Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics

2165:

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.

1740:). 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, 1062:. 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 Knowledge's very best work. Represent what Knowledge 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. -- 1662:: 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. --- 671:: 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 Knowledge, 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. 605:. The number of mathematics articles can be overwhelming at first, esp. to someone new to Knowledge. 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. 1155:: 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. 989:, it should feature Knowledge's best work and represent what is unique about Knowledge (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. 871:. 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!) 1480:), 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"). -- 1355:. 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: --> 1837:. 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. 2354: 836: 2161:, 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. 968:: 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 2027:

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. ---

1980:

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

1113:

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.

2206:

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

2168:

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

1517:

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

1187:

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

1024:

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

327:

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 Knowledge is correct; I was browsing Slashdot yesterday, and typically Mathematics is highly spoken of, as one of

2087:

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

1761:

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

772:

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

2164:

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

1970:

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

1573:

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

1408:

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

2142:

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

1206:

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,

1566:

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 Knowledge, 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

1198:

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

1946:

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

616:

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

424:(strong for what it is worth): this is a high quality index to a great deal of excellent quality Knowledge 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. --- 2264:

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

733:

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

56:

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)

2192:

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.

1936:

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.

230:'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. -- 1567:

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.

1880:

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

686:...). 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). 2319:

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

1820:, 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 291:: 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.) 972:

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. -

1455:

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.

2181:

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,

328:

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.

718:

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!

1207:

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.

1290:

primarily a list of things INSIDE Knowledge. 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.

57:

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.

1618:

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

53: 1785:

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

699:

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

1850:. 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 2002:

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

1981:

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.

499:. 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 2207:

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.

1202:

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

1269:

Knowledge. 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. --

2011:. 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 1913:

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.

2220:

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,

773:

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.

1639:

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.

1687:

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

1231:- It's nothing more than a navigational tool for use inside Knowledge. It's not information that could be of any use to anyone outside this system and therefore hardly worthy of being called 408:. 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 617:

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.

2275:

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

90:"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. 1360:

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

1174:: 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) 948:

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.

1097:

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.

1834: 1736:

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 (

768:: 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 507:. In any case, this is an excellent list which in my opinion exemplifies "Knowledge's very best work" and represents "what Knowledge offers that is unique on the Internet". 1947:

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

848:. 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. 1580:

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.

181:

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).

1214:

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.

1131:

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

2147: 2123: 2092: 1907: 1874: 1841: 1828: 49:

Knowledge has probably been more successful in mathematics than in any other field; hundreds of mathematicians -- perhaps more than a thousand -- have worked on it.

1893:

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.

1629:

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.

1356:, these are the important parts of the subject". Without references, all we can say is "according to <insert random Wikipedian's screenname here: --> 1719:

While that may well be true, the same could be said of most Knowledge articles with a hefty talk page. (If everyone who disbelieved the solution to the

1351:: 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 -- 1300:

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). --

2245: 1357:, these are all the important parts of the subject that Knowledge currently has articles on". That second sentence, in my opinion, is 100% worthless. 1002: 2252:, 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. --- 362:"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 1889:. 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 2231:

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.

1683:

Steven, I think you're misreading this: he said "some whom I guess aren't math types just don't get it"; this doesn't necessarily mean that

1523: 252:: Project2501a was not laughing at the nomination, nominator, or choice of articles, but reading in an unintentional joke that Nichalp made. 2357: 2328: 2313: 2287: 2269: 2256: 2235: 2225: 2211: 2197: 2186: 2136: 2109: 2071: 2032: 1995: 1975: 1965: 1941: 1931: 1918: 1794: 1776: 1744: 1727: 1710: 1695: 1678: 1669: 1654: 1530: 1489: 1463: 1448: 1420: 1399: 1383: 1341: 1317: 1308: 1295: 1278: 1260: 1247: 1222: 1166: 1145: 1126: 1105: 1083: 1071: 1054: 1032: 1012: 993: 977: 952: 939: 903: 885: 863: 839: 815: 777: 760: 738: 712: 690: 675: 663: 647: 635: 621: 609: 597: 581: 569: 557: 534: 514: 489: 477: 461: 441: 428: 416: 400: 388: 348: 332: 318: 298: 275: 256: 244: 215: 192: 176: 165: 152: 143: 120: 107: 94: 85: 72: 46:

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.

