Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vital Articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.


December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022
February 1, 2008 85 47 84 145 25 669 1003
April 1, 2008 87 46 79 139 24 673 999
June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999
August 1, 2008 88 48 75 144 25 671 1000
October 1, 2008 88 49 73 143 25 684 1014
December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014
FA A GA B C Total
December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999
January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986
January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991
June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000
October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999
  • All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.
  1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
  2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
  4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.

Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

  • 15 days ago: 09:11, 07 August 2014 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 09:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 09:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Caspian Sea, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, and Lake Victoria[edit]

I tend to agree with the idea originally brought up in the Island discussion above that it's unnecessary to list these lakes. Removing these lakes would allow more room for cities, countries, or even rivers. I doubt that anyone would consider Shanghai, Seoul, South Korea, Los Angeles, Chicago, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Poland, Dubai, Frankfurt, or Berlin to be less important than these lakes. Even if some of these cities may be less important, most countries are still more vital (e.g. Vietnam, Ethiopia, Thailand, or South Korea). The lakes seem to be much less important than the oceans or the rivers. They should not be included simply because they are large. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support RJFJR (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Lake Baikal is the only one I'd be OK with removing at this point. Perhaps we need to add or swap in more notable rivers to improve or balance out our coverage of smaller bodies of water (say Tigris/Euphrates for the Caspian or Huang He or Indus or Ganges for Lake Baikal) but deleting these en masse without asking the question of what constitutes a level-3 vital article on hydrology doesn't make sense to me. (All the rivers I mentioned are significant because they're cradles of civilization; but if we list the cradle of civilization is it still necessary to list the river separately at this level?) I'd certainly consider all of these lakes more significant than Dubai or Frankfurt or any city that's only become notable in the 20th century. I think the Great Lakes are more vital than any city on their shores (Chicago included), just like the Mississippi's significance transcends that of New Orleans or St. Louis. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per Cobblet. Lithistman (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Caspian Sea. Neutral on the others. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems sensible. We removed Caribbean Sea a while back, I never supported or opposed, but I thought it odd to leave these lakes here and remove the Caribbean, that is larger and contains several island nations, plus mainland coasts, and kind has it's own unique interlinked culture, almost seems like we could put it back?. I have previously thought of some of the places you said too, as probably should be in, my own mental list of nation/region possibilities were South Korea/Korea, Ethiopia, Morocco, Argentina, Vietnam, Thailand, Poland, Scandinavia. Others seem to really dislike nations, not sure why, especially when we have 136 people, most nations are more important than most people, sure Einstein is more important than Trinidad and Tobago, but I doubt Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Frida Kahlo, Sergei Eisenstein etc are more important than any of those listed nations. Many of these nations were previously listed here in the 1000 and for a long time too, but removed without much/any discussion or any voting at all ages ago, I don't see why why we can't have some of them back. The contents of the list at the exact time we went into voted changes only was coincidence only, it could have locked down with them in but didn't, luck of the draw to those that made the ark.  Carlwev  13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I will probably support most of these removals. I'm fairly neutral with Caspian Sea at the moment. But on the subject of natural features, I would suggest adding the Amazon Rainforest. If hypothetically some of the geographical features currently listed such as Mount Everest were to disappear, it would not cause many issues for human society. OTOH, the environmental consequences of the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest are far greater. It is fundamental to our survival. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggested by that comment I looked and we hace forest but not rainforest as a vital article. Is rainforest distinct enough from forest that it should be added? RJFJR (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Tough questions to answer. I'd argue that the Great Lakes are as vital to North American history and geography as the Mississippi River, so I don't understand why you'd remove the former without also removing the latter. Also compare the Caspian to the Black Sea: is the former really more vital than the latter just because it's not connected to the other oceans? (Even the Volga seems more vital to me than the body of water it drains into.) Is Lake Baikal really more vital than the Ganges or Huang He?

