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

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 may be Wikipedia's best list. Michael Hardy 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 "What is a featured list?" has also evolved since that time, now being more aware of the diverse nature of topics on Wikipedia.
 * 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: 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  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. --KSmrqT 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: 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 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 ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 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 [[Image: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 [[Image: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 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 , these are the important parts of the subject".  Without references, all we can say is "according to , 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. --Spangineeres  (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. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And what would be wrong with Smith as FA? Charles Matthews
 * Apparently nothing. --Spangineeres (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....
 * 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
 * How is it useful? Is it complete? Nichalp
 * 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
 * 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
 * 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
 * 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 [[Image: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 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 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 [[Image: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 [[Image: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 [[Image: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: 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)
 * 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.

 * 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 ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Desert oak

Desert oak may refer to several Australian tree species with narrow, needle-like leaves or stems, including:

 * Acacia coriacea
 * Acacia sericophylla
 * Allocasuarina decaisneana

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Desert oak


text:
Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act

The Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act is a bill introduced on October 5, 2005, by U.S. Senators Harry Reid, Evan Bayh, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, and Tom Harkin in response to the growing threat of an outbreak of avian influenza. The bill calls for:
 * Preparing for a pandemic by finalizing, implementing and funding pandemic preparedness and response plans.
 * Improving surveillance and international partnerships to monitor the spread of avian flu and detect the emergence of a flu strain with pandemic potential immediately.
 * Protecting Americans through the development, production and distribution of an effective vaccine.
 * Planning ahead for a pandemic by stockpiling antivirals, vaccines and other essential medications and supplies.
 * Strengthening the public health infrastructure.
 * Increasing awareness and education about pandemic flu.
 * Devoting adequate resources to pandemic preparedness.

"This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session. ... Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned."

title: Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act


text: User:BrowardDawgg

title: User:BrowardDawgg


text:
Bohuslavice

Bohuslavice may refer to places in the Czech Republic:

 * Bohuslavice (Jihlava District), a municipality and village in the Vysočina Region
 * Bohuslavice (Náchod District), a municipality and village in the Hradec Králové Region
 * Bohuslavice (Opava District), a municipality and village in the Moravian-Silesian Region
 * Bohuslavice (Prostějov District), a municipality and village in the Olomouc Region
 * Bohuslavice (Šumperk District), a municipality and village in the Olomouc Region
 * Bohuslavice, a village and part of Kyjov in the South Moravian Region
 * Bohuslavice, a village and part of Trutnov in the Hradec Králové Region
 * Bohuslavice nad Vláří, a municipality and village in the Zlín Region
 * Bohuslavice u Zlína, a municipality and village in the Zlín Region

title: Bohuslavice


text:
List of Japanese map symbols

This is a list of symbols appearing on Japanese maps. These symbols are called chizukigou (地図記号) in the Japanese language.

Partial list of symbols for users with visual impairment
Official symbols according to the conventions of the Geographical Survey Institute of Japan appear with a circle below.

title: List of Japanese map symbols


text:
Kappa Arietis

Kappa Arietis, Latinized from κ Arietis, is the Bayer designation for a binary star in the northern constellation of Aries. The combined apparent visual magnitude of the pair is 5.02, making the system bright enough for it to be dimly visible to the naked eye as a white-hued point of light. It is located approximately 181 light-years from the Sun based on parallax, and is drifting further away with a radial velocity of +11.5 km/s.

The binary nature of this system was announced in 1918 by Lick Observatory. It is a double-lined spectroscopic binary with an orbital period of 15.3 days and an eccentricity of 0.61. Both components displaying the spectral properties of an Am, or metallic-lined star. They have nearly the same brightness and their mass ratio is 1.03; very close to equal.

title: Kappa Arietis


text:
User talk:Kaiserjager

You were listed on the Wikipedians/Quebec page as living in or being associated with Quebec. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Quebec for instructions.--Rmky87 00:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kaiserjager


text:
Maltron

PCD Maltron Ltd, trading as Maltron, is a manufacturer of ergonomic special-needs keyboards. It was founded by South African-born inventor Lillian Malt and manufacturer Stephen Hobday. Maltron specialises in making keyboards for the prevention and etiological (root cause) treatment of repetitive strain injury.

Maltron manufactures several models of keyboard, in varying levels of adaptation. Malt's original invention and the company's flagship design, the Fully Ergonomic 3D Keyboard, is the most highly adapted; it incorporates a curved surface in which the keys' angles and depths are staggered to compensate for the different lengths and placement of the fingers. Customers can choose an integral trackball at extra cost. Other types include single-hand keyboards, a flat version of the fully ergonomic keyboard, a keyboard designed to be used by a single digit or headstick or mouthstick, and a robust expanded keyboard for people with cerebral palsy. Maltron keyboards are electrically compatible with IBM PC keyboards and Apple Keyboards, using USB connectors. Earlier models used mini-DIN or PS/2 connectors but these are now discontinued.

