Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2005

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)

California hurricanes

The page this article refers to was located at California hurricanes at the time of this nomination. It was moved to list of California hurricanes at a later date. This notice is necessary to note the move. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I spent some time researching this rare event and created a list of all notable events. I sent it through Peer Review and have addressed the comments. I know that there are actually very few links in this list, but most East Pacific storms neither need nor deserve their own article. This article has pictures and has inline cites and references.

This is a self-nom. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support ... might want to FLC an earthquake list or two as well  ALKIVAR™ 11:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• SupportOppose Great article, Dates are not wikified and the sentance under the modern repeats section seems a little Point of viewish and seems a little out of place. --Cloveious 17:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the section on preparedness, adding that warning breakpoints exist. I do not understand what your problem with the dates is. I fixed the format of one date to make it conform to the manual of style. Since this is not a List of dates when tropical cyclones hit California, I am not going to link dates. So please explain your date issue more fully.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • When dates are wikified it allows dates to be displayed according to user preference. I will do that a bit later --Cloveious 21:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Please use the {{ref}} {{note}} style of inline referencing. The current style is incorrect 2) Metric units absent 3) Is ==Modern repeats== necessary? 4) A political map of California will certainly help. Let me know on my talk on this is done. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed the references.
  • I added metric units for measurements. Do you want metric units for approximations as well?
  • The purpose of the Modern repeats section is to give readers an idea of what may happen should another landfall etc. happen.
  • Do you mean a political map? A location map? I will be able to post a map showing the location of breakpoints on Saturday, by the way. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline

Yeah, a map of the towns and states. I think the modern repeats should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a map of the breakpoints made using screenshots of the US national Atlas.

You are the only person to specifically object to the Modern Repeats section. While no one else has objected to it, no one has specifically approved of it either. I will wait and see if anyone else objects or approves of it. If the consensus is to remove, I'll get rid of it. I still think it has useful information, though. Do you have any suggestions on where to put it if the Modern Repeats section is removed? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

Complete list, no red links, jguk 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Comment I need to know if there will be any further 20-20 matches later this year. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support on the clause that there will be no further Twenty20 matches later this year. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the point in really short lists like this (11 players that've played in one match) being suitable for featured status. It complies with the criteria, etc etc but it sort of demeans other lists that're much larger. The list itself is accurate, well laid out and useful. -- Ian ≡ talk 06:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It will get larger as more players are selected. Also there's no minimum size of list, and these guys are the unofficial world champions at Twenty20 Internationals, jguk 06:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be happier to support if the list was a bit longer. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with the list, I just feel it's inappropriate as a FL just now. BTW, when is the next Twenty20 Int'l ? -- Ian ≡ talk 07:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

England will play two next summer, one against Sri Lanka, the other against Pakistan, jguk 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Support if the additional players are added when the team plays next year. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, list length here doesn't matter. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think I can quite oppose this, but I do want to express the same misgivings as Ian. There is, in my opinion, such a thing as a list which is too short to be featured. That doesn't mean that the list shouldn't exist at all - I commend the members of the Cricket WikiProject for all their fantastic work - but sometimes it's better to wait until there's more to say, especially as we know that this list will expand in the future (unlike, say, the List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded", which may never get longer). Like I say, I can't and won't oppose this, because it does meet the criteria - but I would feel happier if it were withdrawn and resubmitted next summer. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: This nomination has been extended to the full fortnight-long period. It will close at 19:10 on 22 October, jguk 20:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers

Complete list, no red links, jguk 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: I think it would be wise to mark the valid date as Oct 9 instead of Aug 19. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support if the additional players are added when the team plays next year. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose too short per reason given in List of English Twenty20 International cricketers candidacy. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, looks fine to me. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: This nomination has been extended to the full fortnight-long period. It will close at 19:10 on 22 October, jguk 20:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Asian XI ODI cricketers

A complete list with no red links, jguk 18:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good, but will it be maintained in the future? The table creates a horizontal scrollbar in lower resolutions, a font size of 90% might solve the problem. Next, under the "Bowler" columns, "Best" seems to have some misplaced information. Please verify. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Dealt with (at least I think so, if I've gotten the font size thing wrong, could you change it for me?). The article will need updating once a year at the end of each Afro-Asian Cup, I see no reason why it won't be maintained, jguk 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the width issue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support if the additional players are added when the team plays next year. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Ian ≡ talk 02:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• The pic of Muralitharan is bleeding into the table headers. Other than that, Support. Guettarda 22:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm experiencing the same thing that Guettarda is. But support anyway, good table. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: This nomination has been extended to the full fortnight-long period. It will close at 18:46 on 22 October, jguk 20:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Battles of the Mexican-American War