I don't think it's necessary to list both the Amazon and the Amazon rainforest, but I find listing both forest and rainforest more acceptable. I think Gizza's right about Mt. Everest not being that vital, the quest to climb it being comparable to events like the race to the South Pole; so why include one but not the other? Maybe exploration as a general topic could be worth listing, particularly if major explorations after the Age of Discovery was merged into it.

I think Carlwev is simply right about most nations being more vital than most individual people. If there's any logic to prefer keeping Frida Kahlo as an article to represent Latin American culture over Colombia or Argentina, could the same logic not be used to support removing Bangladesh in order to add Rabindranath Tagore? Is there anyone who would actually support that swap? We currently list 136 people and 24 countries: personally, I think changing this ratio to 120 people and 40 countries, or even 100 people and 60 countries, would significantly improve the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm wary about the "absolute importance=vitality" metric that seems to be used in some of this discussion (examples: "most nations are more important than most people", "I doubt that anyone would consider be less important than these lakes"). I think a more fruitful way to assess vitality is "exemplary instance=vitality". In this system, we think about topics and what examples would we need to have a full-ish view of that topic. If someone were to take a course in a topic, what examples would be must-discuss. This allows us to work against biases towards certain topics (because our assessment of importance is definitely culturally shaped), avoids some of the very hard discussions about which composer is more important, and provides a richer, fuller list of vital articles. Having said that, a lake or body of water may be very relevant for a "exemplary instance=vitality" list. Certainly a list of the 1000 most vital topics which lacked any bodies of water would be quite suspect in terms of its coverage. Having said all that, I think the decision should be region-historical based: Has this body of water provided pivotal shaping influence on the culture of the region, more so than other geologic and natural forces? By this test, Mediterranean passes. Lake Baikal and Caspian Sea--probably not. Lake Victoria and Great Lakes...maybe. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I was speaking more to issues of balance: IMO the list has too many people and not enough countries. What do you actually mean by "pivotal shaping influence" though, and why does it not apply in the case of the Caspian? Because your other "exemplary instance" criterion would suggest that we should definitely include it as the world's largest lake/inland ocean. I imagine it would come up in a class as basic as middle school geography. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I think I'd probably cut differently on the people versus places distinction for more people, but yeah I think that might be more for a larger discussion. On this topic, there is a distinct difference between bodies of water which have developed some identity in the region and those which have not. The Mediterranean should be the ruler here. The Caspian is a big body of water, but its importance as the center of civilizational development, trade, etc. is limited to brief periods when compared with other seas: Black Sea, Red Sea, Caribbean Sea, Sea of Japan (sic), Bay of Bengal, Persian Gulf, Great Lakes, Dead sea, Lake Victoria and Baltic Sea are all probably closer to the Mediterranean than is the Caspian Sea in terms of maintaining a regional identity through history. Maybe, we say: OK, we need an inland sea for balance reasons. I'm fine with that. I suspect there is general agreement on Lake Baikal, and then we all will draw the line differently based upon various other issues. I'd support the inclusion of Great Lakes and Lake Victoria on a list (depending on space trade-offs), would neither support nor oppose Caspian Sea, and would probably oppose Baikal.AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I see. It's interesting that the fact the Caspian Sea isn't connected to other oceans diminishes its importance from a historic perspective (which I understand; I think even the Volga is more significant when viewed from that angle), but increases its uniqueness from a geographic perspective. Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes- I'm revising my conclusion (based on discussions and rereading some of the posts). Same logic as above (so not absolute vitality [x is greater than y], but exemplary vitality [x is a vital example of y]), but I think the category 'Lake' suffices for a list of this size. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions:, I agree with you that exemplary instance is another way to determine vitality, not just "absolute importance". There are diseases not even listed on the expanded list which are in the scheme of things more important than distant planets we list here such as Neptune. But the vital list should reflect Wikipedia's goal of giving everyone access to the sum of all human knowledge and therefore cover a breadth of topics. The vitality criteria for cities and the criteria for lakes will inevitably be different. It is difficult to compare them with each other. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been clear and this is my own fault as I thought and rethought about the topic. Here's the two systems clearly suggested: A. Vitality is importance. When we have two different topics, go with the one that most people would know about. So, Seoul>Lake Baikal (from the original nomination). B. Vitality is exemplary. When we have two different topics, go with the one which fills a topical niche that should be filled on a list of 1000 vital articles. So, do we have an example of an Asian mega-city? Yes so we don't need Seoul. Approach B aims exactly for breadth of topics. (In full application, rather than having multiple classical composers because each one is quite famous and important, we would have one or two and then have other niches to fill for other types of musicians). When I apply this to the specific question here. Approach A seems clearly to support removal of all four lakes and creating space for other additions. Approach B seems to allow them to be included if we decide that the category of 'Lake' itself is so important as to require sub-examples. Then we pick which lakes fill different niches (in this case, something like Big Freshwater, Big Saltwater, Artificial--maybe glacial also). However, while I would 100% support Cobblet's call for a meta-discussion on hydrological features, I think the breadth of the topic is achieved with the 'Lake' article and am not sure other examples are necessary. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Bhagavad Gita[edit]