History
Lillian Malt ran a secretarial training business from 1955. Based upon her experience of typing errors (having been closely concerned in the printing industry with retraining Linotype operators to use computer keyboards), she had the idea for a typewriter keyboard with the keys arranged to fit different finger lengths, but found no manufacturer willing to work with her. In 1974, Stephen Hobday came to her with a one-handed keyboard that he had designed for the handicapped. Malt made several suggestions for improvement, telling Hobday of her failure to engage the interest of any manufacturers in actually building her ideal keyboard. Hobday told her "You tell me what you want and I'll tell you whether I can build it or not." The first Maltron keyboard was the result of their collaboration.

The full name of the company, PCD Maltron Ltd, stems from Hobday's original electronics firm, Printed Circuit Design Limited, based in Farnborough, Hampshire. The seeds of PCD Maltron were sown when another Hampshire business had inquired about the possibility of custom manufacture of a computer keyboard. This led to discussions with Farnborough Technical College about the design of the keyboard, and in turn to the meeting with Malt.

Stanley notes that Malt was almost erased from history in the 1970s, with the only one of two 1979 articles in The Inventor (the journal of the British Institute of Patentees and Inventors) even mentioning her, crediting only Hobday. However, Malt did present a paper describing her work: Malt, Lillian G., 'Keyboard design in the electronic era', Printing Industry Research Association, Symposium Paper No. 6, September 1977.

Models
There are five models of Maltron keyboard. Two target general users, of which one is the original curved, retro-styled keyboard. The other three are geared towards people with more pervasive disabilities. Although the general form has remained the same, the original keyboard has gone through several revisions.

Maltron keyboards became well-known in the 1980s and 1990s for their distinctive layouts. Hackaday described the Maltron keyboard as "a mass of injection-molded plastic with two deep dishes for all the keys." Tom's Hardware said that the keyboards were "one of the real first ergonomic, split keyboard to use keywells. Designed for people suffering from RSI, its makers sought to address the needs of people who were, or at the risk of, being harmed by extensive typing."

Customers requested a halfway house between a conventional QWERTY keyboard and the curved Maltron, so a flat (2D) version was introduced which although lacking the curvature of the 3D keyboard, incorporates split key groups, and offset letter rows to accommodate the different lengths of the fingers.

For severely disabled users, there are the single-handed, headstick, mouthstick and expanded models.

All Maltron keyboards use Cherry MX brand key-switches, which are much more responsive and durable than the membrane or dome key-switches used on most keyboards.

Layouts
Maltron 3D and 2D (flat) keyboards are produced with three different layouts: QWERTY, Dvorak and Maltron.

In 2009, PC World magazine named the devices among the "world's weirdest keyboards", particularly the right-handed single hand model that sold for US$413 at the time.

In the Maltron layout, the home row of keys are "ANISF" for the left hand and "DTHOR" for the right. This can be used to type many more complete words than that found on a QWERTY keyboard.

The Maltron layout was derived from frequency of use (FoU) statistics, plus additional considerations, such as the most frequent two- and three-letter combinations found in words. As much as possible, such combinations need to be placed as non-blocking sequences.

Whilst the letter E is the most common letter in English, the space character is nearly twice as common; the comma and full stop are more frequent than the letters KVJZXQ.

Directional or cursor keys have also been subject to changes in design. Whilst the earlier PC-XT compatible Model B featured opposing keys near each other such as PgUp and PgDn aligned vertically on the left little finger, and arrow keys arranged UP/DN and LF/RT on either thumb, later models were to introduce a complete design philosophy where such keys were split into left-right locations matching the former re-arrangement of such characters as "(" and ")" which had been moved to sit above the numbers 5 & 6 (as "< >","[ ]", "{ }" and "/ \" had been similarly separated). This meant that any movement to the left or up (Backspace, PgUp, Left etc.) was keyed with the left hand, and any that moved right or down were keyed with the right hand.

Further variation in design has been a slight rotation of the key-bowl upward in the centre which reduces the amount of pronation in operators' wrists. Referring back specifically to the Model-B, the key-bowl required the hands, although separated from each other, still to be rotated outward as though operating a flat keyboard.

