This template is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony articles
Why are non-notable members being added back to the template? Several of these people were recently determined by consensus to not be notable enough for their own pages; therefore they should not have red links (which suggest that they would or could likely meet GNG criteria) and the WP:EXISTING exception cited in the edit summary to support re-addition cannot apply. The cited article also specifically says Unlinked text should be avoided, with the only potential exception being In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable. A dynamic genealogical list clearly doesn't meet that criterion, and the presence of the Hanoverian princes list makes it even more unnecessary to include unlinked entries in the navigation template.
Additionally, even if everyone currently could be notable enough to be red linked, and while the members are complete right now, this template still wouldn't match the exception examples given in EXISTING. Listing all the subdivisions of a geographic area makes sense because a) all the locations have the potential to become (more) notable over time; b) there are RS that have the same list in the same context; c) one can reasonably expect any future changes in the subdivisions to be reliably covered and sources updated accordingly. Likewise, the filmography of a particular notable director is temporally limited, any non-notable films they direct will still be sourceable because they were made by a notable person, and the films themselves have the potential to become notable even after the director's death. For the descendants of a defunct royal house, there can be no assumption that each past and future member has/will have sufficient coverage or any coverage at all. This leads to a situation where the number of entries increases indefinitely but also becomes more incomplete and less notable (see prior versions of the Austrian archduchesses navbox, where something like 85% of the entries were unlinked); such a format is clearly incompatible with the purpose of a navbox. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The examples listed at EXISTING are examples, not an exhaustive list. Until recently the unlinked entries had articles for many years, indicating that they were once notable enough for an article and may be so again. DrKay (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are examples with fairly distinctive properties that permit red link inclusion; Hanoverian princes and all the other royalty templates clearly do not have the same properties. Regardless, per the red link guidelines, Red links should not be made to deleted articles unless the reason for the deletion of the article was not due to a lack of notability or the topic not being encyclopedic in another way. The deleted articles were all decidedly non-notable and therefore the EXISTING exception for red links does not apply. The other unlinked entries are and always have been inappropriate to include in navboxes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meet the criteria outlined. DrKay (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the unlinked entries?
Given that the articles were deleted, it seems unlikely that they will be recreated soon.
For what it's worth, those individuals with recently delated articles are linked, albeit not through red links, on Template:British princes. Is this valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is decided, I believe it should be consistent amongst all templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved