Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2005

UK railway stations - A to UK railway stations - Y

More railway lists, referenced to Multimap and LiveDepartureBoards. I list this not so much in anticipation of Featured status, but to borrow eyeballs to garner suggestions for improvements. Note that A has now been hacked to a new format, whilst Y is still in the older format --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• First, there aren't any references. This is the type of list that can be comprehensive, so you need to have references that verify that that is the case. Second, there are alot of red links, which make the list generally less useful. Also, if it's available, some sort of volume information would be interesting – how many passengers/day, etc. --Spangineer (háblame) 23:48, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Every station is referenced to LiveDepartureBoards which confirms its existence & shows train movements, and to multimap which shows location. What other refs do you imagine? Agreed that volume of trains / passengers would be nice to have, but I don't know a source. Redlinks await a wiki article (no, really!) but the /list/ is nevertheless complete. You did spur me on to add a new column of external links, but I'm not happy with their anchors - a repeat of the station codes. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Couldn't we find a better organizational pattern than alphabetical, which doesn't inform the reader about anything? How about by region or something? --Dmcdevit 00:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Alpha is handy when you want to find a station. I don't know which county/region Achanalt railway station is, but I know its first letter. It might be that a column for county would be handy, then I'd get to know such things. County? Region? Which? Agreed that additional pages listing by country or region would be interesting. --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Object. The Featured list criteria states that "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." I don't think it can be argued that these lists meet that criteria. While the large number of external links make these more useful than most lists would be with that many red links, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Moreover, saying that "I list this not so much in anticipation of Featured status, but to borrow eyeballs to garner suggestions for improvements" suggests that you know that this page is not the appropriate place. Take them to peer review. OpenToppedBus - Talk 11:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The featured list criteria require a list to be useful. I'm willing to be persuaded, but I don't see the use of these lists, especially as I can go straight to National Rail's online departure boards to find it (and in that context, providing real-time train information, the list is useful - at least to anyone looking for a train in Great Britain), jguk 13:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of current and former capital cities within U.S. states

(was List of current and former capital cities within the United States)

Partial self-nom; easy to read table displays complex local histories. Hopefully. :) jengod 05:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn.

It seems to be going through a radical overhaul - shall we leave it on the list as a candidate or would you prefer to bring it back later? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Object for now - generally, an excellent list and worthy of featured status, but: it needs some references; would it be possible to add some images (say, small icons of state flags, like the UN list below); and I'm not keen on some aspects of the presentation: CAPITAL LETTERS FOR STATES are off-putting, it should be possible to make the tables the same width (using % in the table heading), and some colours (other than white and grey) would make it more interesting to look at. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. We'll take another look at it. jengod 19:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • A map might be a helpful illustration. I hesitate a bit about adding the current state flags, as it's not necessarily the one used at the time of the former capital. As most capitals are mentioned in the linked articles, the references there should be sufficient. -- User:Docu
    • Yes - a map showing the location of the current and previous capitals would be great. Also, I note that some information ("when") is missing for the last section ("Within current possessions"). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks good to me, although references would be helpful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Could use more information on capitals of colonies other than those which became the first 13 states. The title and introductory paragraph imply the list will be broad, but it ends as the familiar list of states and insular territories. -Acjelen 20:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • capitals of colonies other than those which became the first 13 states I'm sorry, I just want to clarify what you mean: Other British colonies like St. Kitts and Nevis and Nova Scotia or...We're working to get ya'll whatcha need. :) jengod 20:31, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • What about non-English colonies like New Mexico and Louisiana? Spanish colonies had capitals, didn't they? (I see that Spanish Florida is covered btw). And what of colonies that were later merged with other colonies? Plymouth was the capitol of Plymouth Colony which later merged with Massachusetts, yet this is not mentioned under Massachusetts. NoSeptember ^(talk) 23:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, comprehenisive list, but it could also use a map and, as stated above, small icons of flags. Phoenix2 23:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I think with a few more minor tweaks this list is featured material. Phoenix2 19:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of military actions by or within the United States

Partial self-nom; originally was the entire content of Military history of the United States before that was a collaboration of the week. jengod 01:13, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn.

• Comment - why are some of the links bold and others not? Presumably it has to do with importance, but is there some sort of specific criteria? --Spangineer (háblame) 11:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • New note: The bolded items are the U.S. wars most often considered to be major conflicts by historians and the general public. :) jengod 19:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - some of these items, like the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, were not military actions (performed?, title seems to be missing a word) by or within the United States. Many links need to be fixed because they redirect to probably better titles. In general, the scope of the article and the subdivisions are not clear -- in what way is the Republic of Vermont a secessionist attempt (or is it an etc.?); all items listed should go to an article on the topic (or should be a red link pointing to the topic), not a generic article like Nantucket.; also needs references; why are some battles specifically mentioned (like the Battle of Tippecanoe)? this seems to imply that they were a separate military action somehow, but that appears to not be the case; the "miscellaneous" section needs to be organized (appears to be items with no military involvement, but then why relevant? and items listed elsewhere, like Weathermen, also seem to have no military involvement). Tuf-Kat 21:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British Throne

Wherein one learns, to quote from the talk page, how the "Norwegian intelligence services would only have to kill 60 people in order to unite the Norwegian and British Crowns". Useful stuff.--Pharos 23:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I so want to support, but there are so many red links. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • The ones that should never be articles should simply not be links. - Taxman ^Talk 19:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - I enjoy this article. All the red links are there because most of the people on the list are not noteworthy, they may be the third son of the great grandson of Queen Victoria. Their only relevance is that they are a cousin of QEII in the Royal line and so are on this list, what else would an article about them say? The top of the list is well linked, and the article is useful to get to articles about distant family members. NoSeptember ^(talk) 16:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – I agree with Filiocht, but also with NoSeptember—there are alot of red links, and that's (usually considered) bad, but here's a list of people that are not notable for anything other than being on this list. Would an article on any of them survive VfD? If not, perhaps they should not be linked at all. That's not to say that all the red links on the page should be removed, rather only the people that could never have an article. But of course, if some were removed and others weren't, then we're looking at a list that's something like 40% blue links, 20% red links, and 40% no links, and that would look a bit strange, I think. Should the guideline related to the number of red links be edited again? --Spangineer (háblame) 18:34, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose no references and too many red links. If those people don't deserve an article, they should be de-linked. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support reasonable structure, not too many red links at the beginning. The "Family branches of the line of succession" might be shown in the main list as well. -- User:Docu
• The red links do not worry me too much: I will support if some references are added. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object -red links must go. If they aren't important enough to deserve an article then don't link to them. I also worry about keeping this article up to date. There are so many people on this list that I wouldn't be suprised if one of them has died or a had a child by now messing up the line. This link is Broken 01:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SUPPORT: I cannot believe that the red link issue is important. This list is simply factual. The people are on the list because of birth - not because of accomplishment. To the best of my knowledge, it is a unique list and should be a featured part of Wikipedia. It displays extraordinary learning and industry.