Another change moved the twelve function keys to a new top row inside the bowl rather than as a straight line along the back, which the single-handed versions retain. The standard numeric row (1 through 0) has also been shifted one column to the left aligning "1" with "F1", "2" with "F2" and so on. The blank area between the two thumb keys has also been raised to prevent "dropped-wrist" operation of the number pad, although because of its location and layout, the keyboard must be moved laterally when entering continuous numeric data, to accommodate the dominant hand (left or right). This increases the amount of desk space the keyboard needs.

There is only one key below the home row for the ring finger (made obvious by the gap in the next row). As the middle and ring fingers share the same tendon along the back of the hand, removing excess "under-reach" for the ring finger alleviates potential stress on this tendon thus contributing to the keyboard's overall success in reducing repetitive strain injuries.

Manufacture
The keyboards have been made by hand since the 1970s. They have vacuum-formed cases and each switch is hand-wired. The keyboards have a thumb cluster area where thumbs can hit keys other than the space bar.

title: Maltron


text:
Gersey

Gersey are an Australian rock band based in Melbourne, which formed in 1997. Since its debut album, the band has featured the core membership of Craig Jackson (vocals, bass), Daryl Bradie (guitar), Matt Davis (guitar) & Danny Tulen (drums).

Formation and sound
The band are among a number of Australian indie-rock bands formed in the mid-late 90s who were partly influenced by the shoegaze movement of the early 90s, including Gaslight Radio. Matt Davis was himself a peripheral member of Gaslight Radio before the formation of Gersey.

However, the band are best known for their spacious arrangements and their dynamic range, best typified by the Australian bands that alongside themselves and Gaslight Radio, chose to work with Australian record producer, Tim Whitten, including 78 Saab & Art of Fighting.

A 2006 review on FasterLouder.com marked this progression, declaring: "No longer content to be another local band filling out the shoegazer scene, the five-piece are now capable of producing material of a far more epic nature".

Steve Kilbey, from The Church commented: "You will never really pin these songs down. Without ever trying to be 'mysterious' this music with its repetitions which blur and softly distort, the detached vague lyrics and voice which seamlessly becomes another element, is".

Recordings
The band began their recording careers with the now-rare EP "Bewilderment Is A Blessing" (1999). Since then they have released four full-length albums. Their first two albums, Hope Springs (2000) and Storms Dressed as Stars (2002), were both produced with Tim Whitten (The Clouds, Underground Lovers) at Megaphon Studios in Sydney. Both albums were re-released in 2005 as deluxe editions, with the Hope Springs deluxe edition also including their debut EP in full.

It took the band four years to return for their third album No Satellites (2006). The group finally entered the studio with Dean Turner, a member of Australian act Magic Dirt, who had produced Riff Random and theredsunband. Whitten mixed the album.

In April 2010, Mess+Noise interviewed Craig Jackson, who said the chances of a fourth album were "very good" following the band's return to the live circuit. Gersey sent a message to fans in October 2014, announcing that work on a new album was completed. The album, What You Kill, was eventually released in 2016.

Side projects
In the following years, the band pursued personal projects, many of which included contributions from fellow Gersey bandmates. Matt Davis started the project, Bombazine Black, which also featured Danny Tulen on drums and Daryl Bradie on guitar. Tulen, Bradie and former fifth member, Drew Pearse formed the band Tall Buildings. Jackson formed the band Sirens of Venice with his wife Camilla Jackson, releasing a self-titled album through Speak N Spell Records in 2010. In 2019, Tulen & Bradie formed Walkerville, a two-piece garageband with plans to release an EP in early 2020.Danny has had support and ideas from his son, Sunny ;)

Pavement tour
In 2010, Gersey returned to the road, performing an 11-date national tour which included seven theatre shows supporting US band, Pavement. Music writer Chris Wood explained the history between the two bands: "The Pavement/Gersey connection goes back almost ten years with Gersey performing its first US shows with Spiral Stairs' Preston School of Industry in 2001. Gersey and PSOI released a split seven-inch in 2003 and they have twice toured Australia together. More recently, members of Gersey have performed with Spiral Stairs on his solo album and as his touring band".

Albums

 * Hope Springs (2000, Trifekta)
 * Storms Dressed as Stars (2002, Trifekta)
 * No Satellites (2006, Inertia Recordings)
 * What You Kill (2016)