I've done some edits and cleanup here and there to this list over the past few months. At this point I think this is an accurate and pretty much complete list of engagements of the Mexican-American War and as such it deserves featured status. Suggestions for improvement welcome, of course. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 12:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and Support -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 12:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I hope my objections can be fairly easily dealt with. (1) I'd like to see a little more context in the intro - obviously not duplicating the whole of the Mexican-American War article, but maybe a paragraph setting out the basics, such as when the war began and ended (especially given the mention of "prior to the official start of hostilities"), the basic reasons for it, and the overall outcome. (2) I don't think that people's names in the comments should be in bold. (3) Not absolutely necessary, but are there any images available? I see there's none on Mexican-American War either. Maybe one of the key personalities? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Excellent work - now fully support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope I addressed your concerns now. The "basics" paragraph ended up being a background section, specially because I thought it was necessary to clarify the circumstances under which the two battles before the official declaration of war, happened. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support as is, but I'd prefer something along the lines of "information" or "overview" instead of "comments" in the column header of the table. Also, there are three battles/events without information on them (just the name and the date, no explanation). Any chance of including that? --Spangineer (háblame) 14:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Supportsubject to the above concerns. --Cloveious 17:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could add some more notes on those battles, but I did not write the original article and right now I have no way to access any useful printed sources. Googling doesn't give any useful info either. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats all right then, I won't hold it against you, I have been in the same pickle --Cloveious 02:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support even if it is a tad bit short.  ALKIVAR™ 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Northwest Territories general elections

This is a second nomination attempt. Please see Archive1. The original nomination failed on objections of picture copyrights on the four maps. I have tweaked and polished the article since. --Cloveious 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 06:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, subject to two points:
  1. Perhaps it is just my setup, but the three tables in section 2, Elections and Appointed Councils of the Northwest Territories, overlapped so I couldn't read them properly. This problem occurred with both the classic skin, when I was logged in, and the monobook skin, when I was logged out. I've tried to fix this using one larger table to specify a layout for the three smaller tables - is this what was intended?
  2. The dates in the tables should be wikified, to display according to user preferences. --ALoan (Talk) 16:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I had intendend to have one parralel table listing the elections on the left, and one top right table listing the relevent Councils and the other table below it on the right for the changes in Council seats, the code you added fixed over lapping I did not know you could add a table within a table like that. I will wikifi the dates. --Cloveious 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I appear to have found a rather aggrivating bug possibly in wikipedia or in Firefox or both, The page looks the way i want it to look in firefox until you click a wiki link and then it goes wonky and you have to click the link again. In Internet Explorer its just wonky looking. --Cloveious 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have filed a bug report here Bug 3555 I will fiddle with the tables to see if I can correct this for now.--Cloveious 00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem by getting rid of two align=right from each right table and reordering, there should be no more overlapping. --Cloveious 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's now royally screwed up in Opera/Classic. The two right-hand tables are simply cut off after about 100 pixels. --Carnildo 05:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it, by increasing the hidden table width. It works now under my copy of Opera, thanks for pointing it out I also tried it under NetPositive and it works their too, hopefully thats the end of table troubles. --Cloveious 05:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support Oppose 1) The tables look horrible in standard 800x600. You've set the width to 800px, that should be set to less than 600px for it to look neat. 2) The logo is a .gif file. It should be converted to a png. 3) ==...of the Northwest Territories== in the title is redundant. 4) Please don't start a paragraph with a left aligned image. The current maps are badly spaced out in 800x600. 5) Please expand this sentence: ...consensus government using the First Past the Post electoral system ---> Mention briefly, what a consensus govt is, and what the FPtP electoral system is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had a go at (1) (800 → 600), (3) (deleted surplussage) and (4) (added a gallery instead). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks ALoan for the changes, I will fix the rest of the objections in a couple hours when I have time. --Cloveious 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have attempted to correct the other objections. I have added a brief section on consensus government and first past the post, as well as changed the logo to a png. --Cloveious 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Good work! =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support - looks good! --G Rutter 19:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)