Just check Elizabeth Ward in the list. It links to Elizabeth Gracen (whose birth name was Elizabeth Ward), but it is NOT the Elizabeth Ward who is in line of succession. After the first few dozen people on the list, the rest should be de-linked with the exception of notable individuals such as other monarchs. B Cas 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom

A factually accurate comprehensive list of current and former Train Operating Companies since privatisation. Thryduulf 12:21 June 1st (UCT)

• Good candidate, but needs references. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for lack of references. Also, I think in order to be featured, this should have descriptions, such as of the areas covered by each train line, or a brief history of the company or whatever is most important. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This article does not have references, but I cannot see what should be referenced. Also, I am not sure that descriptions would be a good idea, as these would rapidly make the page large, and all of the information is provided in the main articles. Surely this is not the purpose of a list.--John 13:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The list is dreadful, there is no "UK railway network", the British network is separate to the Irish, it is half a list and half an article and a complete mess. — Dunc|☺ 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

List of religious topics

Clearly of wider interest than some of the nominees. Michael Hardy 05:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object, needs pictures, references, and a lead, for starters. --Dmcdevit 06:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What the criteria says is "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, a list does not have to have a picture to be featured.". However, a lead and some kind of refs required. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, that's true, I was wrong about the criteria. But can you imagine a FAC ever being passed without pictures? It makes the article less detailed (comprehensive) and less interesting to read. --Dmcdevit 19:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't an FAC! Superm401 | Talk 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

And isn't there a list of FAs without images at the bottom of WP:FAC? ####

• Object, needs a lead for starters, and while not required, pictures definitely improve a list. Adding images of people or symbols near their position in the list would make the page more interesting and attention holding. Though I'm not sure about references for a list like this... it seems to be inherently incomprehensive, since it seems to be just composed of articles on wikipedia or articles on religion that people want. --Spangineer ∞ 11:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This talk of "comprehensiveness" is ridiculous. Nothing can ever hope to be comprehensive. Example: A comprehensive list would list every cardinal of the Catholic Church about whom a Wikipedia article exists. A less comprehensive list would link to list of cardinals and list of deceased cardinals and those in turn would link to articles about individual cardinals, while only exceptionally important individual cardinals might appear in the list of religious topics. Choosing among these various alternatives would be a matter of intelligent judgment of those who edit these lists, just as all editing of articles is decided that way. Michael Hardy 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • IMHO, a comprehensive list would list every cardinal of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia having articles on them is totally irrelevant. I'm not interested in simple navigational aids (that's what a category is); I'm interested in content. A comprehenisve list of deceased cardinals would list every single cardinal that has died. Making a comprehensive list of patron saints is possible, because there is a finite number of them (I think). Using "intelligent judgment" to define which cardinals are "exceptionally important" is difficult and will certainly result in instability. Thus, I'd argue that making a comprehensive list of "important cardinals" is not possible unless some specific definition of "important" is provided (a certain rank, served more than x number of years). In such cases, just make a list of Cardinals of the Catholic Church who served more than 20 years and nominate that. More discussion on the talk page. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • The kind of "instability" you're talking about is the same kind that affects all featured articles that appear on the main page. Probably every featured article that has appeared there has been improved by edits that happened while it was featured on the main page; does that make it "unstable" and therefore unsuitable? "Unstable and therefore unsuitable" is something that should apply to things changing far faster than that--something like Pope Benedict XVI six weeks ago. Haven't you looked at the list of religious topics and its edit history? It's nowhere near as unstable as that. Michael Hardy 20:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Unlike the maths list, I do not fell that anyone can argue that a list that begins "Many Wikipedia articles on religious topics are not yet listed on this page" is comprehensive. While I agree that this criterion could all too easily be taken to its reductio ad absurdum (and that this is happening on the maths list discussion), this one rather shoots itself in the foot. Then there's the lack of a lead. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Object I think this should have a more clearly-defined purpose. A list of a whole bunch of religion topics with no apparent rhyme or reason is not particularly helpful for the reader. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Object This isn't even remotely comprehensive Dsmdgold 22:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - the lead is unhelpful, there are no references, and it is not (and has little hope of becoming) comprehensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of lists of mathematical topics

Not to be confused with list of mathematical topics. (the latter is perhaps by far the longest topics list on Wikipedia).

• This list is the best way for a mathematician or anyone interested in mathematics to find out about the vast range of topics available here.
• Wikipedia has probably been more successful in mathematics than in any other field; hundreds of mathematicians -- perhaps more than a thousand -- have worked on it.
• This list has greatly evolved since last time it was nominated, in part in response to particular criticisms and suggestions that appeared here on the nomination page. In particular, it is neatly organized into sections on (1) Meta-lists, (2) Fields of mathematics, (3) Methodology, (4) Mathematical statements, (5) General concepts, (6) Mathematical objects, (7) About mathematics, (8) Reference tables. Each of those is further subdivided. The whole has by a very quick count 133 lists whose name starts with "List of.." and others that start with "Glossary of..." and various others.
• The page titled "Wikipedia:What is a featured list?" has also evolved since that time, now being more aware of the diverse nature of topics on Wikipedia.

This may be Wikipedia's best list. Michael Hardy 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose This is just an index of some WP articles, it has no standalone value, so I don't think it can meet the featured list criteria, jguk 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "No standalone value"? A Berkeley statistics professor was telling me two months ago that he uses it as, in effect, a thesaurus. I'm not sure of the details of how he uses it though. Michael Hardy 03:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, it's a list of lists, not a list of articles. Obviously the list of math articles is far too big to fit on one long page. Michael Hardy 04:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Michael on this one and disagree with jguk. This is very useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose &ndash same here. How is it useful? Is it complete? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How is it useful? Didn't I answer that question in my nomination? Michael Hardy 03:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You did. Can't say anything about it being complete, but it's definitely useful! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ... I should add that I think the utility of the list is completely obvious, except perhaps to people with no interest in the topic. Michael Hardy 04:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a list of lists, and there is no way I'm assured that this is complete. (I'm pretty surprised to see so many support votes, this is not the regular FLC crowd). =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*ROTFLMAO*OMG*ROTFLMAO*ROTFLMAO* *Cries from laughing* *

choches on his own laughter* *LOL* aaaw, thanks for the laugh :D. Good joke! meta-meta list on math topics being complete *SOB*laughter* Russel's paradox good one, good one, bdjon all the way! Project2501a 11:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Project2501a's comment above was completely unwarranted. I think there are better and more polite ways to express one's amusement online. This is a good faith nomination and editors should get a little bit more respect for their work. Note that I have nothing to do with this article, by the way. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Project2501a was not laughing at the nomination, nominator, or choice of articles, but reading in an unintentional joke that Nichalp made. Dysprosia 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'm willing to understand that. Just remember that jokes without context are not funny. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Not familiar with the standards for featured lists, so just a comment, but I find this one useful as a reader, particularly if I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for but can narrow it down by the categorization. (FWIW, I frequently read and rarely edit mathematics articles.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the "standards" are either (see my comment below) but here is what is written about the criteria: Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• As lists of lists go, it's a good one (thinks ... have I seen any others here?). I've had a lot to do with this page. What Michael says about the reputation of mathematics on the English Wikipedia is correct; I was browsing Slashdot yesterday, and typically Mathematics is highly spoken of, as one of the Main Page big categories that actually delivers. So, this list of lists is at the heart of a success story, and it uses a homegrown system of classification that has grown organically from what is here. All good wiki stuff. So some recognition would be nice. Charles Matthews 07:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: I wasn't going to vote, in a self-denying way. But having seen the arguments against ... top-down view of mathematics good, very expensive to obtain, English Wikipedia should be so lucky ... right, now that's said. Charles Matthews 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Comprehensive, in that it doesn't omit "any major component of the subject". Useful to anyone interested in math from a broader perspective, and for the same reasons that the Math Atlas [1] is/was a popular site. Learning about some elements of set theory is great, for example, but it can also be invaluable to know what you aren't learning. By the given definitions of "complete" and "useful" in W:WIAFL?, I think this definitely qualifies. Peruvianllama 08:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive and well structured. A fine candidate. Dysprosia 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Yes, this organizational overview looks fine; featuring would be good advertising to the general public, who need all the help they can get with mathematics. I have verified it against the criteria, and the only thing missing is an image — which is optional. --KSmrq^T 10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support (strong for what it is worth): this is a high quality index to a great deal of excellent quality Wikipedia content. I'm not sure what to make of the definition of comprehensive on the featured list criteria, but I guess that any mathematician would describe the coverage as comprehensive. --- Charles Stewart 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC) (edited)
• Strong support. The list is well-organized. It is quite clear that this list of lists is a handy tool to access the math articles in WP.--CSTAR 20:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change name. "List of lists" is ungainly. Use Index of mathematical topics instead. paul klenk ^talk 20:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- But as the What is a featured list?, few pictures of fractals would be nice. -- WB 21:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. OK, I've added an illustration, and a few others could be added. Michael Hardy 21:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I have only infrequently been involved in this page. I am not aware of what "standards of practice" have evolved. Perhaps it was not the intention of those who started "featured lists" to include such lists. But It does seem to comply with all the criteria set down here: Wikipedia:What is a featured list?. In any case, this is an excellent list which in my opinion exemplifies "Wikipedia's very best work" and represents "what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet". Paul August ☎ 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Seems like a good fit based on What is a featured list?. I think an Index of mathematical topics would imply something to a much lower level of detail. Jake 21:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support- Useful, comprehensive, well-organized. I think it fits the bill. Perhaps it would be better at a different title, but this title serves perfectly well, especially because it's linked from List of mathematical topics. --L33tminion (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. To tell the truth I'm not a big "lists" person, but as long as "featured lists" is a recognized category, this seems to be a good one. --Trovatore 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. A valuable resource. PAR 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is as fine as anything on Wikipedia:Featured lists, and, as a list-of-lists, is actually more useful. In fact, just about every major category in WP could use one of these. linas 23:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The number of mathematics articles can be overwhelming at first, esp. to someone new to Wikipedia. The fact is, if you're wanting to look up some particular topic, but your question or interest is semi-vague, this list of lists is the best way to go. It's also good for someone just wanting to browse the math articles. I know it's been said before, but the math articles are by far the most developed topic on the wiki, and the one general area that has bona fide "street credentials" among working professionals. Revolver 00:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice some of the other lists have a small amount of expository material. Maybe we could work some of this in? For instance, before listing the subsection consisting of lists of lists of algebra topics, perhaps a brief (2-4 sentence or so) description of algebra as a subject? This would not interfere too much with the organisation, and it might actually help people, as they might see topics they don't know exactly what they are, but can get a brief idea from a few sentences. Revolver 00:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support - the naming is a bit idiosyncratic, but the list is exceptionally useful. I use it for my research on a regular basis too. --HappyCamper 00:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Mild support -- It seems to meet all the criteria, though I have not had occasion personally to use it. Magidin 01:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: meets the major criterion: it's useful. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think it's a great list of lists, but I don't think it's a great list. It's a table of contents of the Mathematics section of the Wikipedia, not a list for reference purposes like the other featured lists. While it meets the letter of most or even all of the criteria, I don't think it meets the established spirit. I think that if it had more than just links and a few token (although well-chosen!) images, then I might feel differently. Sorry: I really like it a lot, and it is certaintly a wonderful resource, but as it stands some other kind of recognition would be better, IMO. Ben Cairns 12:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

People are always asking for annotation, 'added value', spoonful of sugar to help the medecine go down (in the most delightful way ...). The fact is that long comprehensive lists anyway save readers huge amounts of time. Those opposing, I think, mostly weren't around when there was one (1) of these lists, the group theory one. For the rest you had to look through the master list. (And there were no categories).Charles Matthews 11:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it is useful, but then, so what? The Main Page is very close to satisfying the definition of a featured list, except for the stability criterion (which could be waived since there's nothing that can be done about it). I'll happily claim that Main Page is even more useful than the List of lists of mathematical topics, but that doesn't prompt me to nominate it. So, the List of lists ... is terribly useful. So, what? Cheers, Ben Cairns 12:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

Now you put it that way - I see have been deluded. Of course, we should all argue for the Main Page to be the featured article, on the Main Page. Probably daily. Think what a lot of time that would save, if we didn't have to discuss FAs at all. Inspired! Charles Matthews

With regard to some of the recent changes: I like the direction the List of lists ... is going, especially with the one-or-two line descriptions that have very recently been added. These edits seem still to be a work in progress so, with regret, I don't feel I can change my vote. But, assuming things continue on their current course, I think it is likely that I would support featuring this list as soon as it has settled down again. Ben Cairns 13:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

• Support: I have never used it as a reader, but have used it as a Wikipedia editor to try to locate which related topics to an article I've been editing have already been discussed. Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: An interesting list, but I must admit I've never had occasion to encounter or use it. (And why is elementary algebra (the quadratic equation etcetera) listed under basic discrete mathematics, when its most common application is to real numbers? And shouldn't numeral systems be under basic mathematics? And why is Fourier analysis a separate list right after harmonic analysis...shouldn't it be a sublist?) Besides the occasional odd classifications, I would prefer something that had at least a few words in each topic to give a hint as to what they are and how they are related to one another. As it is, the user doesn't have a clue without clicking on hundreds of links. —Steven G. Johnson 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. A historical list, e.g. a timeline, would be nice to have as well, but that's a topic for another article. —Steven G. Johnson

There is timeline of mathematics, a very poor article IMO. Charles Matthews

• Support: Cute. Samohyl Jan 06:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: to quote Ben Cairns: "I think it's a great list of lists, but I don't think it's a great list."  ALKIVAR™ 11:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Mild oppose. After reading what everyone here has had to say, I'm still not convinced of the list's usefulness. And I'm also not terribly happy with the way it is currently organised. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 16:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild support. I have changed my mind. After trying out the list a little more, and reading everyone's comments again, I agree it is useful, and is actually organised pretty well, given the difficulties of pigeonholing mathematics. The whole "featured list" thing hasn't been around as long as I had presumed, so I can forgive the fact that this list doesn't really look like any of the others currently exhibited. (But let's lose the pictures! They really don't work!) Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose For reasons stated above, and change to Index of mathematical topics --Cloveious 17:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Here is a comprehensive list of why I am objecting, It may be usefull, but it is bland.

1. the opening paragraph is irrelevant, it simply says this is a list of lists.
2. the list is bland, just wikilinks with no explanation to anything
3. images seem slapped on without any real effort given to making them really relevant, only a couple have explanations.
4. List of lists is not a very good title.
5. No external links to any math sites.

I see lots of arguing from the pro list people, but nothing that is trying to make it better. --Cloveious 05:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cloveious wrote: "images seem slapped on without any real effort given to making them really relevant". All of the images are placed next to the corresponding subject matter. Michael Hardy 00:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I was not aware of this article before, and generally have not been a fan of "lists", but in this case I am very impressed with how useful this list of lists can be. I have already found mathematics articles in my fields of interest that I wasn't previously aware of. Contrary to what people have said above, I think that this list is better than other lists consisting of article links by an order of magnitude — it provides me with vastly more information than what could be obtained with just a list of articles, and indexes it well so that I can find what I'm looking for. Highly recommended as a Featured List. - Gauge 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support: According to What is a featured list?, it should feature Wikipedia's best work and represent what is unique about Wikipedia (agree); be useful (I find it so), comprehensive (very), factually accurate (definately), stable (seems to be), and well-organised (I can find what I want quickly). It should also be uncontroversial (it doesn't get less uncontroversial than this article). It could with a better intro, the pics need tweaking to fit in with the text better, and it could some more would be nice. Tompw 15:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Delete the pictures (oct.14 07:13 version). (comments about pics in Talk:List of lists of mathematical topics). mikka (t) 16:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support: this list of list is extremely useful for anyone editing the math pages. A few months back I considered trying to improve pages dealing with commutative algebra and was impressed with the high quality of what exists and also with some strange omissions. I wish I'd known about this list of lists back then! Good work, guys, please keep working to keep it up to date. BTW, great pictures of the Lorenz flow and so forth.---CH (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: I'm no mathematician but it seems that these guys find it useful. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It is obvious to me that the page is useful. I think it also satisfies the other criteria, in particular the all-important first criterion (Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.) I don't like the pictures, as they don't add information, but I see that others do like them. The only thing I had doubts about, and the reason why it took me so long to decide which way to vote, is that the list is indeed of a different character than the other featured lists. However, in the end, it is a list and it is good enough to deserve to be featured. If this sets a precedent and enables other lists of a different character to be featured, that is only a good thing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This article does not deserve to be promoted until the objections are addressed. --Cloveious 03:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Quoting from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. Paul August ☎ 03:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. I have no objection to a meta-list of this type being featured. This particular one, however, doesn't quite cut the mustard yet. It absolutely needs a better introduction, saying more about the topic than just "this is a list of lists". It could also do with intros to each subsection. See the featured List of Oklahoma birds for the sort of thing I'm talking about. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The user above changed this vote from "oppose" to "support", expressed explicitly below, but did not follow the strikethrough convention, which would change the word oppose above to oppose, with a line through it. I mention this to avoid confusion among any who are counting the votes. Michael Hardy 20:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support : The list is well structured and quite complete ; a nice entry to the numerous mathematics pages, which needs such structured access "portals" (in theory maybe(? could be ?) redundant with "categorical" calssification, but in practice not everything is well inserted in categories, and such "redundancy" is of great help). Nominating it a featured list is alredy now justified and will most probably encourage investments to make it even better (more complete and up to date) in the future. — MFH: Talk 21:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (mild support): This "list of lists" might be primarily useful as a kind of "semantical navigational aid" for an interested reader/editor (in math articles). As such it should be (ideally)
  • well-organized (items are easy to find)
  • reasonably well-categorized (collecting items together which have a structural relationship/dependence)

A word of warning here: Categorization in mathematics is an inherently difficult enterprise in general because it potentially creates artificial subdivisions or supports a hierarchical/top-down view of the matter. Better keep things pragmatic (in the direction navigational guideline, not too much of classification overload).

Some specific remarks on the present shape of the list (organization/categorization):

• • Geometry/Topology is now a very broad area covering differential geometry, algebraic geometry and more (a bit too broad). The nice glossary of scheme theory is ranged under geometry because it belongs to algebraic geometry which is subsumed under geometry. This might be confusing because scheme theory is also affiliated with commutative algebra (category algebra).
  • The category "Trivia" should be better named "Miscellaneous" or similar (less POV and covers more). For example the "List of mathematical topics related to pi" (now ranged under circle topics) could also be ranged here.
  • Concerning the inner division inside "Mathematical physics": Let us assume someone is interested in "Maxwell equation" or "Huygens principle". Where should he/she look? Presumably under "Wave topics"? Classical mechanics has a rather clear-cut description, but what about optics, electrodynamics, fluid dynamics (Navier-Stokes equation) here the reader has to choose between "Classical mechanics" and "Wave topics" (presumably the latter, the expert would know). The sectioning/divison here is not entirely transparent and maybe should be rethought.

These remarks of course reflect a subjective point of view. With some improvements, the list of lists might turn into a useful/usable organisational/navigational tool.

--212.18.24.11 12:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's nothing more than a navigational tool for use inside Wikipedia. It's not information that could be of any use to anyone outside this system and therefore hardly worthy of being called Wikipedia's very best work, or representing something that is unique on the Internet. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's rather obvious that it can be of use to someone who is not using Wikipedia, because of the ways people have used it (see above). Michael Hardy 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • To expand: It's a list of lists inside Wikipedia. I feel it doesn't meet the spirit of the criteria in that it's not information as such, it's just an index. If each list item was expanded with a short description, I'd view differently. Sorry. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That's absurd. It is NOT primarily a list of things INSIDE Wikipedia. If it were, it would bore me to death! How can you think such a thing? I think you haven't looked at the list and thought about what it says! See my response to Dmharvey in the comments section below. Michael Hardy 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I have read yours and DMHarvey's response below I thought he said it rather well. And by the way, I don't think I'm crazy (per your edit comment). -- Ian ≡ talk 01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
          • In re "crazy": some degree of hyperbole should be allowed in edit summaries; it was not intended literally as a psychiatric diagnosis. Michael Hardy 20:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. As someone who is casually interested in the topic, I find it very useful. Tintin 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose: My opinions on the subject are already well-documented, but here's why I don't think this should be a featured list. It fails one clear criterion -- it has no references. Some may argue that it's ridiculous to expect a list like this to have references, but I do think it's possible (surely someone has attempted to categorize all of mathematics into categories and subcategories?). By requiring references, we ensure that all lists have some stand-alone value. We are able to definitively say, "according to <insert name of respected expert here>, these are the important parts of the subject". Without references, all we can say is "according to <insert random Wikipedian's screenname here>, these are all the important parts of the subject that Wikipedia currently has articles on". That second sentence, in my opinion, is 100% worthless.
• If we don't use references, what we have here is a navigational aid that is not much better than a simple category. What is the difference between this and having categories like Category:Lists of mathematical topics and within that subcategories like Category:Algebra lists and Category:Probability and statistics lists? I see no benefit of this "list of lists" over a categorization scheme. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The article makes no assertions, other than the self-evident fact the articles listed are Wikipedia articles, so what would you reference? Paul August ☎ 05:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• That the article makes no assertions is exactly the problem. Since it makes no assertions, it has no stand-alone value. Don't get me wrong, this is a great navigational tool, but navigational tools aren't valuable as encyclopedic content. In my opinion, the logical next step to featuring a list like this is to feature a disambiguation page. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And what would be wrong with Smith as FA? Charles Matthews

Apparently nothing. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

We should feature whatever is great. By the way it is more than just a navigational aid, it helps explicate the structure of mathematics and mathematical knowledge, and it also demonstrates the breadth of coverage of mathematics on WP. It is truly an extraordinary list. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would agree that it's mostly useful as a navigational tool (other Wikipedia articles list areas of mathematics), but I think that shouldn't mean that it can't be a featured list. I do realize that this would be a first in some sense. However, I disagree that it's not much better than a simple category. If you use subcategories, you can't have everything on one page. Categories are also alphabetically ordered, which is not logical (for instance, "basic mathematics" should be before "advanced mathematics"). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously this list is not only a navigational tool, but I don't think we should a priori declare disambiguation pages or the like ineligible merely because typical ones are puny little things.

I have now added an external link to the American Mathematical Society's mathematics subject classification. To imitate that here would be a stupid mistake; the purposes are different. Some of the seemingly oddball things on this list are NOT "areas of mathematics" but are very good things, as may be seen by looking at them. For example, list of exponential topics, list of factorial and binomial topics. I wouldn't have guessed that lists with titles like that could be so enlightening. Michael Hardy 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: I thought it be worth looking at some of the reasons against making this a features Article....

1. This is just an index of some WP articles, it has no standalone value, so I don't think it can meet the featured list criteria, jguk
2. How is it useful? Is it complete? Nichalp
3. think it's a great list of lists, but I don't think it's a great list. It's a table of contents of the Mathematics section of the Wikipedia, not a list for reference purposes like the other featured lists. While it meets the letter of most or even all of the criteria, I don't think it meets the established spirit. I think that if it had more than just links and a few token (although well-chosen!) images, then I might feel differently. Sorry: I really like it a lot, and it is certaintly a wonderful resource, but as it stands some other kind of recognition would be better, IMO. Ben Cairns
4. An interesting list, but I must admit I've never had occasion to encounter or use it. ... Besides the occasional odd classifications, I would prefer something that had at least a few words in each topic to give a hint as to what they are and how they are related to one another. As it is, the user doesn't have a clue without clicking on hundreds of links. Steven G. Johnson
5. After reading what everyone here has had to say, I'm still not convinced of the list's usefulness. And I'm also not terribly happy with the way it is currently organised. Dmharvey
6. For reasons stated above, and change to Index of mathematical topics Cloveious