2321: 1867: 1706:

Just a thought, maybe if more time was spent addressing the objections then posting in talk pages for support votes, this might not fail --

1615: 1392:

The article makes no assertions, other than the self-evident fact the articles listed are Knowledge articles, so what would you reference?

565:. 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. -- 370: 27: 543: 523: 504: 470: 409: 381: 359: 308: 207:

choches on his own laughter* *LOL* aaaw, thanks for the laugh :D. Good joke! meta-meta list on math topics being complete *SOB*laughter*

61: 1313:

In re "crazy": some degree of hyperbole should be allowed in edit summaries; it was not intended literally as a psychiatric diagnosis.

2020: 1092: 17: 172:... I should add that I think the utility of the list is completely obvious, except perhaps to people with no interest in the topic. 2157:

At present, only myself remains of those who have regularly promoted or failed FLCs (the other WPian carrying out the role has been

1691:

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".

1606:. 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 753:

used it as a Knowledge editor to try to locate which related topics to an article I've been editing have already been discussed.

1554:

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,

81:

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,

1369: 631:- the naming is a bit idiosyncratic, but the list is exceptionally useful. I use it for my research on a regular basis too. -- 546:. Perhaps it would be better at a different title, but this title serves perfectly well, especially because it's linked from 2008: 1674:

It's amusing how you come to this conclusion—any objections are presumed to be by "non-math types." Tautology, anyone? :-)

593:, and, as a list-of-lists, is actually more useful. In fact, just about every major category in WP could use one of these. 437:. 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.-- 2309:

Are there any live issues with the page (ie. live issues that I have missed or disputes with the status of the above)? ---

1361: 1858:

on algebraic independence; that one I actually don't recall seeing before (I may have, but I don't remember it). This is

1855: 2298:

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

2023:, (iv) discover the fascinating topic of sheaves and schemes, (v) so be in a better position to understand something of 1854:

is far from universally known among mathematicians, so one could learn of its existence in precisely that way. Or the

1626: 547: 36: 2338: 924:

images seem slapped on without any real effort given to making them really relevant, only a couple have explanations.

307:

I don't know what the "standards" are either (see my comment below) but here is what is written about the criteria:

1847: 1757:

I commented earlier that I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the list. May I ask: could people please give some

1519: 896: 527: 451: 373: 1890: 786:

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

590: 2284: 2012: 1720: 1365: 1123: 793: 2305:

The absence of decent introductory material to the article and its sucsections: I think this is now solved.

1485: 1115: 1067: 757: 295: 2133: 2106: 1915: 1851: 1460: 1432: 1396: 1102: 797: 720: 687: 682:

People are always asking for annotation, 'added value', spoonful of sugar to help the medecine go down (

511: 345: 329: 315: 1219: 1180:

reasonably well-categorized (collecting items together which have a structural relationship/dependence)

103:, not a list of articles. Obviously the list of math articles is far too big to fit on one long page. 1256:

be of use to someone who is not using Knowledge, because of the ways people have used it (see above).

64:" has also evolved since that time, now being more aware of the diverse nature of topics on Knowledge. 2302:

The name: since there is no consensus as to a better name, I think this is not an obstacle to FAhood;

1948: 1817: 1636: 1611: 1477: 1442: 1414: 1377: 1045: 554: 459: 266: 235: 162: 117: 1707: 1587: 1080: 936: 900: 261:

Alright, I'm willing to understand that. Just remember that jokes without context are not funny. --

2062: 2016: 1986: 1956: 1898: 1767: 1141:, with a line through it. I mention this to avoid confusion among any who are counting the votes. 1049: 876: 854: 823:: to quote Ben Cairns: "I think it's a great list of lists, but I don't think it's a great list." 270: 239: 2088:

and how it differs from things like "list of mathematical topics" or "areas of mathematics", etc.

2280: 2249: 2232: 2194: 2178: 2144: 2143:

begins when you say "list of lists of ...". So "list of mathematical topics lists" avoids that.

2120: 2089: 2068: 1992: 1962: 1938: 1928: 1904: 1871: 1838: 1825: 1791: 1773: 1692: 1547:: I thought it be worth looking at some of the reasons against making this a features Article.... 1527: 1314: 1305: 1292: 1275: 1257: 1244: 1142: 1119: 1009: 949: 882: 860: 660: 486: 385: 342:

top-down view of mathematics good, very expensive to obtain, English Knowledge should be so lucky

173: 149: 104: 91: 69: 935:

I see lots of arguing from the pro list people, but nothing that is trying to make it better. --

208: 2349: 2324:, anyway? (Please respond in a couple of sentences by editing at the aforementioned link!) 1816:

looking for a topic that I have in mind, but I'm reading this list, and I find that there's a

1666: 1481: 1063: 1029: 831: 754: 474: 292: 227: 212: 187: 138: 2341:

would be better than a "list of lists of" as far as naming goes. It at least reads better.

2130: 2103: 1885:, and I completely agree with you on this point. However I don't think it's that useful for 1476:

I would agree that it's mostly useful as a navigational tool (other Knowledge articles list

1457: 1393: 1099: 812: 632: 508: 312: 643:-- It seems to meet all the criteria, though I have not had occasion personally to use it. 340:: I wasn't going to vote, in a self-denying way. But having seen the arguments against ... 2004: 1438: 1410: 1373: 1338: 1041: 551: 531: 456: 262: 231: 1025:

working to keep it up to date. BTW, great pictures of the Lorenz flow and so forth.---

911:

Here is a comprehensive list of why I am objecting, It may be usefull, but it is bland.

566: 397: 253: 1526:. I wouldn't have guessed that lists with titles like that could be so enlightening. 2325: 2208: 2170: 2058: 2024: 1982: 1952: 1924: 1894: 1804: 1763: 1741: 1581: 1568: 1301: 1271: 1240: 1191:

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

1163: 1006: 872: 850: 735: 709: 672: 656: 618: 606: 2342: 2174: 1675: 1663: 1575: 1561: 1079:

This article does not deserve to be promoted until the objections are addressed. --

1026: 824: 787: 774: 644: 182: 133: 2310: 2253: 2129:

I wouldn't oppose that name, I don't see how it is particularly better though.

2029: 1972: 1607: 425: 1600:. I have seen no evidence raised by anyone that isn't as complete as it can be. 2158: 1724: 1651: 990: 974: 594: 438: 413: 366: 1723:

spent as much time learning probability theory as they did disputing it....)

1337:. As someone who is casually interested in the topic, I find it very useful. 2266: 2222: 2183: 1555: 1372:? I see no benefit of this "list of lists" over a categorization scheme. -- 917:

the opening paragraph is irrelevant, it simply says this is a list of lists.

696: 82: 1159: 1156: 578: 2353: 1862:

by "look up something on, say" some topic that you actually had in mind

835: 1040:: I'm no mathematician but it seems that these guys find it useful. -- 1001:. Delete the pictures (oct.14 07:13 version). (comments about pics in 1199:

theory is also affiliated with commutative algebra (category algebra).

1586:

For reasons stated above, and change to Index of mathematical topics

42:(the latter is perhaps by far the longest topics list on Knowledge). 2057:

This is starting to look a little better. Any more examples anyone?

