:I don't follow Roo's reasoning, though I see no grounds for objecting to the creation of a standalone list, based on the criteria at WP:SAL. On the other hand, I would not enjoy looking at a list article in which the majority of links were red, even though a stated purpose of red links at WP:RED is to encourage article creation. I noticed how few articles we have when I pointed out the category above (if all the articles we have are categorized). But according to WP:SAL, the potential size of the list isn't grounds for not creating one, if effective criteria for inclusion are established, particularly if Roo starts the article based on the Oxford list. I would hope editors wouldn't add vases willy-nilly without creating articles, but I've seen few mechanisms for preventing self-indulgent behavior of that kind. For good or ill, some of the longest articles on Wikipedia are lists. A couple of very long lists that I'm aware of are List of Greek mythological figures and List of Roman consuls. The first is well-trafficked, and the second is certainly useful and legitimate, with each consul considered inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN (one fine editor in particular chips away steadily at generating articles on these figures). So again, I don't see any grounds for objecting to the proposed list as a separate article in the form of a standalone list, but would prefer that each vase be demonstrably notable in its own right. However, Roo, you cannot limit the list by number, and if you don't see why, I must express my doubt that you haven't fully read and understood the criteria for creating a standalone list.