To go through some of the issues raised here:

• Completeness. I have seen no evidence raised by anyone that isn't as complete as it can be.
• Organisation. The debate on how best to orgainse maths topics is long one that probably won't ever be resolved. (See the talk pages on any of Mathematics, Areas of mathematics, or List of lists of mathematical topics itself). What matters is that any classification eneables one to find the topics one wants quickly. Although people have asked why a particular list is one place rather than another, no-one has said they haven't been able to find what they want quickly.
• Usefulness: list of mathematical topics is waaaaaaaaay to big for quick reference. It is more an index than a way of navigating a desired article. This is the best way to seek out an maths article.
• Topic explanation: Good point... although Areas of mathematics covers this better. Perhaps a reference to it would help. I think it is better to assume that those using it know what they are looking for. That said, some brief explanation might be desireable.
• Name: Being debated... see articles talk page for details.

EDIT... Oops, never signed this bit. Tompw 22:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Expert interest: looking through the votes, not suprisingly, the math types strong support it, and some whom I guess aren't math types just don't get it. I hope that they can take our word for it that we with math training, who neccessarily must bear the brunt of the work in adding and improving math-related articles here, very much appreciate how critical good organization is to explaining such a tightly interconnectd and highly technical field as mathematics, where precision and avoiding confusion of terminology and notation is so important. Without this list, it would be much harder to avoid reinventing the wheel. ---CH (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's amusing how you come to this conclusion—any objections are presumed to be by "non-math types." Tautology, anyone?  :-) —Steven G. Johnson 17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Steven, I think you're misreading this: he said "some whom [sic] I guess aren't math types just don't get it"; this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who opposes doesn't get it and is "not a math type". I'm guessing what happened is that Hillman read the comments accompanying the first (and so, most conspicuous) two votes, and he meant that those two "just don't get it". They do seem to be non-math types who don't get it. You, on the other hand, are obviously a "math type". Michael Hardy 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just a thought, maybe if more time was spent addressing the objections then posting in talk pages for support votes, this might not fail --Cloveious 04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• While that may well be true, the same could be said of most Wikipedia articles with a hefty talk page. (If everyone who disbelieved the solution to the Monty Hall problem spent as much time learning probability theory as they did disputing it....) Tompw 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see that my objection, quoted above at number 3, has addressed. My opposition is not that it doesn't satisfy the letter of the description of a good featured list (which does not, incidentally, define a list! [Oops -- I must be blind]). Rather, I think that pure meta-lists, without additional content like one-line descriptions or an opening paragraph that gives a good overview, are NOT good examples of lists that we want to hold up to the public. They might be suitable featured indices or tables of contents or whatever, but comparison to the current set of featured lists (the precedents) suggests to me that this list of lists is not in the right format. I don't think we should be so keen to have a Mathematics featured list that usefulness (great as it might be) is sufficient to give support. I think that these objections could be addressed by (a) changing the name, and (b) adding content to the list so it bears information about something other than the WP. If this is too big a job, then it is not ready to be featured. Cheers, Ben Cairns 10:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

• Question. I commented earlier that I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the list. May I ask: could people please give some specific examples of how they, or someone else, have found the list useful (as a reader, not as an editor). Personally, if I wanted to look up something on, say, Fourier analysis, I would be inclined to just use the search box, and then follow my nose from there, rather than use the list of lists. It seems much more efficient to do it that way. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 19:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I think Ben Cairns and Steven Johnson have made some suggestions worth bearing in mind in editing this list, and it's one my to-do list. I'll get to it eventually (for somewhat uncertain values of "eventually", but I think I'll get to some of it pretty soon). Michael Hardy 20:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Being a partial reply to Dmharvey's question posted above

• OK, suppose I'm NOT looking for a topic that I have in mind, but I'm reading this list, and I find that there's a list of inequalities, whose existence I had not suspected, and that's relevant to something I'm thinking about. I don't understand why you begin by saying "if I wanted to look up something on, say, Fourier analysis"; that seems to presuppose that one would consider whether this list is useful only after one has such a topic in mind. Michael Hardy 19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• ...or suppose I'm browsing through this list and I find this list of combinatorial computational geometry topics. I've heard of combinatorics, and of computation, and of geometry, but "combinatorial computational geometry" is new to me, and may strike my fancy, and I may click on that and start reading on that subject. Maybe at some point I'll do some research in that area and publish something. And none of this resulted from my wanting to "look up something on, say" anything in particular. Michael Hardy 19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• ... or suppose I'm browsing through this list and find list of exponential topics. It would not have occurred to me that there could be such a great diversity of topics could be listed under such a heading and thereby I learn something, and I may also learn about one or more of those topics. E.g. the Gudermannian function is far from universally known among mathematicians, so one could learn of its existence in precisely that way. Or the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem on algebraic independence; that one I actually don't recall seeing before (I may have, but I don't remember it). This is not by "look[ing] up something on, say" some topic that you actually had in mind before you looked at the list of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I hear all of this, but the usefulness criterion asks that the list "covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic". You are arguing that the list is useful for browsing, and I completely agree with you on this point. However I don't think it's that useful for research. One doesn't go out and do research on "Mathematics"; the scope is far too broad. I'm sure you'll agree that the scope of each list currently at Wikipedia:Featured lists is much narrower. Perhaps this list can and should be awarded praise and recognition in some other way, but it doesn't seem to fit with the other featured lists. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, why the preconceptions? It is just not true that one can scrape up easily on the Web a page that lays out mathematics for you, and puts you two clicks away from a reasonable introduction to most of it. Charles Matthews 09:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