729:

With regard to some of the recent changes: I like the direction the

1508:

declare disambiguation pages or the like ineligible merely because

148:

How is it useful? Didn't I answer that question in my nomination?

1428: 921:

the list is bland, just wikilinks with no explanation to anything

485:

OK, I've added an illustration, and a few others could be added.

112:

I agree with Michael on this one and disagree with jguk. This is

412:, and the only thing missing is an image — which is optional. -- 157:

You did. Can't say anything about it being complete, but it's

1833:...or suppose I'm browsing through this list and I find this 363: 1574:

doesn't have a clue without clicking on hundreds of links.

734:

featuring this list as soon as it has settled down again.

2102:

prefer "List of lists … ", since it is more descriptive.

1923:

As a non-maths type, might I just say: Exactly, Charles!

695:

Well, I agree that it is useful, but then, so what? The

380:. By the given definitions of "complete" and "useful" in 369:

is great, for example, but it can also be invaluable to

203:*ROTFLMAO*OMG*ROTFLMAO*ROTFLMAO* *Cries from laughing* * 132:&ndash same here. How is it useful? Is it complete? 2007:

using WP, no doubt before long they would discover the

1846:... or suppose I'm browsing through this list and find 530:

would imply something to a much lower level of detail.

396:. Comprehensive and well structured. A fine candidate. 365:

is/was a popular site. Learning about some elements of

1645:: Being debated... see articles talk page for details. 704:, but that doesn't prompt me to nominate it. So, the 542:- Useful, comprehensive, well-organized. I think it 503:

seem to comply with all the criteria set down here:

1835:

list of combinatorial computational geometry topics

1504:a navigational tool, but I don't think we should 1409:like this is to feature a disambiguation page. -- 1951:, which itself is linked to from the main page. 2015:, (iii) see that Boolean algebra is related to 1594:To go through some of the issues raised here: 473:, few pictures of fractals would be nice. -- 8: 2337:As far as a name goes, perhaps moving it to 1738:which does not, incidentally, define a list! 1118:for the sort of thing I'm talking about. -- 1518:be seen by looking at them. For example, 655:: meets the major criterion: it's useful. 2246:Talk:List of lists of mathematical topics 2061: 1985: 1955: 1897: 1766: 1370:Category:Probability and statistics lists 1003:Talk:List of lists of mathematical topics 875: 853: 749:: I have never used it as a reader, but 449:name. "List of lists" is ungainly. Use 895:For reasons stated above, and change to 708:is terribly useful. So, what? Cheers, 1177:well-organized (items are easy to find) 927:List of lists is not a very good title. 211:good one, good one, bdjon all the way! 384:, I think this definitely qualifies. 1802: 1650:EDIT... Oops, never signed this bit. 1524:list of factorial and binomial topics 1362:Category:Lists of mathematical topics 7: 1868:list of lists of mathematical topics 1616:List of lists of mathematical topics 1252:I think it's rather obvious that it 1235:, or representing something that is 930:No external links to any math sites. 702:List of lists of mathematical topics 52:This list has greatly evolved since 28:List of lists of mathematical topics 1364:and within that subcategories like 68:This may be Knowledge's best list. 2021:List of commutative algebra topics 1560:How is it useful? Is it complete? 1093:Knowledge:Featured list candidates 522:-- Seems like a good fit based on 505:Knowledge:What is a featured list? 309:Knowledge:What is a featured list? 62:Knowledge:What is a featured list? 24: 18:Knowledge:Featured list candidates 589:. This is as fine as anything on 2352: 1265:To expand: It's a list of lists 834: 2339:List of mathmatical topic lists 1971:accomodate this candidate. --- 2009:List of Boolean algebra topics 1824:one has such a topic in mind. 1: 1856:Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem 1762:efficient to do it that way. 1427:And what would be wrong with 2358:22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2329:21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2314:18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2288:08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC) 2270:18:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC) 2257:15:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 2244:In particular, note that on 2236:01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 2226:13:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 2212:13:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 2198:00:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 2187:20:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2148:23:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 2137:22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2124:19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2110:18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2093:23:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2072:11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 2033:00:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 1996:23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1976:21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1966:21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1942:20:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1932:09:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1919:09:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1908:22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1875:19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1842:19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1829:19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1795:20:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1777:19:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1745:10:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1728:20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1711:04:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1696:23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1679:17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1670:16:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1655:22:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1531:19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1512:ones are puny little things. 1490:11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1464:18:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1449:03:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 1421:16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1400:05:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1384:04:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 1342:01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1318:20:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1309:01:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1296:01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1279:01:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 1261:17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1248:05:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1223:12:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1167:21:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1146:20:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 