The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, a work that is already on this list. There is no need to list both. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nominator's reasoning in the discussion regarding the OT and NT, as well as the Torah. Lithistman (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose If we should remove something, it should be the Mahabharata. The Bhagavad Gita is included because it is one of the three most vital articles about Hinduism (not including the main article). Christianity and Islam have four subarticles each while Buddhism and Hinduism have three each, which I think is reasonable considering each religion's history, current number of followers and general influence across society. At this level, the Mahabharata is vital only as a work of literature, not for any religious reason. It is more in line with the Iliad, Odyssey and the works actually listed alongside it (Don Quixote, Shahnameh, Epic of Gilgamesh). To avoid the overlap, the Mahabharata can be replaced with Ramayana or with a literary work from another region of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The Gita is primarily a philosophical work; while Mahabharata is primarily a mythological work. The Bhagavad Gita is the core of Hindu philosophy and has many commentaries on this regarding it as an independent work. The Mahabharata is VA in literature as it is the longest poem (or at least epic poem) in the world. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
note: The Bhagavad Gita is under Specific religions (Hinduism) while Mahabharata is under literature (works).
The article Mahabharata doesn't seem to go into detail on the Bhagavad Gita. Is the Bhagavad Gita a particularly important portion of the Mahabharata? RJFJR (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but Torah, a section of the Tanakh, is not on the list, and neither are the Old Testament or the New Testament, parts of the Bible. I don't think that the placement of the Mahabharata in literature rather than religion changes that much. Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
content is vital, I would list it as: "Bhagavad Gita, (either as independent article or as subsection of Mahabharata(see literature))". In the first case, Bhagavad Gita (the holy bit of the literature) would have its own article and in the second case it could have a redirect from the name space "Bhagavad Gita"Gregkaye (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think this overlap is appropriate when only 4 works of literature are listed—we don't even list the Iliad or any of Shakespeare's works! I'd be okay with removing the Mahabharata instead although. Could a possible replacement be Romance of the Three Kingdoms instead of the Ramayana? From what I've read, the Mahabharata is regarded as more vital than the Ramayana, but it isn't really compared with Romance. To quote from the article, "The novel is among the most beloved works of literature in East Asia, and its literary influence in the region has been compared to that of the works of Shakespeare on English literature. It is arguably the most widely read historical novel in late imperial and modern China." Malerisch (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Romance of the Three Kingdoms instead of The Analects is like listing Don Quixote at the expense of the Bible. It doesn't matter whether Jesus or Moses or Confucius are also listed; it simply doesn't make sense. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but I thought the Iliad removed because of possible overlap with Homer, and Hamlet might not have been added because William Shakespeare was already included. There's a significant overlap between Confucius and the Analects in that it's a collection of his sayings, so I'm not sure if Analects could be added in light of the two previous suggestions. But that would also mean not adding Romance either since it's less important. I suppose I'm not really sure how to solve the problem then—are there any other literary works of comparable importance that haven't already been mentioned? [Edit: Divine Comedy?] Or is this overlap not really a problem at all? Malerisch (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Although I just noticed that we list both Don Quixote and Miguel de Cervantes, so maybe listing both authors and their books isn't necessarily a problem. Malerisch (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The Analects and the Bible are more than just works of literature: they are documents upon which entire civilizations base their philosophy and way of life. That isn't true of Hamlet or Don Quixote; it was true of the Iliad for the ancient Greeks, but they're not around anymore. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right; Analects is a good add. Do you think swapping it with Mahabharata is a good idea? I still don't know what your opinion is on the overlap between it and Bhagavad Gita. Also, is there any reason that only 4 works of literature are listed? There's 6 genres of music, but I'm pretty sure that literature is more vital than music. Malerisch (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the opinions of people who've actually experienced Indian culture firsthand would be infinitely more valuable than anything I could say on the matter. A swap of Don Quixote for the Analects would make a lot of sense from my perspective, unpopular as that may be. Not sure why you'd compare literary works to music genres. Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Economy[edit]

