Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please log new nominations at the top.

The lists that have been voted to have their featured status removed can be found at Wikipedia:Former featured lists

Contents 1 List of Final Fantasy titles 2 List of French monarchs 3 List of Portuguese monarchs 4 List of sex positions 5 List of Northwest Territories general elections 6 List of Virtual Boy games 7 List_of_Indian_districts 8 List of United States House committees 9 List of Indian districts 10 List of Test cricket grounds by date 11 Bangladeshi national cricket captains 12 Sri Lankan national cricket captains 13 Indian national cricket captains

[edit] List of Final Fantasy titles

Still a featured list.

The list is not comprehensive, the Novels/Manga and Radio Drama sections need more work. There is a huge lack of source citations. Kariteh 09:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral; the topic's scope is explained clearly in the lead: Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī?) is a popular series of role playing games produced by Square Enix (originally Square Co., Ltd.). This article is supposed to provide a list of the video games in the series. I don't see a lack of sources; they cover the entire topic completely, which means there is no need for 100 citations. Instead of nominating it for removal, it might be best to change the article's scope and flesh out those topics without resorting to this, because the WikiProject's manpower is already at its limits working on other articles. But minor expansion does not warrent a removal, in my opinion; although I'd like to see a couple of the fansite sources removed and changed to more official ones, like IGN or the official site. Clearly, the list needs to be modernized, but I'm not sure diverting attention away from the current work to focus on this one is necessary, because removal candidates usually result in an extensive peer review and updating process. — Deckiller 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There are ZERO references for the release dates specified. This should be the most important thing, and I have no idea how the list was featured without those references. My vote will definitely be delete if this isn't fixed. Not to mention that USA and Europe are specified as release areas, where it should be North America and PAL region. (the latter is not always so, but the former always is) --Teggles 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The references are in the "sources" section below. My guess is that inlines were not included because they would be redundant/excessive and generally unnecessary, since the source is clearly stated at the bottom. I'm mostly disagreeing with the timing of this nomination because of the other projects being implemented in this area. The list does lack reliable sources, the users who did the initial push are no longer with us, and I cannot add another project to my plate right now. — Deckiller 02:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake there, but the sources given are in no way reliable. What you'll have to do is take a case-by-case approach (official sites, promotional fliers, etc.), requiring inline sources. Note that the first two references are fan sites and the last one is a user-submitted site. These are the complete opposite of reliable, which I think you'd agree with. I notice on the WP:FF talk page that you said this will distract from other tasks - that doesn't really matter. You don't have to fix this page, there is nothing stopping you from allowing it to be removed (if the case). --Teggles 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • [edit conflict] I reworded my statment for clarity. I just feel that, as a WikiProject, we shouldn't nominate our own content for removal; instead, we should try to address the need to work on it on the talkpages. Perhaps it's the newly-found FAR instinct in me, but I always feel that if I'm involved (indirectly or directly) to a removal candidate, I should try to help it if it's a tangible goal. — Deckiller 02:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Unfortunate remove — this list has changed significantly since it was elevated to featured topic status in 2005. Plus, I feel we don't have the time or the manpower to really overhaul this page right now (unless someone wants to step up to the plate?). We might as well remove it and try again when there is a chance or an interest in overhauling this list. — Deckiller 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll help with some references, but it probably won't be enough. --Teggles 03:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Anything is good, and you'll definitely give it a much needed tuneup. Unfortunately, I may not be able to help; my participation is at its limits right now because of sudden real-life issues (which is why I may seem less civil than usual, and for that I apologize). — Deckiller 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• So, how long is the discussion lasting? I thought it was two weeks... Kariteh 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to go out on a limb and say Keep. While it may not be "comprehensive", FLRC is not the proper place to address that issue. The sections you mentioned were all added by you personally and if you don't feel like getting citations for them, then this isn't the right place. All articles need to be updated at some point (I'm assuming the article was up to date when it was promoted) but simply because it isn't updated as fast as you would like doesn't mean they should be demoted. Axem Titanium 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — list has improved since nom, and now that someone else is on the same lines with my original statement above, I feel that I can vote keep reasonably. — Deckiller 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait, is the vote continuing until there's a majority of keep or something? The votes should have been closed on March 17, 8 days ago. Kariteh 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I dunno. Do you really want it removed that badly? You should probably talk to Raul about closing this FLRC. By the way, it's not a vote. Axem Titanium 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of French monarchs

Still a featured list.