1127:09:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1106:03:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1084:03:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1072:20:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1055:19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1033:16:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1013:16:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 994:15:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 978:00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 953:00:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 940:05:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 904:17:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 897:Index of mathematical topics 886:00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 864:16:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 840:11:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 816:06:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 778:05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 761:22:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 739:13:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 713:12:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 691:11:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 676:12:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 664:07:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 648:01:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 636:00:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 622:00:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 610:00:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 598:23:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 582:22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 570:21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 558:21:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 535:21:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 528:Index of mathematical topics 515:21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 490:21:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 478:21:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 462:20:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 452:Index of mathematical topics 442:20:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 429:14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 417:10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 401:09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 389:08:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 358:. Comprehensive, in that it 349:22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 344:... right, now that's said. 333:07:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 319:21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 299:04:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 276:19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 257:09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 245:21:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 216:11:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 193:19:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 177:04:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 166:00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 153:03:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 144:08:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 121:00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 108:04:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 95:03:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 86:19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 73:01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 2153:Note from a WP:FLC director 1627:list of mathematical topics 1500:Obviously this list is not 796:, a very poor article IMO. 548:List of mathematical topics 37:list of mathematical topics 2376: 2117:list of mathematical lists 2064:File:User dmharvey sig.png 2019:and so take a look at the 1988:File:User dmharvey sig.png 1958:File:User dmharvey sig.png 1900:File:User dmharvey sig.png 1848:list of exponential topics 1769:File:User dmharvey sig.png 1520:list of exponential topics 1233:Knowledge's very best work 878:File:User dmharvey sig.png 856:File:User dmharvey sig.png 684:in the most delightful way 1803:Being a partial reply to 1635:: Good point... although 1188:classification overload). 1891:Knowledge:Featured lists 987:What is a featured list? 591:Knowledge:Featured lists 524:What is a featured list? 471:What is a featured list? 35:Not to be confused with 2279:. Good work, everyone. 2119:. How 'bout that one? 2013:glossary of ring theory 1020:: this list of list is 794:timeline of mathematics 577:. A valuable resource. 1437:Apparently nothing. -- 1366:Category:Algebra lists 1237:unique on the Internet 1172:Comment (mild support) 1116:List of Oklahoma birds 2265:resolved themselves, 2115:Someone is proposing 1852:Gudermannian function 1807:question posted above 2169:list - for instance 1949:Category:Mathematics 1818:list of inequalities 1790:of it pretty soon). 1637:Areas of mathematics 1612:Areas of mathematics 1478:areas of mathematics 1353:it has no references 99:BTW, it's a list of 2322:mathematical object 2017:commutative algebra 2285:Talk to the driver 2250:User:OpenToppedBus 2179:User:OpenToppedBus 1866:you looked at the 1721:Monty Hall problem 1676:—Steven G. Johnson 1124:Talk to the driver 788:—Steven G. Johnson 775:—Steven G. Johnson 1759:specific examples 1633:Topic explanation 1576:Steven G. Johnson 1447: 1419: 1382: 1114:See the featured 731:List of lists ... 