EPs

 * Bewilderment Is A Blessing (1999, Way Over There)
 * Eyes Are Wide Tonight (2005, Inertia Recordings)

title: Gersey


text:
User:Tajh

i am  tajh

title: User:Tajh


text: Category:1990s fashion

title: Category:1990s fashion


text: User talk:72.144.150.28

title: User talk:72.144.150.28


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's Drinking Club

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 05:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen's Drinking Club
Non-notable, vanity CambridgeBayWeather 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't consider this to vanity, yet. If it stays as it is for a given period of time without providing any additional information, then yes. But, as it highlights an organization and not just an individual, and no one is named then how is it any more of a "vanity" than other similar organizations? Unsigned comment by User:Elementary. This is the first edit this user has made.
 * IMO, it's pretty clearly vanity because only one of the people involved would even know about it. Delete for lack of verifiability.  Friday (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Vanity insofar as it appears to have been written by one of the group. CambridgeBayWeather 00:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If I'm not entitled to an article about myself, should I be entitled to an article about my circle of friends at school? Or about my new boat?  Or my left shoe?  Weak delete unless some evidence of notability is provided.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Ilmari Karonen 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article doesn't make sense. --DannyWilde 03:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn local social group. MCB 04:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article as written is a local social group, using a widely used term for their title. Average Earthman 11:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability can be established.Jesse 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn, and yes, this is a vanity article IMO CLW
 * Delete esoteric and banal Brequinda 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I need a drink! Joaquin Murietta 22:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:70.110.245.226

title: User talk:70.110.245.226


text:
Hughesdale

Hughesdale may refer to:

 * Hughesdale, Victoria, Australia; a suburb of Melbourne
 * Hughesdale railway station, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 * Hughesdale, Rhode Island, USA; a neighborhood of Johnston

title: Hughesdale


text:
User talk:ReginoldPortugold

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! andy 11:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:ReginoldPortugold


text:
User talk:Not a slave

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Craig Stuntz 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I only removed it because it was sarcastic in tone. Had it been serious in tone there'd have been no problem.--Josh 17:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand why you removed "don't be a..." Surprisingly, this is semi-official policy, but I understand that not everyone would want it on their user page. (It's far less offensive than what you put on St. Valentine's day, though.)
 * When I added the template, however, I was referring to the fact that you blanked a  warning and called it removing vandalism.
 * At any rate, I note that you have made many positive contributions to articles as well, and I hope you'll do that instead of joke edits in the future. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No comment as to whether this should or should not have become policy (in some form), but I just wanted to clarify that m:Don't be a dick is not and never has been an official or semi-official policy. It would more accurately be described as an essay.  The Wikipedia page WP:DICK is now a soft redirect the meta page, but prior to that, there was a contentious debate as to whether or not the page should be deleted, as evidenced in the page history.   That said, welcome to Wikipedia, and I too hope you will continue to make positive contributions and enjoy your stay here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested vote
There is a proposal to change the article name of Tupac Shakur to 2Pac here --Ted87 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

test2a: Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (diff of 00:54, 12 August 2006)

 * Dont delete warnings (this is still your second one). Don't delete content. Please see WP:MOSDAB

-- 62.147.39.42 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, sir. I was NOT vandalizing Wikipedia. I deleted listed articles which did not exist. That's not called vandalism, that's called cleaning up an article!--Josh 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, since you've already received a warning, and tried to hide it, you'll pardon me for not assuming good faith at the drop of a hat. Still, please see WP:MOSDAB, especially WP:MOSDAB.
 * This was a disambiguation page, all the items you "cleaned up" had a bluelink on their line to a notable artist, and all of them will sooner or later be created. Meanwhile, people are sent to this page every time an editor carelessly links to Greatest Hits, and readers get lost when they can't even find a redlink about the notable album they were looking for. It's a navigational tool.
 * Besides, redlinks are common in articles too, and welcome as long as they're not overdone and are about something notable enough that it should have its own article. " Red links are useful in determining the current status of the page (created or not created), create incoming links to a future page, facilitates and incites page creation. " from Help:Link
 * You're welcome to add and contribute, but please, pretty please, read the guides and rules, and understand how Wikipedia works before you go on massively *deleting* stuff in pages you don't understand -- yet -- the function of. When in doubt, don't, or please first ask on the talk page or to other editors about if something should be there or deleted, or search the Wikipedia manuals about it. Thanks.
 * -- 62.147.39.42 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S.: If you like "cleanup", here's an example of a real one: as of today, there are about 200 articles erroneously linking to Greatest Hits:
 * ("What Links Here" tool for "Greatest Hits" article)
 * Practically each of them is in error, and should have its link, either:
 * Fixed to the bluelink title of the actual album article, if it already exists somewhere (Google is required to search for that, with the keyword "site:en.wikipedia.org")
 * Or else, fixed to a piped redlink of the format Greatest Hits (ARTIST-NAME album), and then preferably have that same redlink being pre-emptively added to the list at Greatest Hits...
 * Now that's some real cleanup, fun and gratifying to do, erm. But useful. For instance, I just did it for the obviously-in-error article Samantha Fox that was in the What Links Here list. See how it's done live in my two edits on Special:Contributions/62.147.39.42
 * -- 62.147.39.42 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- 62.147.39.42 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Detox
I deleted it because it seemed to speculative. Just because 50 Cent has a feud with Diddy doesn't mean it is affecting Dr. Dre. Unlike 50 Cent, Dre doesn't take everything so personaly. But it doesn't hurt keeping the info, since time will tell. --Ted87 03:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Tommy  talk  13:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy/paste moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Mr. Kennedy a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Mr. Anderson. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 05:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608868461 your edit] to WWE action figures may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * of WWE. They are detailed based on specific superstars such as John Cena, [Daniel Bryan], and Sheamus. They are currently being produced by Mattel. Some people even use the [[

