Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2006

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)

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)