Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Line of succession to the British Throne/archive1

Line of succession to the British Throne
Wherein one learns, to quote from the talk page, how the "Norwegian intelligence services would only have to kill 60 people in order to unite the Norwegian and British Crowns". Useful stuff.--Pharos 23:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I so want to support, but there are so many red links. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The ones that should never be articles should simply not be links. - Taxman Talk 19:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I enjoy this article. All the red links are there because most of the people on the list are not noteworthy, they may be the third son of the great grandson of Queen Victoria.  Their only relevance is that they are a cousin of QEII in the Royal line and so are on this list, what else would an article about them say?  The top of the list is well linked, and the article is useful to get to articles about distant family members.  NoSeptember (talk)  16:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree with Filiocht, but also with NoSeptember&mdash;there are alot of red links, and that's (usually considered) bad, but here's a list of people that are not notable for anything other than being on this list. Would an article on any of them survive VfD?  If not, perhaps they should not be linked at all.  That's not to say that all the red links on the page should be removed, rather only the people that could never have an article.  But of course, if some were removed and others weren't, then we're looking at a list that's something like 40% blue links, 20% red links, and 40% no links, and that would look a bit strange, I think.  Should the guideline related to the number of red links be edited again? --Spangineer ( háblame ) 18:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose no references and too many red links. If those people don't deserve an article, they should be de-linked. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support reasonable structure, not too many red links at the beginning. The "Family branches of the line of succession" might be shown in the main list as well. -- User:Docu
 * The red links do not worry me too much: I will support if some references are added. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object -red links must go. If they aren't important enough to deserve an article then don't link to them. I also worry about keeping this article up to date. There are so many people on this list that I wouldn't be suprised if one of them has died or a had a child by now messing up the line. This link is Broken 01:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SUPPORT: I cannot believe that the red link issue is important. This list is simply factual. The people are on the list because of birth - not because of accomplishment. To the best of my knowledge, it is a unique list and should be a featured part of Wikipedia. It displays extraordinary learning and industry.


 * Just check Elizabeth Ward in the list. It links to Elizabeth Gracen (whose birth name was Elizabeth Ward), but it is NOT the Elizabeth Ward who is in line of succession.  After the first few dozen people on the list, the rest should be de-linked with the exception of notable individuals such as other monarchs.  B Cas 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)