706:List of lists ... 60:The page titled " 2367: 2356: 2347: 2067: 2065: 1991: 1989: 1961: 1959: 1916:Charles Matthews 1903: 1901: 1812:OK, suppose I'm 1772: 1770: 1445: 1441: 1433:Charles Matthews 1417: 1413: 1380: 1376: 1052: 1022:extremely useful 881: 879: 859: 857: 838: 829: 798:Charles Matthews 721:Charles Matthews 688:Charles Matthews 346:Charles Matthews 330:Charles Matthews 273: 242: 209:Russel's paradox 190: 185: 141: 136: 2375: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2343: 2311:Charles Stewart 2296: 2254:Charles Stewart 2155: 2063: 2030:Charles Stewart 2005:Boolean algebra 1987: 1973:Charles Stewart 1957: 1929:The kettle's on 1899: 1809: 1768: 1660:Expert interest 1541: 1443: 1415: 1378: 1091:: Quoting from 1050: 985:: According to 877: 855: 825: 661:The kettle's on 426:Charles Stewart 271: 240: 188: 183: 163:Ta bu shi da yu 139: 134: 118:Ta bu shi da yu 31: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2373: 2371: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2332: 2331: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2295: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2239: 2238: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2201: 2200: 2154: 2151: 2140: 2139: 2113: 2112: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1878: 1877: 1844: 1831: 1808: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1780: 1779: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1714: 1713: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1640: 1630: 1620: 1601: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1584: 1578: 1571: 1564: 1558: 1549: 1548: 1540: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1514: 1513: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1424: 1423: 1403: 1402: 1387: 1386: 1358: 1345: 1344: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1169: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1108: 1086: 1074: 1057: 1035: 1018:Strong support 1015: 996: 983:Strong support 980: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 932: 931: 928: 925: 922: 919: 913: 912: 906: 890: 889: 888: 842: 818: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 781: 780: 763: 743: 742: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 679: 678: 666: 650: 638: 625: 624: 613: 612: 600: 584: 572: 560: 537: 517: 494: 493: 492: 469:-- But as the 464: 444: 435:Strong support 432: 419: 406:Strong support 403: 391: 356:Strong Support 352: 351: 335: 324: 323: 322: 321: 302: 301: 296:(spill yours?) 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 205: 204: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 170: 169: 168: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 97: 66: 65: 58: 50: 47: 30: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2372: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2281:OpenToppedBus 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2233:Michael Hardy 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2224: 2213: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2195:Michael Hardy 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171:User:Bjcairns 2166: 2162: 2160: 2152: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2145:Michael Hardy 2138: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2121:Michael Hardy 2118: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2101: 2098:Of the two I 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2090:Michael Hardy 2073: 2070: 2066: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2034: 2031: 2026: 2025:Stone duality 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1974: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1964: 1960: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1939:Michael Hardy 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1902: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1876: 1873: 1872:Michael Hardy 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1843: 1840: 1839:Michael Hardy 1836: 1832: 1830: 1827: 1826:Michael Hardy 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1796: 1793: 1792:Michael Hardy 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1697: 1694: 1693:Michael Hardy 1690: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1599: 1596: 1595: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1577: 1572: 1570: 1565: 1563: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1532: 1529: 1528:Michael Hardy 1525: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1381: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1319: 1316: 1315:Michael Hardy 1312: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1293:Michael Hardy 1289: 1285: 1284:That's absurd 1282: 1281: 1280: 1277: 1273: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1258:Michael Hardy 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1221: 1213: 1212: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1173: 1170: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1147: 1144: 1143:Michael Hardy 1140: 1139: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1121: 1120:OpenToppedBus 1117: 1112: 1109: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1075: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1053: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1034: 1031: 1028: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1000: 997: 995: 992: 988: 984: 981: 979: 