title: User talk:Not a slave


text:
Iota Arietis

Iota Arietis, Latinized from ι Arietis, is the Bayer designation for a binary star system in the northern constellation of Aries. It has an apparent visual magnitude of 5.117; bright enough to be dimly seen with the naked eye. Parallax measurements made during the Hipparcos mission yield an estimated distance of 520 ly from Earth. The variable radial velocity of this system was announced by W. W. Campbell in 1922. K. C. Gordon published orbital elements for this single-lined spectroscopic binary system in 1946, giving an orbital period of 1567.66 days and an eccentricity (ovalness) of 0.36.

For the visible component, in 1952 N. G. Roman found a stellar classification of K1p, where the 'p' indicates some type of peculiarity with the spectrum. Her comments indicated that the "Hydrogen lines and λ 4290 are strong enough to indicate a class II star, but the CN is barely strong enough for class III, and the Sr II is not much stronger than this would require.". E. A. Harlan published a class of K peculiar in 1969, commenting, "Hδ strong, Fe I λ4045 is weak for type". In 1990, K. Sato and S. Kuji gave a class of G8III, suggesting this is an aging G-type giant star and questioning its peculiar status. Bayesian inference of the stellar properties indicates this star is on the horizontal branch. The companion is a suspected white dwarf.

title: Iota Arietis


text:
User talk:Edith mykok

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Image Tagging Image:Hitler.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Hitler.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use .)  See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it, it says I'm blocked from editing because qwerty, then hotlinks to your user page>??!? is this meant to be funny?--64.12.116.70 01:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edith mykok


text:
Eta Arietis

Eta Arietis, Latinized from η Arietis, is the Bayer designation for a star in the northern constellation of Aries. It is dimly visible to the naked eye with an apparent visual magnitude of 5.231. With an annual parallax shift of 33.34 mas, the distance to this star is approximately 97.8 ly. It is drifting further away with a radial velocity of +4.5 km/s.

This is an F-type main sequence star with a stellar classification of F5 V. It is younger than the Sun at an age of about 2.6 billion years. The effective temperature of the outer atmosphere is 6,380 K, giving it the yellow-white-hued glow of an F-type star. Eta Arietis was examined using the HARPS instrument for radial velocity variations that may be caused by an orbiting companion, but no signal was detected. Nor has an infrared excess been detected using the Spitzer Space Telescope, which might otherwise indicate the presence of circumstellar gas or dust.

title: Eta Arietis


text:
User talk:Skotford

Welcome!
- User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]00:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Skotford


text:
Eric Thomas (gynaecologist)

Sir Eric Jackson Thomas FMedSci (24 March 1953 – 10 November 2023) was an English academic who was vice-chancellor of the University of Bristol from 2001 to 2015. From 2003 to 2007, he was chair of the Worldwide Universities Network and was the president of Universities UK from 2011 to 2013.

Education and career
Thomas graduated in medicine from the Newcastle in 1976. He trained as an obstetrician and gynaecologist and worked at both the universities of Sheffield and Newcastle. He obtained an MD-by-thesis in 1987 via his research into endometriosis.

In 1991, he was appointed professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Southampton, becoming head of the School of Medicine in 1995 and dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Health and Biological Sciences in 1998. He was a consultant gynaecologist from 1987 to 2001.

In August 2011, Thomas became president of Universities UK, having previously been its vice-president, chair of its England and Northern Ireland Council and chair of its Research Policy Committee. He was chair of the board of CASE Europe, a member of the board of CASE and was a commissioner of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission. He chaired the government Taskforce into Increasing Voluntary Giving in Higher Education, which reported in 2004. He was chair of the Worldwide Universities Network from 2003 – 2007. He was a member of the board of the South-West Regional Development Agency from 2002–8.

Personal life
Thomas was married and had two children. His interests included golf and Newcastle United Football Club. He was a Deputy Lieutenant of the City and County of Bristol, and was knighted in the 2013 Birthday Honours for services to higher education.

