish their notability" would, IMO, require multiple sources (or a bluelink). Otherwise, "List of Actors from California" would include every would-be "actor" interviewed as a witness in a newspaper interview after the coffee shop they work in is robbed: "Joe Blow, an actor from Pasadina who works as a server, said the gunman..." In other words, they should be notable, as demonstrated by a bluelink or cites sufficient to create a stub if someone wanted to. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the on-going discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Redlinks_in_lists_and_dab_pages. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add reference to requiring third-party source

I'd like to suggest that the text of the template indicate that list entries should be supported by third-party reliable sources independent of the person or thing being added to the list, with a link to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, referring to that guideline's text "reliable, third-party, published sources..."

This is the bane of "in popular culture" edits, with editors adding any sighting or reference to the article's subject in any film, TV show, or book, with no citation other than (sometimes) the film, TV show or book itself. Having a reference to an independent source provides at least some indication of the significance of the IPC entry that justifies its inclusion.

Alternatively, is there another template that could be supported by Twinkle for IPC trivia additions? TJRC (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]