The pictures do not have captions which is part of the criteria for featured lists.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any way to add informative captions if the list remains in anything like its current format. I suppose that's yet more proof that lists shouldn't be tablefied unless you really want a table. List of Portuguese monarchs has the same problem, as does List of largest suspension bridges. Not an inline citation in sight in the intro, and one or two statements that I could easily add {{fact}} next to. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the image captions should the criteria be amended to except tabulated images.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?#Image Captions. Colin°^Talk 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This are good and clear lists. Rmhermen 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• oppose removal. Good, nice list Hmains 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the criteria demand ridiculous things, they ought to be changed. john k 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status. Colin°^Talk 09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Which factual claims do you think need to be verified by inline citations? Most of the content of the article is in the tables, which are amply supported. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Almost all the FL and FA criteria are identical (as recently modified by certain User:ALoan :-) Eight substantial paragraphs of body text, full of facts, with no inline citations would be rejected these days at FA. In fact, there are no inline citations in this article at all, which is pretty hard to justify for a FL or FA. Colin°^Talk 16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, you got me there :) But a featured list is not a featured article. The two sets of critera are deliberately quite similar, and there is some crossover in FAC and FLC reviewers and nominators, but the requirements are not and need not be identical. Yes, in an ideal world, the list would have some inline citations (someone may even demand it if it were nominated on FLC now) but the main information in this list is the list, which is quite well sourced enough for me. (This list was featured in March 2006, by the way - FAC objections for absence of inline citations were already commonplace then.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Informative and clear list. Sotakeit 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral; I'd like to see inline citations, or at least some indication of where to look in each source for the information found in the article, but other than that this is a fine list. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Portuguese monarchs

Still a featured list.

Pictures are lacking captions. Criteria #3.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?#Image Captions. Colin°^Talk 12:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose removal. This are good and clear lists. Rmhermen 01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

oppose removal. A good, nice list Hmains 02:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support removal. Whilst the original reason is misguided (the table effectively supplies its own caption by naming the monarch in the same row as the picture) there is far far too much body text that lacks any inline citations. That alone is a reason for this to lose its featured status. In addition, there is only one named source for the entire list/article. I find it hard to believe that all this information came from just one source. Colin°^Talk 09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It would be nice to turn the redlinks blue though. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Informative and clear list. Sotakeit 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sex positions

No longer a featured list.

This list no longer meets requirements:

• 1. It does not represent Wikipedia's best work.
• 2.1. It is not useful, as 59 positions are not linked.
• 2.3. It is not factually accurate (no inline citations).
• 5. Some images are excessively pornographic (see double penetration section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs).

Delist per nom. -- Rmrfstar 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I find it a bit odd that this nomination was made after I did a lot of work to improve the page, I have to agree. It is not Wikipedia's best work and it is lacking in citations. In addition to the reasons listed, it also possibly fails requirement 3 by being contraversial, although not in the way that is usually meant, I think.

However, I do feel the need to defend it a bit. The claim of "no inline citations" is demonstrably false, as it does have a number of them, just not enough. Also, I disgree that the double penetration is overly pornographic (I challenge you to make an illustration for it that is less so). And moreover, that's irrelevant to requirement 5, which just says "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status". I take "appropriate" to mean "when they add something to the reader's understanding", which I believe is true here. Wikipedia is not censored. --Strait 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Strait. Let me restrict my objections to criteria #1, and #2.3 (not enough inline citations). I think some of the images could be better, but most are pretty good and that area's good enough. -- Rmrfstar 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Northwest Territories general elections

No consensus. Still a featured list.

Ugly list. Consist of very few information and details (Compare it with List of Canadian federal parliaments). Not a FL quality list. CG 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you had concerns about the list it would have been nice if you addressed them to me first before going through this procedure. The list reached the general state that is in to meet objections at the time of its nomination. I want to know what information you think the article is missing that fits within the scope of consensus elections, and i will add it in an ascetically pleasing manner. I also think that List of Canadian federal parliaments is an unfair comparison try List of Alberta general elections.--Cloveious 22:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry I didn't notify you earlier about the nomination. Second, I'm very unfamiliar to this subject, but after reading and comparing List of Northwest Territories general elections and List of Northwest Territories Legislative Assemblies, my opinion changed. I find that these two lists could be merged into one list. They are both closely related and contain the same information. For example, check List of Canadian federal parliaments, it lists both the parliaments and the elections into one table, no need for splitting them since they will produce almost the exact tables. Finally, if you want to remove the nomination, just do it and we can continue the discussion later, but I'm sorry if I won't answer quickli, I'll be busy for a week. CG 06:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding, i won't remove this, it can only improve the list anyways --Cloveious 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging the two may be a good idea. List of Northwest Territories Legislative Assemblies

is a "light" article. Rmhermen 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Virtual Boy games

Still a featured list.

