Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics/archive1

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. This list of lists... is a better way for a mathematician to find out about the great diversity of coverage. I suspect more mathematicians than experts in any other field are found among Wikipedians. Michael Hardy 05:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Object, again, as it needs pictures, references, and a lead. --Dmcdevit 06:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this would benefit from pictures or what sorts of pictures one might add. Can you give an example? --MarkSweep 06:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can have a featured list without image (especially since it's in the criteria). But I can the difficulty for this list. I think the new list of Presidents of the United States shows a great way to integrate images with the list. Next to each item, you could show an image from one of the topics in the list. --Dmcdevit 07:08, 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)
 * It now has a prefatory section. It certainly does not need pictures. Michael Hardy 00:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is a fantastic list (of course being a mathematician I'm biased), as Michael implied it gives a good view of the breadth of coverage in mathematics. However, this list is primarily a navigational tool, and as such doesn't need references, images or a lead. The article makes no assertions, other than the self-evident fact the articles listed are Wikipedia articles, so what would you reference?. I don't think images would be particularly useful, although some could be added for aesthetic reasons I suppose. A lead consisting of a one sentence description of the list might be useful, but I think the list is self-explanatory. Perhaps what this really means is that such lists (i.e. those which simply list of other articles) were not considered when the criteria for "featured lists" were developed? Paul August &#9742; 21:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I think about lists of lists and other lists that can't be referenced. I stated my preliminary opinion on the talk page; feel free to do the same. --Spangineer &#8734; 11:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. The List of mathematical topics contents box at the top of the list is misleading because it can easily be mistaken for a contents box for this list. If it is to stay in that position, it should be explained. --Theo  (Talk) 09:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Michael Hardy 00:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I do not think that we should insist on references for the self-evident. The overriding question has to be "Is this the best that it can be"? If the answer is "yes", and we are still not satisfied, then the question becomes "Should this exist at all?" and that is a deletion issue rather than a 'featured' issue. --Theo  (Talk) 08:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - will support if the lead is expanded to explain the organisational princilpes more clearly. I do not see that images are needed. Ditto refs in this case. I would also propose that the criteria be ammended to read "Includes references where appropriate". Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object until lead is expanded. I also want to see an organizational structure that convinces me that this list is more useful than a category.  Also, the link to itself should be removed.  I remain unsure of unreferenced lists, but that is not part of this objection. --Spangineer ( háblame ) 12:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I'd like to see something other than straight alphabetical order, such as groupings by topic, or at least captions briefly explaining each item. (e.g. why is list of knots considered a mathematical topic?) Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have guessed it was obvious why list of knots is a mathematical topic, even though, like some of the other items, there are also other fields than mathematics in which it could be included. Michael Hardy 01:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to me. Tuf-Kat
 * Support Tuf-Kat 00:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object I think it should be somehow categorized rather in alphabetic order. I'll try. Oh, and I fixed the knots. Samohyl Jan 08:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Check User:Samohyl Jan/List of lists of mathematical topics for a categorized list proposal. Also, I now think that the list is very incomplete, there is for instance no list of optimization topics, no list of ordinary dif. equations etc. Samohyl Jan 10:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That categorized listing looks much, much better than the straight alphabetic one that exists now. It also makes it alot easier to look at a category and figure out what is missing.  However, I'd like to get Michael Hardy's opinion (and/or the opinions of others involved in the creation of the list) before switching to this new format. --Spangineer ( háblame ) 20:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanx for fixing the list of knots link. Tuf-Kat


 * Object With all respect to the authors of mathematics on Wikipedia, I am now not convinced that the list is complete (and if it could ever be). Just from the top of my head, I think there should be also List of optimization topics, List of decision-making topics, List of probability density functions, List of statistical tests, List of function spaces, List of equations by type (to the reference tables - something like if your equation is like this, then it's of this type etc.) Also, I still don't like the List of wave topics, because it's all physics. Samohyl Jan 06:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this objection. Nobody ever said it's complete.  Obviously, completeness is impossible and undesirable.  Certainly more can be added; that's how Wikipedia works. Michael Hardy 15:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The featured list criteria are that it should be comprehensive. Even if I neglect the fact that Wikipedia will never contain everything (there is still a debate about if navigational content is featureable), the lists I mentioned are in my opinion important and useful for navigation and the topics are already covered in Wikipedia. Samohyl Jan 07:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - I have thought about this for a while. The organisational structure is much better - well done - and I think think this has the potential to be featured.  However, ignioring the lack of references (I think references would be pointless for this list), it still needs a decent lead, and some illustrative images (say, an image illustrating algebra or geometry or whatever) would help to give the text a little more interest. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)