As a non-maths type, might I just say: Exactly, Charles! Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We have identified a deficiency in the official list of criteria: instead of saying "researching", it should say "trying to learn about"; the difference is that "researching" is narrowly goal-directed and excludes browsing to find out what you don't know. Browsing is important to learning. Michael Hardy 20:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The list is indeed excellent for browsing. My vote would probably change to "support" if either (a) the list criteria were broader (e.g. the way Michael Hardy suggests above), or (b) this nomination was moved from "featured list" nomination to some other kind of nomination that was more appropriate. My preferred outcome is that the list gets a new name, something along the lines of "Index of Mathematics Topics", and becomes more prominently linked to from Category:Mathematics, which itself is linked to from the main page. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the dichotomy being put forward here: browsing is part of researching, since part of researching a topic is firming up one's grasp of the general area around the specific problem domain; at least that's involved in how I do research. No change in the list criteria is needed to accomodate this candidate. --- Charles Stewart 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, but browsing around the specific problem domain is not what this list is good for. This list is an overview of all mathematics on wikipedia. If you were researching the "general area around the specific problem domain", you would use the more specialised topic lists, the "See Also" sections on an individual article, etc. On the other hand, if you can give me specific examples of when you (or someone else) has used this list to do the kind of research you have in mind, I might be persuaded to change my mind. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't give any concrete examples, but I can give a hypothetical, to show how the list of lists is better than a separate set of lists: if a computer scientist with a bit of mathematical culture were to begin researching Boolean algebra using WP, no doubt before long they would discover the List of Boolean algebra topics. They'd be wise not just to restrict themselves to this, but to step up to the list of lists and discover that (i) Boolean algebra is related to topics under both algebra and logic, (ii) see that there is a glossary of ring theory, (iii) see that Boolean algebra is related to commutative algebra and so take a look at the List of commutative algebra topics, (iv) discover the fascinating topic of sheaves and schemes, (v) so be in a better position to understand something of Stone duality from the Boolean algebra list, (vi) and also be in a position to appreciate the relationship between this and applications of category theory in computer science. All of these steps could be made just by hops from article to article, but how much easier when one has a large view map of the area. --- Charles Stewart 00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This is starting to look a little better. Any more examples anyone? Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that "list of lists of..." is not the most euphonious or otherwise best name, especially since it makes it necessary to add "(not to be confused with "list of...)", but I haven't seen an alternative I like. "Index of..." doesn't really convey what this list is and how it differs from things like "list of mathematical topics" or "areas of mathematics", etc. Michael Hardy 23:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Of the two I much prefer "List of lists … ", since it is more descriptive. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone is proposing list of mathematical lists. How 'bout that one? Michael Hardy 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose that name, I don't see how it is particularly better though. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To see how it's better, consider a page titled "list of lists of lists of lists of omphalological topics". Counting how many times it says "list of" is mentally uncomfortable, as if you're mentally translating it from a foreign language as you're reading it. A certain amount of that discomfort begins when you say "list of lists of ...". So "list of mathematical topics lists" avoids that. Michael Hardy 23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Note from a WP:FLC director

At present, only myself remains of those who have regularly promoted or failed FLCs (the other WPian carrying out the role has been User:ALoan, who is on leave. In making these comments I am conscious of my own comment above (together with my knowledge that I do have a first class honours degree in mathematics, so that I do know a little bit about what the subject area is). Let me stress that I have no problem with being outvoted - my only concern here is whether the promotion criteria have been met.

The general criterion for promotion, although not explicitly stated, is that there should be consensus that a list should be promoted, without there being a "killer" objection (eg copyvio, FL criterion clearly failed) after 10 days, with an additional 4 days to the candidacy period being added in case of doubt. To my mind "consensus" is clearly present where there is 80%+ support, and may be present on 70%+ (as a rough guide). By my calculations there is currently 74% support. This makes it a grey area. On the plus side, many of the objections are of the nature of "does the nature of this list make it suitable to be a FL". Since the concept of FL is developing and is fairly new, whilst I see this as a valid objection, I do not see it as a "killer" that would fail a nomination despite there otherwise being consensus. On the minus side, I am concerned that Michael Hardy has been actively campaigning on a lot of people's talk pages in favour of the nomination. I see nothing wrong in the note on a relevant WikiProject page or on talk pages of those who have actively contributed to creating the list, or who have previously expressed an interest in it - but to my mind the overuse of notifying people on their talk pages swayed the vote in one direction.

In summary, I still see this nomination in the balance, and therefore think it should be given the whole fortnight to allow for additional comments and further improvements. In particular, there are objections above that are not related to whether the list is in principle capable of being a featured list - for instance User:Bjcairns, User:Stevenj, User:OpenToppedBus make valid comments that have not been addressed. I intend keeping the nomination open to 01:03 on 25 October to allow for these issues (and others) to be addressed - and also to allow other users to offer comments on whether the list should or should not be promoted, jguk 20:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In re "actively campaigning": A a few dozen talk pages, I asked people to vote on this; I did not ask them to vote in favor of it; I just said "please vote" (and linked to this page). Only in response to comments people have made have I said anything else about this on people's talk pages. Michael Hardy 00:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As someone who was asked to vote and who opposes the featuring of this list (at this stage), I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to vote as Michael Hardy did. I felt no pressure to support the nomination. Most of the names that I recognise here are (or, like me, have been at times) more than just casual contributors to mathematics articles, so this nomination will be of interest to them. This kind of connection between users has helped make mathematics one of the most complete sections of the WP. Ben Cairns 13:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

I'm not too worried about that bit. The most important thing to do to make sure the list gets promoted is to address those objections that can be addressed. Eg putting in a reasonable sized lead section, jguk 13:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a few more days should be allowed because some of the people opining on this seem to be saying they're deliberating on their decisions. Michael Hardy 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In particular, note that on Talk:List of lists of mathematical topics, User:OpenToppedBus, who has opposed the candidate on the basis of inadequate introductory material, has said that he/she is not far from switching his/her vote. --- Charles Stewart 15:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll give this to 13:00 GMT on 30 October to allow time for further improvements/comments, etc. I don't want to remove this nomination too hastily if it is going to meet the standard shortly - though I also don't want to keep the nomination open indefinitely. I hope that by Sunday things have resolved themselves, jguk 18:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not perfect yet - one or two sections still lack intros, and I agree with the comments below about the title - but there's no such thing as a perfect article. I'm happy to switch to support. Good work, everyone. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Issues?

Following jguk's intent to close in three days, it seems that there have been two issues which have been live recently:

• The name: since there is no consensus as to a better name, I think this is not an obstacle to FAhood;
• The absence of decent introductory material to the article and its sucsections: I think this is now solved.

