Talk:Sunday Times Rich List

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sunday Times Rich List article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

[Untitled]

I suggest the following separate entries should be brought under this heading as sub-categories Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) Sunday Times Rich List 2004 Sunday Times Rich List 2005 Sunday Times Rich List 2006 (published 23 April 2006)

James Kessler

How does the list treat the Royal family? Rmhermen 15:38, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

The "rules" are here [1] It doesn't specifically mention the Royal family. I would imagine that as the Queen is the head of the family, most of the wealth of the inner circle comes under her name. As for the royals on the fringes, I guess their discolsed wealth isn't enough to make it on the list. Mintguy 16:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see Elizabeth on the list. Rmhermen 00:56, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

"133. The Queen (Head of State) - £250m". Perhaps what threw you was that she's not listed as "Elizabeth"... -- Oliver P. 01:00, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As of 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC) the external link is broken. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st link at the bottom of the page is broken. Needs updating. It would be nice to be able to see this list too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich.oregan (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include/exclude

"The Rich List is not limited to British citizens and it includes individuals and families born overseas but who predominantly work and/or live in Britain. This excludes..."

If it is not limited to the British, why would it exclude some British 'inividuals' all of a sudden? I mean it's not logical.

Bruno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblontrock (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Could this article use Template:Infobox magazine or some similar? PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section Lists by year is completely empty on mobile

In case nobody noticed, the entire section "Lists by year" is completely empty on mobile. That's because it uses a badly functioning template called Navbox which simply doesn't display anything on mobile - not even a message that it is uncapable of handling mobile. It's probably a bad idea to use that template in such a central place in this article. I believe it would be better to have a simple list instead. Navbox can be used for less important information, but not for central information like this in the middle of an article.

Note that mobile is the most important medium for Wikipedia (most page views), so the current choice cuts off most of the audience. Jhertel (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]