Thomas died of cancer on 10 November 2023, at the age of 70.

title: Eric Thomas (gynaecologist)


text:
Talk:Gossamer Condor

Copyvio from Smithsonian website
I've reverted to an earlier version to remove the text from the History section that was cut and pasted from the linked Smithsonian page (dated 8 September 2001). No later edits were made that were independent of the copyvio text. skoosh (háblame) 00:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gossamer Condor


text:
User talk:Mr.mr.

Your articles on Saint Andrew's Catholic Church and Colin Prescott
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Academic Challenger 02:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Your nonsense articles will continue to be deleted. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Academic Challenger 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr.mr.


text:
Bohuslavice (Opava District)

Bohuslavice (Buslawitz, Bogusławice) is a municipality and village in Opava District in the Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 1,800 inhabitants. It is part of the historic Hlučín Region.

History
The first written mention of Bohuslavice is from 1288. Until 1920, it belonged to the Prussian province of Silesia.

From 1938 to 1945, Bohuslavice was annexed by Nazi Germany.

title: Bohuslavice (Opava District)


text:
Tom Stephan

Tom Stephan (born June 6, 1970) is an American house music, producer, DJ and film director. He was born in New York, United States. He is also known as Superchumbo.

Biography
In 1990, Stephan relocated to London, England and studied film at the London Film School where he directed 21st Century Nuns. The short documentary featured an interview by British artist, film-maker and AIDS activist Derek Jarman.

Original productions

 * Bart Skils ft Superchumbo - All Over My Body [Drumcode DC246] 2021
 * David Tort & Tom Stephan - Music’s In Me [HoTL Records] 2017
 * Tom Stephan & Danny Verde ft Rowetta - Feel It [Get Down] 2016
 * Superchumbo & D. Ramirez - Shake It Baby [Slave Recordings] 2005
 * Superchumbo - Wowie Zowie Album [Twisted America] 2005
 * Superchumbo featuring Celeda - Dirtyfilthy [Twisted America] 2004
 * Superchumbo - This Beat Is [Twisted America] 2003
 * Superchumbo feat. Sylvia Mason-James - Irresistible! [Twisted America] 2002
 * Superchumbo & Victoria Wilson-James - The Revolution [Twisted America] 2001
 * Tracy & Sharon - Terrific / Filthy Hetero [Flesh UK/Omnisonus FR] 1994

Remixes

 * Sting - If You Love Somebody Set Them Free (Tom Stephan Mix) [A&M] 2019
 * Lenny Kravitz - Low (Tom Stephan Mix) [BMG] 2018
 * Beyonce - Partition (Tom Stephan Mix) [Columbia] 2014
 * Seductive - Take Control (Tom Stephan Mix) [Spinnin] 2010
 * Fierce Ruling Diva - You Gotta Believe (Superchumbo mixes) [React /Tommy Boy] 2002
 * Basement Jaxx - Get Me Off (Superchumbo 'Supergetoff' Remix) [XL] 2002
 * Missy Elliott - Get Ur Freak On (Superchumbo's Superfreakon Remix) [Elektra] 2002
 * Kylie Minogue - Can't Get You Out Of My Head (Superchumbo Mixes) [Parlophone] 2001
 * Tina Turner - When The Heartache Is Over (Superchumbo's Crystal Mix) [DMC] 2000
 * Pet Shop Boys - New York City Boy (Superchumbo Remixes) [EMI] 1999

DJ mix albums

 * Nervous Nitelife [Nervous Records] 2009
 * Asseteria - Live from NYC [Nervous Records] 2008
 * Let’s Go Chumbo [ChumboMundo] 2006
 * Roger Sanchez / Tom Stephan - Afterdark Vol.1 [Stealth] 2005
 * Nite:Life 018 - These Beats Are... [NRK] 2004
 * Superchumbo - Get the Lead Out! [Twisted] 2002
 * Superchumbo - Leadhead [Loaded] 2002
 * Soundworx - Session Two [Soundworx UK] 2001
 * Drag Addict [Hut Recordings] 1996
 * Just a Drag…Queen [Omnisonus FR] 1995

Productions

 * Kevin Aviance - Join In The Chant [Wave] 1999

Co-productions

 * Robbie Williams - There Are Bad Times Just Around The Corner [KALA] 1999

Performer

 * Rufus Wainwright – Tiergarten (additional programming) [Geffen] 2007
 * Pet Shop Boys - Integral (additional vocals) [Parlophone] 2007
 * Pet Shop Boys - Screaming (additional keyboards) Psycho Motion Picture Soundtrack [Geffen] 1998