Are there any live issues with the page (ie. live issues that I have missed or disputes with the status of the above)? --- Charles Stewart 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think featuring should be rushed, but given the extra time granted I think it might be ready by Sunday. I think the introductory material could use some more eyeballs willing to tweak here and there, correct grammar etc. Some sections also lack intros -- just what is a mathematical object, anyway? (Please respond in a couple of sentences by editing at the aforementioned link!) Ben Cairns 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as a name goes, perhaps moving it to List of mathmatical topic lists would be better than a "list of lists of" as far as naming goes. It at least reads better.  ALKIVAR™ 22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional bears

A classic thorough list.--The_stuart 15:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - sorry, just don't think this is the sort of list we can feature: there is no way it is (or indeed can be) comprehensive. For example, there are unmentioned bears in the Pullman His Dark Materials' books for a start; are you sure there is only one play and three films with bear in them? It could also do with a short lead section to explain the list, and there are no references. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity how could we refrence this kind of list other than saying where each bear came from? --The_stuart 01:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There is more to it than just listing a bunch or works. If it had a good lead section discussing the purpose, occurence, trends, history, etc. of fictional bears, that, at least, would need references. --Dmcdevit 05:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object- no references or lead, and like ALoan, I question its comprehensiveness. --Dmcdevit 17:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object not comprehensive. Off the top of my head I can think of several bears not mentioned...Since we are listing Teddy Bears, where is Radar O'Reilly's teddy bear? I seem to remember a movie about called The Bear several years ago that was somewhere on the line between a nature docementary and narrative story about a young bear being pursued by hunters. I also remember a movie called The Bears and I. From my childhood, I remember a book called, I think, The Bears of Big Stream Valley. Please note that looking up these references and putting them into the list will not fix my objection. You will get over 600 returns on the IMDB if you search for the word "Bear" by character. Granted many of these are human characters with the word Bear in their character names, but not all. I also don't think that non-humans actors get pages on the IMDB, so bears playing bears woldn't show n this list. Also the vast majority of this list are fictional Bears from English language sources, are there no French Bears, no Native American Bears, no Russian Bears? What about bears in folklore and mythology? In short I believe that is the type of list that can never be featured because of the open ended nature of its subject Dsmdgold 03:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Object due to the comprehensivity concerns raised above. It needs references, and some content explaining how and why bears occur in fiction. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment it's a dynamic list and I'm currently suggesting to amend the criteria to not require those to be exhaustive. -- User:Docu
  • This list, though, fails on other counts besides comprehensiveness. It doesn't even have a lead. --Dmcdevit 04:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd need to spend some time comparing it to similar lists to support it. In general, I don't think it needs to provide as references as detailed as List of ministers of the environment/Sources. -- User:Docu

List of British monarchs

Also looks very good to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Ditto. Now neutral in the light of today's addition to the talk page. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral, This isn't really a list of all the monarchs of Great Britain. It's only a list of the monarchs of England and Scotland before and after their union. Wales is in Great Britain, and it had monarchs before being incorporated into England. The Picts and the Isle of Man and Wessex, etc. were all "British" kingdoms with monarchs. So if the others are incorporated into this article, or this is moved to a better name, then I'll support it. --Dmcdevit 05:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, it lacks images. --Dmcdevit 06:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Images added. The title is rather difficult: I thought the lead paragraphs and first section explained its scope rather well. Would List of Kings of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be any better? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
      • How about List of monarchs of England and Scotland? Other lists can then point to this one at the point where their kingdoms were joined to the English or Scottish thrones. --Theo (Talk) 13:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
        • The brevity of this appeals more. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support well organized, although with a problematic name. Maybe it's the medievalist in me, but when I see British Kings, I think Vortigen, etc. List of monarchs of England and Scotland seems, to me, to be a good name for this article. Also, why start with Offa? - Dsmdgold 13:09, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a negative comment on my suggestion to change the title at Talk:List of British monarchs. There is also some (rather unhelpful) discussion of "why Offa" rather than Edgar or Aethelstan or Alfred the Great (as is used at List of monarchs of England and Kingdom of England). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Oftentimes the creators are unwilling to do the needful. We could go the WP:RM route. I like Dsmgold's suggestion. And I'm sure it's the medievalist in me screaming about the independent kingdoms of Kent and Wessex and Sussex, etc. (And if you consider yourself a medievalist, maybe you could check out Black Death, I am having it peer reviewed right now.) I'll change my vote to support when the name's cleared up. --Dmcdevit 17:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the a name change would be a good idea too. --Spangineer ∞ 11:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Or better yet, why not just include the others that would fall under "British monarchs", as suggested by Dmcdevit? This list isn't by any means too long, and the addition might be helpful. --Spangineer ∞ 11:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Spangineer - why not include Welsh rulers and then there wouldn't have to be any name change of the current list.--Sophitus 01:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, does not include rulers of Wales. Neutrality^talk 07:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • None of these people was (as far as I am aware) a "monarch of Wales". The list sets out its scope quite tightly in its header: monarchs of England (although see the query above about when it should start), of Scotland, of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and of the United Kingdom. If you want the Welsh principalities to be included, what about the kings of Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland ... (and the King of Ireland - or High King of Ireland - and the other Irish kingdoms...) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support, pending whatever namechange is deemed necessary, if any, by those who know more about this than I. I like the format. Tuf-Kat 01:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, the introduction defines the list's scope sufficently. -- User:Docu
• Object for the moment I'm afraid. Firstly, I think the naming issue needs to be resolved before this can be featured - yes, it's explained in the lead, but that doesn't alter the fact that the article title is inaccurate at present (I like the suggestion of List of monarchs of England and Scotland). Secondly, the table formatting doesn't work for me. If you're going to have England and Scotland next to each other in the table, it should be possible to look across from one and see who was ruling the other at the same time. If the timelines don't match up, you may as well just put one list below the other. OpenToppedBus - Talk 09:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

List of gaps in Interstate Highways

woot --SPUI (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Object - no references; also it may be useful to separate current gaps from historic gaps - e.g. "I-39 had a gap between Rockford, Illinois and Portage, Wisconsin until the late 1990s, when signage was added along I-90 to fill the gap. " - so there is not a gap any more. It may be worth considering whether the information would be better presented as a table. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - along with ALoans's objections, I'd like the highway numbers to be either links or bold text to make them stand out and for some images to be added. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Some maps would be a good idea. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)