Economy is a pretty essential article that is missing from both this and the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

#Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC) --> didn't check before I signed: we have Economics, that's enough at this level --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support It seems to me that economy is more fundamental than economics, which is the study of the economy. It would be like including zoology but not animal. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Just vital IMO. There is some difference between economy and economics to warrant both of their inclusions. For example, the types of economies (Market/Planned) and types of economics (Micro/Macro) deal with different topics and issues. I think economics is more vital. Economics is the study of the production and transfer of wealth and resources, not the study of economy. An economy is the total wealth and resources of a geographic entity. In reference to the zoology/animal analogy above, I believe economy is more like ecosystem than animal (but ecosystem is listed at this level too). Macroeconomics is the one branch of economics which studies the "economy". Microeconomics looks at the individual markets and individual buyers and sellers (i.e. the animals and plants). Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose already covered as the subject of the vital article Economics RJFJR (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that both Language and Linguistics, the study of language, are included, as are Politics and Political science, Society and Sociology, Land and Geography, and Mind and Psychology. I don't see why Economy and Economics should be different. I mentioned this on Level 2 as well. Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale behind these comparisons is faulty. The relationship between Economy and Economics is much closer than with any of the ones you listed. Especially Society and Sociology or Mind and Pschychology. Or Politics and Political science. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Empathy[edit]

A human quality that is so essential and meaningful to many areas, psychiatry, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. It is one of the hallmarks of the human species. Now that we are discussing if Human should be in the vital ten, we should also have some of the essentials of humanity on a higher level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, an essential, meaningful quality/ability, possessed by many humans, a number of primates and perhaps a few dogs. For many, the most important thing in life is to be understood. Gregkaye (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per AbstractIllusions. I don't think any complex emotions (despite many being essential to humanity) are vital at this level. The current basic four of happiness, love, anger and fear suffice. Gizza (t)(c) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought about it, read some great stuff on the topic, but at this point 'empathy' is not a vital article. It is something a lot of folks have thought about and tried to articulate, but it hasn't cohered into something that for me passes the test of 'vitality'. Even if I agree personally that it is the "essentials of humanity"--the justification for such is not well-supported in literature and is undermined by the many examples of humans acting without empathy. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions: It's been an essential concept for thousands of years in many religions, and was articulated in the relevant literature. For example it's a core topic in the bible. Also, its obvious meaning to ubiquitous aggression is documented in criminologic literature: the article on Psychopathy lists a psychiatric disease as one main reason for criminal behavior, Borderline personality disorder, one of the most important symptoms is the lack of empathy. I could go on about the meaning in Neuroscience: scientists were able to show empathy on an MRI scan, but I agree it's recentist. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza: The rationale you're giving shows a recentist bias, because these four emotions are psychological (individualistic) rather than group psychological (or group-sociological). Psychology is only about a hundred years old. What could be considered group-sociology's predecessor, religion, is much older. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Melody Lavender:, there are religious views on the listed emotions as well. See Religion and happiness and Religious views on love. I just can't see what makes empathy different from pride, envy, remorse, embarrassment and curiosity. There are so many emotions that define human nature. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't voted on this at all yet, however one emotion type of article I've had on my mind for ages is Humour, that's also included in the core 150 articles.  Carlwev  12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Human Brain[edit]

