Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Superseded scientific theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Superseded scientific theory

This list, while not complete, contains the major superseded scientific theories in many areas. It's been surprisingly uncontroversial and stable, except the occasional addition (and then removal) of "creationism". There are a couple of images that suit nicely, including a photo (i took) of some giraffes that i think illustrates Lamarckism beautifully. —Pengo talk · contribs 03:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - fine in principle, but the selection criterion is not clear (you seem to be admitting that it is not comprehensive) and it needs references. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - it just doesn't have enough detail about the things on it to really be interesting, plus it needs references. The description for Spontaneous generation implies that modern abiogenesis is the same as it, which it isn't. Caloric theory appears twice; none of the chemistry theories have even a perfunctory description, and saying "part of Dalton's law" is superseded tells very little. Saying continental drift was superseded by Plate tectonics is inaccurate: Plate techtonics is the mechanism of continental drift. I like the idea, and would like to see this develop, but don't think it's there yet. Adam Cuerden talk 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no references, I really doubt it's complete, not consistent descriptions of each item. Renata 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose while nice I belive that a FL should provide adequate references.__Seadog ♪ 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As someone said on the talk page, it is a bit of a mixed bag of theories, hypotheses, models and "branches of enquiry". The subheadings could be briefer and more general (why is the Flat Earth geographical and not geological?). How about just "Physics", "Chemistry", "Astronomy", etc. I agree with the above comments re: inconsistent detail. I'm surprised at the lack of controversy, but that might just be because it hasn't been discovered by the radicals yet. I really doubt you can define a NPOV entry criteria. For example, why include Astrology and not Homeopathy? Colin°Talk 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_list_candidates_Superseded_scientific_theory_fe71.html"