Talk:Earl of Mayo

Compromise on 'Red-links'

Remove them from the 'Viscounts' section, keep them in the 'Earls' section. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth should we do that? See WP:POLITICIAN - as members of the Irish House of Lords, all of the Viscounts are considered to be notable, as are the the first four earls. The fifth earl was a representative peer in the British House of Lords, and is thus also notable. WP:RED notes that articles are more likely to be created when there are red links, and states "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." It also states that "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name."

These people could plausibly sustain articles - there are sources that give details on their lives (notably Complete Peerage, but almost certainly others as well), and there are not candidate articles. Red links are completely appropriate. john k (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that if it can be demonstrated that any particular earl or viscount is not notable enough to qualify for an article, which I imagine would be possible, the red link should be removed. But I think the presumption would be that they are notable, even if they do not yet have articles. That said, if the red links are removed again, I will not add them back unless there seems to be a consensus to do so. john k (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

John, this is a style issue, not a notability dispute. I spent much of my Wiki time removing redlinked people from "Town and village" articles. When/if an article is written the links can be made - why make the articles look so half-finished with redlinks? Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the guideline at WP:RED suggests they should be kept - that if an article could plausibly be created, and one does not exist, we should keep the red links. I would say the reason to keep them is that the presence of red links tends to make article creation more likely. But it really isn't that big a deal. If you want to remove them again, I won't revert. john k (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I just think they ruin the look of an article. But it's only a taste thing. Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All viscounts sat either in the Irish House of Commons, the Irish House of Lords or even in both and would fall thus under WP:Politician - except the fifth viscount, who held the title only for five years and so far I can see never entered any of the houses, so I would consider him clearly not notable and would therefore remove the respective link. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To JK: I just figured, the Earl articles would be created 'before' the Viscount articles. Thus my compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)