I think the lack of a human anatomy section is an obvious giant gaping hole in this project. The anatomical articles we do list in the biology section are on animal anatomy and I am not convinced that we need a lot of veterinary information on this level. We do list brain in that section. Human brain I think is at least as vital or even more vital. I know there are many vital organs in the anatomical sense of the word, but the most vital for the VA project is Human brain, because it is the distinguishing feature that sets humans apart from animals.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose At this level I don't think anything on human anatomy apart from human body is needed. I see we list human gastrointestinal tract which I'd be comfortable replacing with digestion. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't at the 10'000 level yet, presumably it would have higher chance there instead, or at least first?  Carlwev  12:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should perhaps have a general discussion on general (animal) anatomical articles vs human anatomy. I definitely won't support both brain and human brain at this level (I doubt many others will too). Even at the 10K level, I will probably only support around 10 duplicated body parts at most. I think it will be ridiculous to have 50 articles on human anatomy and the same 50 articles in a general sense. Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There're a number of forms of nervous systems that might be highlighted from a basic sensory perception leading to a basic reaction, to animals that can migrate with great precision, to animals with rapid physical responses, to animals with advanced echo location abilities to Wikipedians like you and me. Gregkaye (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative to human brain, how about intelligence instead? They cover similar ground, and I think it's strange that we list artificial intelligence but not the overarching concept. Malerisch (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence is a good idea. Better than artificial intelligence. Gizza (t)(c) 04:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Zoroaster or Zoroastrianism?[edit]

Whilst talking about religion, we list Zoroaster in people, religious figures, but not Zoroastrianism in religion. Is this the right way? We have Abraham and Moses but I doubt we would list them before Judaism. Compare to this, we list Sikhism, and it's never come up for removal, but we removed the founder of that religion Guru Nanak Dev,(See here) with 6-0 support, he we preferred the religion to the founder. Also comparing the religion to the man, the religion Zoroastrianism is in slightly more languages and is a slightly longer article than it's founder. Also we know so much about the religion and it's following in ancient Persia, but we seem to be slightly more patchy on the man himself, a bit like Moses we are not even completely sure what century he lived in. Should we list the religion or the founder, or both?  Carlwev  13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd support swapping the founder for the religion. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy change: Articles in Level 3 but not in Level 4 are to be discussed on Level 4[edit]

The following 15 articles are currently in the Level 3 list but not in the Expanded list:

  1. Arab–Israeli conflict
  2. Modernism
  3. Postmodernism
  4. Golden Rule
  5. Job
  6. Personal life
  7. Brahmic scripts
  8. Fishing industry
  9. Autoimmune disease
  10. Gastroenteritis
  11. Imperial and US customary measurement systems
  12. Solar energy
  13. Semiconductor device
  14. nth root
  15. Shape