Against my better judgement I promoted this list last week in the hope that the image issue would be solved by the editors involved. Still, I left a notice in the article's talk page threatening a review of this article's featured status if the images were added without consensus and an edit war occured (See Talk:List_of_Virtual_Boy_games#On_featuring_this_list. As such, I request removal in terms of criterion 3 of What is a featured list? due to the recent edit warring that lead to the protection of this page. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I protected the page, so obviously I agree that there was an edit war. I wonder about what makes sense here, though. We seem to be willing to promote lists full of unfree images as Featured Lists. What do we expect from the editors of those lists when administrators working on unfree media cleanup come by and remove all of the images that are in violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? In many cases, that means every image. The list's editors have typically put a lot of thought and time into the layout, which was then vetted by the community, and are likely to feel quite justified in pushing back. Those involved in the cleanup are going to point out that article consensus does not trump copyright-issue policy, and may not be perfectly patient and concilliatory after having had the exact same conversation a hundred times. I suggest that it is just a little odd to have such Featured Lists only remain featured if they manage to slip under the radar of image cleanup or to expect the editors of these lists not to edit-war when suddenly all of the images are removed. Jkelly 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you got it a bit wrong. In this case I promoted the list without images, as I said on the talk page. A list can remain featured even without images (since having images is recommended but not required for featuring). So if other FLs have their unfree images removed, they'd remain featured nevertheless. If you read this nomination carefully, you'll see that I'm requesting defeaturing on grounds of an edit war, not the images. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't contesting this particular nomination so much as thinking aloud about the issue in general. I really have no opinion on the quality of this particular list. Jkelly 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't really see the point of removing it as a FL. Both versions of the revert war are Feature List quality and neither is "wrong" as far as information goes. I think the entire purpose of the rule is to prevent confusion from seeing one version say one thing and another version say something entirely different. As it is, both versions give the exact same information, so having a revert war doesn't compromise the veracity of the article. Plus, I have agreed to stop reverting, it's just Havok now.--SeizureDog 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Havok has to stop then. I was clear in my message when I promoted the list, so now I'm just following it through. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This entire issue would be a lot easier if the image removers would actually stick around and discuss things. This whole mess is being caused by them only coming around only to revert things. They haven't left a comment since the page got protected. --SeizureDog 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem which I am seeing everywhere because of a small group of peopel who have a fair strict view of our fair use policy guidelines. There is currently a similar dispute going on in List of Lost episodes. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Seizuredog --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per and concur with Seizuredog and larsinio. —Nightstallion (?) 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_Indian_districts

Still a Featured List

• Remove. This list gives provisional figures of population of districts from the Census 2001. Either update it with final tally available here or remove it from Featured List category.

As of now, the list fails to meet the criterion No.2 of Wikipedia criteria as it is factually inaccurate. Anwar saadat 19:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• The old discussion from March was replaced by the new nomination above- I have moved it to a subpage. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- the figures are taken from the official GoI sites. I see no reason why we have to use figures from a site which anyways sources its data from our referenced sites. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- per Nichalp.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, come on now! I suspect a bad faith nomination -- Samir धर्म 05:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as long as it cites its sources, even old data is fine. As and when the official census data is out, anyone can update it and cite the new sources. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Nichalp and Samir. I don't think it's coincidence that Anwar has voted against all Indian RFAs and FACs since joining Wikipedia. So I too sense a bad faith nomination. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Nichalp. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Nichalp.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK} 06:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States House committees

No longer a Featured list.

Promoted June 2005.

Where to start?

• This list has way too many redlinks. There are 66 items in this list, and 38 redlinks. Doing the math reveals that this is actually a majority of the links on this page.
• The References in the References section are actually explanatory footnotes.
• It uses depreciated inline links as references.
• How can a list that mentions in its lead that it is "an incomplete list" possibly be comprehensive?

Remove for all of these reasons. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Additionally, it could use some more explanatory text. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove. I've done a lot of work on this and related lists and I still agree that this article does not meet the standards for a featured list. I wish it did, and frankly I really wish this list could get improved. But until it does, it's not feature-worthy. —Markles 22:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove. I think enough's been said on the rationale for removal from the featured lists page, but …

Sorry for interrupting! I moved the following discussion to Talk:List of United States House committees, so it can be handled better there. —Markles 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

…we might consider removing some of the links which currently do not have articles. I realize we're giving people access to "the sum of all human knowledge" or however the dogma goes, but I wonder how much relevant and interesting material there is for the page about the United States House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks or who in their right mind would bother trying to type United States House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia into that little box. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC) The difficulty is that a few of the subcommittees do have pages: removing the links to the others looks a bit selective, to game the criteria. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indian districts

Still a featured list.