Number One Billboard US Dance singles

 * Sting - If You Love Somebody Set Them Free 2019
 * Lenny Kravitz - Low 2018
 * HiFi Sean ft Crystal Waters - Testify 2017
 * Yoko Ono - Hell in Paradise 2016
 * Robin S & DJ Escape - Shout it out loud 2016
 * Beyonce - Partition 2014
 * Beyonce - Pretty Hurts 2014
 * Ono - Angel 2014
 * Ono - Walking on Thin Ice 2013
 * Shakira – Did It Again 2010
 * Kristine W - Be Alright 2009
 * Africanism - Hard 2006
 * Superchumbo - Dirtyfilthy 2004
 * Seal - Get it together 2003
 * Superchumbo - This Beat Is 2003
 * Murk - Believe 2003
 * Kylie - Can’t Get You Out Of My Head 2002
 * Fierce Ruling Diva - You Gotta Believe 2002
 * Superchumbo - Irresistible 2002
 * Pet Shop Boys - NYC Boy 1999

title: Tom Stephan


text:
User talk:Dandan.W

The MP3 search page's popularity has helped make Baidu China's biggest search engine. There's a problem, though. Many, probably most, of those MP3 links connect to pirated copies of opyrighted music and the music companies aren't happy that something so successful is helping rip off their songs.

This has been considered to be one of the biggest issues of Internet industry recently. However, not so many Internet users care about it. A girl I interviewed,who is a big fun of MP3 downloading, was totally unaware of what's going on. "I don't care a shit of that lawsuit between Baidu and that company." "If they could shut Baidu down, fine, there are a lot more searching engines I can use to find MP3s....."

She is right. Who cares? So far as you could get what you want, illegall anyway, but not seriously enough to be put into prison, just go ahead and ignore all these damn news.....

title: User talk:Dandan.W


text:
Phoenix Trotting Park

The Phoenix Trotting Park, was a horse racing track built in 1964 in Goodyear, Arizona, United States. It opened in 1965 and was run for about two and a half seasons. The large, futuristically designed structure gave an optimistic look for the 1960s.

Originally planned to be built for a cost of about $3 million, the facility ended up costing around $10 million. One of the proprietors and visionaries behind the park was James Dunnigan, the renowned New York horse racing financier. Ivone Grassetto, head of Impressa Eugenio Grassetto of Padua, Italy designed the grandstand and the main racing strip. Associate architect was Victor Gruen Associates of Los Angeles. The construction of the facility was undertaken as a joint venture by Gilbert & Dolan Enterprises and E.L. Farmer Construction Company, Inc. Various incentives during the events that were held, such as free parking and admission did initially lead to decent attendance, including an opening day showing of 12,000 people. However, a variety of factors led to the inevitable closing of the track. The hot weather of the desert caused events to be uncomfortable to attendees. The location provided limited means to control rain, leading to floods that caused accessibility problems. The park is also located about 20 miles outside of Phoenix and was built long before any major roads made the area easily accessible to those in the city or its suburbs.

Though closed in 1966, the 194-acre property had been continuously owned by either individuals or corporations/businesses. And with the exception of a brief use for a movie, the property had sat abandoned since its closure. As such, without any care, maintenance, or upkeep, the property showed its age.

The main building of the park was used in the 1998 Charlie/Martin Sheen movie No Code of Conduct. Part of the feature involved a large explosion occurring at the track.

In December 2015, the property was put on the market for $16.5 million. The structure was demolished in 2017.

title: Phoenix Trotting Park


text:
User talk:Legoman727

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather 00:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Articles for deletion/Sky High Stuntman a board of Gamefaqs.com
Do not remove other peoples votes on these pages. It's considered vandalism. Just add your vote to the bottom and sign it using ~ CambridgeBayWeather 00:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Legoman727


text:
User:Edith mykok

Edith mykok was here

title: User:Edith mykok


text: Category:User bg-4

title: Category:User bg-4


text: User talk:70.229.64.139

title: User talk:70.229.64.139


text:
Muscle & Fitness

Muscle & Fitness is an American fitness and bodybuilding magazine founded in 1935 by Canadian entrepreneur Joe Weider. It was originally published under the title Your Physique, before being renamed to Muscle Builder in 1954, and acquiring its current name in 1980. There is also a companion magazine called Muscle and Fitness Hers, oriented toward women.

History
Muscle & Fitness has a more mainstream fitness and bodybuilding lifestyle focus than its companion publication, Flex, which mainly covers more specialised "hardcore" and professional bodybuilding topics. It offers many exercise and nutrition tips, while at the same time advertising a variety of nutritional supplements from companies.