976: 971: 967: 964: 963: 954: 951: 950:Michael Hardy 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 938: 934: 933: 929: 926: 923: 920: 918: 915: 914: 910: 907: 905: 902: 898: 894: 891: 887: 884: 880: 874: 870: 867: 866: 865: 862: 858: 852: 849: 847: 843: 841: 837: 833: 830: 828: 822: 819: 817: 814: 810: 807: 806: 799: 795: 791: 790: 789: 785: 784: 783: 782: 779: 776: 771: 767: 764: 762: 759: 756: 752: 748: 745: 744: 740: 737: 732: 728: 722: 717: 716: 714: 711: 707: 703: 698: 694: 693: 692: 689: 685: 681: 680: 677: 674: 670: 667: 665: 662: 658: 654: 651: 649: 646: 642: 639: 637: 634: 630: 627: 626: 623: 620: 615: 614: 611: 608: 604: 601: 599: 596: 592: 588: 585: 583: 580: 576: 573: 571: 568: 564: 561: 559: 556: 553: 549: 545: 544:fits the bill 541: 538: 536: 533: 529: 526:. I think an 525: 521: 518: 516: 513: 510: 506: 502: 498: 495: 491: 488: 487:Michael Hardy 484: 481: 480: 479: 476: 472: 468: 465: 463: 460: 458: 454: 453: 448: 445: 443: 440: 436: 433: 430: 427: 423: 420: 418: 415: 411: 407: 404: 402: 399: 395: 392: 390: 387: 386:Peruvianllama 383: 379: 377: 372: 368: 364: 361: 357: 354: 353: 350: 347: 343: 339: 336: 334: 331: 326: 325: 320: 317: 314: 310: 306: 305: 304: 303: 300: 297: 294: 290: 287: 286: 277: 274: 268: 264: 260: 259: 258: 255: 251: 248: 247: 246: 243: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 214: 210: 202: 201: 194: 191: 186: 180: 179: 178: 175: 174:Michael Hardy 171: 167: 164: 160: 156: 155: 154: 151: 150:Michael Hardy 147: 146: 145: 142: 137: 131: 128: 122: 119: 115: 111: 110: 109: 106: 105:Michael Hardy 102: 98: 96: 93: 92:Michael Hardy 89: 88: 87: 84: 80: 77: 76: 75: 74: 71: 70:Michael Hardy 63: 59: 55: 51: 48: 45: 44: 43: 41: 40: 38: 29: 26: 19: 2344: 2308: 2297: 2276: 2263: 2219: 2175:User:Stevenj 2167: 2163: 2156: 2141: 2116: 2114: 2099: 2086: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1863: 1859: 1821: 1813: 1787: 1758: 1754: 1737: 1688: 1684: 1659: 1642: 1632: 1622: 1604:Organisation 1603: 1598:Completeness 1597: 1544: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1482:Jitse Niesen 1352: 1348: 1334: 1287: 1283: 1266: 1253: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1220:212.18.24.11 1217: 1171: 1152: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1110: 1096: 1088: 1076: 1064:Jitse Niesen 1059: 1037: 1021: 1017: 998: 986: 982: 969: 965: 916: 908: 892: 869:Mild support 868: 845: 844: 826: 820: 808: 769: 765: 755:Arthur Rubin 750: 746: 730: 705: 701: 683: 668: 652: 641:Mild support 640: 628: 602: 586: 574: 562: 539: 519: 500: 496: 482: 466: 450: 446: 434: 421: 405: 393: 375: 360:doesn't omit 355: 341: 337: 293:Mindspillage 288: 249: 228:Project2501a 223: 213:Project2501a 206: 158: 129: 113: 100: 78: 67: 34: 33: 32: 2131:Paul August 2104:Paul August 1608:Mathematics 1458:Paul August 1394:Paul August 1100:Paul August 846:Mild oppose 813:Samohyl Jan 633:HappyCamper 509:Paul August 455:instead. 313:Paul August 2326:Ben Cairns 2209:Ben Cairns 2159:User:ALoan 1805:Dmharvey's 1742:Ben Cairns 1623:Usefulness 1569:Ben Cairns 1539:Discussion 1439:Spangineer 1411:Spangineer 1374:Spangineer 1042:Rune Welsh 736:Ben Cairns 710:Ben Cairns 673:Ben Cairns 552:L33tminion 457:paul klenk 367:set theory 263:Rune Welsh 232:Rune Welsh 161:useful! - 159:definitely 116:useful. - 1755:Question. 1708:Cloveious 1588:Cloveious 1444:(háblame) 1416:(háblame) 1379:(háblame) 1286:. It is 1135:above to 1081:Cloveious 1051:Esperanza 937:Cloveious 901:Cloveious 792:There is 697:Main Page 567:Trovatore 398:Dysprosia 374:what you 272:Esperanza 254:Dysprosia 241:Esperanza 54:last time 2059:Dmharvey 1983:Dmharvey 1953:Dmharvey 1925:Filiocht 1895:Dmharvey 1887:research 1883:browsing 1764:Dmharvey 1685:everyone 1619:quickly. 1582:Dmharvey 1506:a priori 873:Dmharvey 851:Dmharvey 811:: Cute. 770:discrete 657:Filiocht 619:Revolver 607:Revolver 483:Comment. 431:(edited) 410:criteria 382:W:WIAFL? 378:learning 184:=Nichalp 135:=Nichalp 2345:ALKIVAR 2294:Issues? 2277:support 1562:Nichalp 1545:Comment 1510:typical 1431:as FA? 1335:Support 1153:Support 1089:Comment 1077:Comment 1060:Support 1038:Support 999:Support 966:Support 909:Comment 827:ALKIVAR 809:Support 747:Support 653:Support 645:Magidin 629:Support 603:Support 587:Support 575:Support 563:Support 540:Support 520:Support 497:Support 467:Support 422:Support 394:Support 338:Support 289:Comment 250:Comment 224:Comment 189:«Talk»= 140:«Talk»= 1864:before 1667:(talk) 1349:Oppose 1339:Tintin 1267:inside 1239:. -- 1229:Oppose 1138:oppose 1133:oppose 1111:Oppose 1030:(talk) 970:better 893:Oppose 821:Oppose 766:Oppose 758:(talk) 669:Oppose 555:(talk) 447:Change 376:aren't 130:Oppose 79:Oppose 1822:after 1725:Tompw 1689:those 1652:Tompw 1614:, or 1429:Smith 1203:here. 1007:mikka 991:Tompw 975:Gauge 595:linas 550:. -- 439:CSTAR 414:KSmrq 101:lists 16:< 2267:jguk 2223:jguk 2184:jguk 2100:much 2069:Talk 1993:Talk 1963:Talk 1905:Talk 1788:some 1774:Talk 1643:Name 1556:jguk 1502:only 1486:talk 1368:and 1306:talk 1276:talk 1245:talk 1164:Talk 1068:talk 1046:ταλκ 883:Talk 861:Talk 751:have 532:Jake 501:does 371:know 267:ταλκ 236:ταλκ 114:very 83:jguk 1870:. 1860:not 1814:NOT 1664:CH 1302:Ian 1288:NOT 1272:Ian 1254:can 1241:Ian 1160:MFH 1095:: 1027:CH 1010:(t) 1005:). 579:PAR 2283:- 2248:, 2177:, 2173:, 1927:| 1625:: 1610:, 1522:, 1488:) 1304:≡ 1274:≡ 1243:≡ 1218:-- 1162:: 1158:— 1122:- 1070:) 1048:| 1044:| 899:-- 715:. 659:| 475:WB 311:. 269:| 265:| 238:| 234:| 226:: 2350:™ 2214:. 2134:☎ 2107:☎ 1747:. 1484:( 1461:☎ 1397:☎ 1103:☎ 1066:( 832:™ 741:. 512:☎ 316:☎ 39:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.