Too many redlinks. Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Orissa, Mizoram (no district bluelinks), Chhattisgarh have the majority of redlinks, compared to several other places, which have none. Also, although not strictly part of the list, several of the links to headquarters are also red. The web references should also have a date of access. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the number of redlinks is entirely within reason for a featured list. The criteria do not set a maximum, although anything with more than a quarter redlinks would be bad, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I think the percentage of redlinks is sufficiently small to keep the list featured. It's about what? 5%? I don't see any reason to remove a good list only because it has a few red links. Afonso Silva 10:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • My issue was not the fact that there are a small number of redlinks; my issue was that the redlinks are all concentrated in the districts of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Orissa, Mizoram and Chhattisgarh. At the redlinks been randomly scattered about the list than I wouldn't have nominated it. The way they are now, there is a systematic bias in Wikipedia's coverage of Indian Districts because the overwhelming majority of redlinks are in those five districts. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Do you really think that the article is systematically biased against Orissa? Honestly? We don't have an equivalent list for Sri Lanka - should that prevent this list being featured? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The list fits all the criteria and the number of redlinks I saw is not too large. Also, I'm not entirely convinced this is the best way to deal with systemic bias. You may wish to let editors at WikiProject India know of these patches in coverage instead. The formatting of the references should be fixed, though. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Test cricket grounds by date

No consensus. Still a featured list.

Too many redlinks. In addition, the scope of the list is not clear to non-cricket people and there is a systematic bias in the redlinks; 13 of them are in Pakistan. The does not explictly state its as of date. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Last point addressed. The scope of the list is not clear to non-cricket people - not entirely sure how this can be made clearer - the list includes grounds where Test cricket has been played, and Test cricket is linked in the list so people who don't know what a Test match is can go there and check. As for the redlinks, will try to fix. Sam Vimes 07:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redlinks - I count 20 redlinks out of 92 in the list; this is higher than I would like, but I would say that almost 4 in 5 links in the first column of the list (much more if you count the entirely blue links in the other three columns) is fine.

• Bias: the list is based on an entirely objective and neutral criterion. I don't see how any perceived "systematic bias" in the redlinks means that it does not meet the criteria in WP:WIAFL.

• Scope - the article says in its first sentence: "the grounds (stadiums) that have hosted Test cricket matches in chronological order of the first day of Test cricket played at each ground" - are you saying that we need to explain what Test cricket is, despite it being prominently linked? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, keep -- ALoan (Talk) 21:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladeshi national cricket captains

Still a Featured list

Promoted ages ago. This is not a featured list for these reasons: Of the links, one third are red, which is too many; at least one section with prose needs a copyedit; what is included in the list implies the non-existence of other possible teams; it appears not to have been updated. Nominate for demotion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remove, was done for Sri Lanka and India. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Still think it should be removed if it is not updated. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep now updated - thanks Sam Vimes. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per all reasons stated above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps someone has been working on the red-link because I only count 4 out of 24 captains in red - much less than the claimed one-third and a small number in itself. Reason 3 and 4 may be valid, though. Rmhermen 04:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked and some of the missing articles were created last week as stubs. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral now. Some links have been redded and a copyedit was done, although one section still needs updating and there are no explicit answers to point 3. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is an interesting situation. Should a list be demoted if it hasn't been updated? I'm inclined to say yes it should. However, given that the list is apparently being worked on, I say we give this nomination one more week. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated now. Sam Vimes 16:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lankan national cricket captains

No longer a Featured list

Promoted June 2005. It is not a featured list for these reasons: There are 59 total links. Of those, 25 are red links. That is over 42 percent. That is too many. In addition, almost all of those red links are in latter sections of this list. The lack of a women’s under-19 team seems to imply that it doesn’t exist. Is this true? Some sections have not been updated. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Demote as we did with Indian national cricket captains following pretty much the same reasoning. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - I agree, it no longer meets the standards as they have evolved. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian national cricket captains

No longer a Featured List

This list was promoted way back in June. It is not a featured list for these reasons:

• References should have a date of access
• The list implies that there is no woman's youth/under-19/etc. team. Is this true?
• 47 of the 107 links in the list are red. That is 43.93 percent. That is too many red links, and are unequally distributed throughout the list.
• The name of the list should be bolded close to the beginning of the article.
• Although not strictly grounds for removal, it should have pictures.

Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

>> # The list implies that there is no woman's youth/under-19/etc. team. Is this true?

• There seems to be one according to [1] and [2] but they are insignificant and their matches hardly gets reported in the newspapers. Tintin 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree there are too many redlinks. What is the best solution to this? Should the list only include the men's captains? It seems a shame to throw away the research on the women's and youth captains though. Stephen Turner 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Replying to Michelle's nomination:

1. Wikipedia:What is a featured list does not specifically mention the compulsory use of a 'date of access'.
2. The name of the list should be bolded close to the beginning of the article: It's a minor issue and certainly can be rectified without listing it in FLRC.
3. Red links are an issue, I hope it is rectified soon. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Reasons raised for removal:

• It is still not clear if there is a women's youth/under-19 team.
• There are still 47 red links.

Since no one has objected, and while not strictly votes for removal, there has been agreement on there being too many red links, and today is November 25, 2005, more than two weeks after the nomination on November 9, I am removing this from featured lists. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)