Should these be nominated individually or as a group to Level 4? Malerisch (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out (and all your other recent contributions as well – the amount of effort you've put in is astounding). As tedious as it is, I think nominating them individually is a better idea, mainly because I think they're likely to spark discussions that are best kept separate from one another: should we include both fishing and fishing industry or both modernism and modern art on Level 4, should we be removing some of these articles from Level 3 (nth root still bugs me), etc. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see this discussion here and reverted all nominations on the level 4 talk page. The VA list is per definition nested. Everything that is on a higher level is automatically on a lower level. Or at least should be. If it's not it's an oversight that can be fixed without discussion. If we go about the problem the way you are suggesting, we'll end up in total chaos. I started correcting the mistake, adding articles that are missing on the lower level list. If there are any doubles to be removed, they should be listed individually and discussed as usual, on the highest applicable level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I received the following response from Cobblet on my talk page:
Sorry, are you planning to add all the articles Malerisch has pointed out are in level 3 but not level 4? I reverted your discussion closes because we've usually been discussing them before we add them, just to let everyone else know what's going on; but that was before I noticed you were adding them in yourself. Personally I have no problem with it, but that doesn't seem to be how we've been doing things recently. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that the link underneath 'recently' doesn't constitute a precedent for Cobblet's position at all. This and other links to socalled precedents show that Cobblet has done this several times before and was usually softly criticized for it by other users. I am unware that anybody else would ever have posted a proposal to remove something from level 3 on the talk page of level 4. (Or lured a newbie into doing that)
Cobblet, you have singlehandedly installed a policy change without giving us a rationale. This posting is to let everyone know that this has happened. It's necessary to tell people that because it's hard to guess and not written down anywhere, after all, so we should let people know. You should have initiated a discussion on this policy change first. But first off, I'd like to know why on earth would you want that? If you think postmodernist philosophy isn't vital, you can list it at any time on level 3 anyway. So why? --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Melody Lavender provides a cogent argument to add the articles automatically. Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal considering that it should happen infrequently from now on. (I think a better example that Cobblet could have given is this.) Malerisch (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The nominator in that link is also Cobblet. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Melody Lavender, there's no official policy written down because there's no official policy to begin with: how can I "install a policy change" when none exists? True, the example I gave you was not the best, but it was merely one of the latest in a series of similar proposals dating back to last August, when pbp posed the exact same question here without a receiving a response; people just !voted the usual way. I followed that precedent here and the proposal immediately following it, as well as here; nobody seemed to mind. Hence the opinion in the original link I gave you. I agree it's strange not to add them automatically (if I didn't explicitly comment to that effect somewhere in the archives, I know I was at least thinking it at the time of the Leeuwenhoek proposal), but what's the harm in having a little more discussion?
I'm also not sure if I'm being misunderstood here: if something needs to be removed from the level 3 list I agree it should obviously be !voted on this forum. That hasn't always been the case either: there's this proposal which happened on the other board. So yes, the situation you are unaware of having happened has happened before, and it wasn't at my initiative either. I know few people contribute to these forums so frequently that they're aware of everything that's transpired (even I don't), but next time, please don't immediately try to publicly shame people without first trying to understand the situation more fully. I'm sorry I didn't give you a better opportunity to do so in my original message to you, but you could've asked nicely for more precedents rather than announcing to the world how grievously I've wronged you. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me or something? The link to pbp's proposal shows that the question whether we should add something automatically or not has already been voted on and it was supported. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I was trying to combine the ideas (auto add all 15 and then we collectively figure out where overlaps/redundancies might be), but I think that may be too complex. Individual proposal for each one I think is the best way to add them in a coherent fashion that prevents future cleaning issues (the fishing/fishing industry issue). Blanket automatic add will, I think, introduce more problems than it is worth in the long run. (Let me say finally, that I am unsure about the "necessity of nesting" argument that started this discussion. While some nesting is generally desirable, it is completely fine if there are spaces where nesting does not occur, where the specifics of a topic become more vital at higher levels of disaggregation than the umbrella term. The key is to make sure that such decisions are done consciously and not the result of gaps in coherence like these appear to be). Added: I am striking that parenthetical note. In no way did I want to open a larger discussion about the logic of nesting nor establish loose-nesting as a guideline here. I simply wanted to lay bare the basis of my own logic. Please ignore. AGF all. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

nth root[edit]

About nth root: It's a basic arithmetic operation. It covers both square root and cube root and all the other roots (if we didn't have it we'd need to add square root as vital and then discuss cube root). And, it and logarithm are the inverse functions for exponentiation. RJFJR (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note: We should add Inverse function. Function and also logarithm are on level 3, inverse function is not on even on level 4. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)]

Energy Section[edit]