Many professional bodybuilders are featured in each monthly issue of Muscle & Fitness, such as Gustavo Badell, Darrem Charles, Ronnie Coleman, and Jay Cutler. Figure competitors such as Monica Brant, Jenny Lynn, and Davana Medina are also featured, as are entertainers and other public figures such as Muhammad Ali, Steve Austin, John Cena, 50 Cent, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Todd Duffee, Triple H, Evander Holyfield, Dwayne Johnson, Brock Lesnar, Nate Marquardt, Stephanie McMahon, Vince McMahon, John Morrison, Mike O'Hearn, Maryse Ouellet, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Joe Weider himself.

In its December 2015 issue, Muscle & Fitness named Dwayne Johnson its "Man of the Century", crediting him for being "emblematic" of the growth of the fitness industry. Johnson said in the issue, "During the lowest point of my life, this magazine was my rock."

M&F, along with Mr. Olympia, Flex, and Muscle & Fitness Hers was sold to Arizona-based female bodybuilding enthusiast Jake Wood in February 2020.

title: Muscle & Fitness


text:
Pi Arietis

Pi Arietis, Latinized from π Arietis, is the Bayer designation for a multiple star system in the northern constellation of Aries. Based upon parallax measurements made during the Hipparcos mission, this system is approximately 800 ly distant from Earth and has an apparent visual magnitude of 5.21. This is bright enough to be faintly seen with the naked eye.

The primary member of this system is a massive, B-type main sequence star with a stellar classification of B6 V. It is a close spectroscopic binary with an orbital period of 3.854 days, an eccentricity of 0.04, and a combined visual magnitude of 5.30. At an angular separation of 3.28 arcseconds is a magnitude 8.46 A-type main sequence star with a classification of A0 Vp. Finally, a fourth member of the system is a magnitude 11.0 F-type main sequence star with a classification of F8V at an angular separation of 25.2 arcseconds from the primary.

Name
This star, along with δ Ari, ε Ari, ζ Ari, and ρ3 Ari, were Al Bīrūnī's Al Buṭain (ألبطين), the dual of Al Baṭn, the Belly. According to the catalogue of stars in the Technical Memorandum 33-507 - A Reduced Star Catalog Containing 537 Named Stars, Al Buṭain were the title for five stars : δ Ari as Botein, π Ari as Al Buṭain I, ρ3 Ari as Al Buṭain II, ε Ari as Al Buṭain III dan ζ Ari as Al Buṭain IV.

In Chinese, 左更 (Zuǒ Gēng), meaning Official in Charge of the Forest, refers to an asterism consisting of π Arietis, ν Arietis, μ Arietis, ο Arietis and σ Arietis. Consequently, the Chinese name for π Arietis itself is 左更五 (Zuǒ Gēng wu, the Fifth Star of Official in Charge of the Forest.)

title: Pi Arietis


text: User talk:66.176.102.47

title: User talk:66.176.102.47


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xirradiate

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki to wiktionary. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Xirradiate
Badly named almost-dictdef. Not sure what to do with this. Feels like possible copyvio, but no online matches. No links and only five Google hits, so probably not worth keeping as a redirect. Might almost speedy, but there's that one paragraph of actual content. Not sure if it's worth merging anywhere, and if so, where. Ilmari Karonen 00:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism not in wide use: Google "xirradiate" 5 hits; "xirradiation" 57 hits. The therapeutic use is a type (not the most common) of what is referred to as to as radiation therapy or radiotherapy. MCB 04:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Xirradiation and reformat so as to not be a dicdef. Jesse 14:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per MCB CLW 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary. Dicdef.--Isotope23 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary and rename to "X-irradiate". It doesn't seem to be a very common usage, but it is indeed listed on Dictionary.com under "X-irradiate". (The reference to WebMD.com is unverifiable.) The personal essay should be removed and replaced with a statement saying that this is an alternate term for radiation therapy. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary as "x-irradiate" (with hyphen). Appears to be in American Heritage Dictionary. Rd232 16:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Solin, Croatia

Why isn´t the German article linked here under the topic "in other languages"? It´s the same name there, with much information. I don´t know how to add it, so anybody feel free to do so. Thanks.

 * Done, thank you. --Joy [shallot]   08:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Demography: please note that I have deleted info about the number of inhabitants from the intro chapter. This is because I am planning to do an Infobox containing this information. Will be done soon! --N.Noel 08:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Solin
I am curious to know how the word Solin is pronounced. Is it with the 'o' sound as in the word 'top', or the 'o' sound as in the word 'toe'? Thanks, ronm0305 00:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solin coat of arms.gif
Image:Solin coat of arms.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Solin, Croatia