The energy section is strongly slanted towards renewable sources. Three renewables are listed (Hydro, Solar, Wind) while only one fossil fuel is listed (petroleum). Coal and natural gas on their own are more widely supplied and consumed than all renewable sources combined. Whether the environmental effects are adverse or not isn't really relevant. Both good and evil things can be listed as long as they are vital (for example, the Holocaust and Movement for Civil Rights). Among renewables, biomass/biofuel is the most widely used source right now (followed by hydro) and it isn't even on Level 4. In 2035, renewable energy is still only estimated to make up one third of world energy usage. I believe the main criterion for determining vitality in energy is whether human society was/is reliant on that energy source historically and currently (or at most in the near future). The major fossil fuels fit that criterion. I suggest adding coal and natural gas at the very least. (Source) Gizza (t)(c) 05:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • there is a section on fossil fuels for chemical energy dug out of the ground. I'm not sure if everyone has coal and gas. Arguably hydro and wind power could be grouped together but they generally work in different spheres.
  • I rank coal and natural gas higher in vitality than any form of renewable energy—they are, after all, the main sources of energy (along with petroleum) for the world. However, I wouldn't associate "evil" with them: although they've certainly had deleterious effects on the environment, their benefits outweigh their drawbacks (e.g. Industrial Revolution). Malerisch (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Malerisch:, I agree with you. They are not "evil". I was just anticipating what a possible oppose vote might say to the additions of coal and natural gas. I still haven't proposed them formally yet because I'm not sure if coal and natural should be added and/or if some renewables forms of energy should be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 04:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've long considered suggesting a swap of fossil fuel for coal and natural gas. In this case I think the specific fuels are more vital than the umbrella topic. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts....We previously had petroleum, I suggested coal as an add over a year ago, someone morphed it into swapping petroleum out for fossil fuels in. I think oil gas and coal could all be in, like you said if we have hydro, solar and wind which are all renewables, and could feasibly just be covered by that there's no reason why we can't have all 3 fossil fuels. They are, as I think already pointed out, more vital than the 3 types of renewable historically and economically etc...Also we don't have just plain "Fuel" is that worth any thought? Fuel's included at the alternative core 150 articles here which I always used to look at, I would support fuel myself.  Carlwev  10:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I would support fuel as well. How about a swap with gasoline, which is a type of fuel and is also covered by petroleum? Malerisch (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that fuel as a concept in itself is a bit redundant with fire and energy. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Coal and Natural gas[edit]

Per the discussion above. Gizza (t)(c) 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, fossil fuel is enough, and I can't imagine removing that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also support removing fossil fuel. Malerisch (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If fossil fuel is enough, then isn't renewable energy enough? That would mean removing petroleum, hydropower, solar energy and wind power, leaving us with fossil fuel, nuclear power and renewable energy. It would also leave us with gasoline a petroleum-derived fuel. Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Human overpopulation (possibly as subcategory of "Overpopulation" as is done in most Wikipedias)[edit]

Society and social sciences;
>Social issues
can we add:
>>>"Human overpopulation (possibly as sub category of Overpopulation)"; "Human overpopulation" or "Overpopulation".

According to I = PAT, Human environmental IMPACT = POPULATION × AFFLUENCE × TECHNOLOGY. the basic idea being total impact is number of people times their average impact.

  • There are listings about business, economics, money, and industry,
  • There is a listing for cooking and 21 listings for food and drink.
  • there are many articles relating to human health including one on Birth Control.
  • In science there are 11 listings under climate.
  • In technology there's loads of stuff on energy and types of equipment that use it.

There needs to be something to quantify the people that are involved with all these things.

To quote a couple of vital individuals:

Albert Einstein “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.”

Nelson Mandela “Solving overpopulation is NOT a technical challenge. It is a political one. We must summon the courage to reject the common, entrenched mindset of the nay-sayers and embrace a shared vision of a future world with 2-3 billion healthy, prosperous people. Overpopulation is SOLVABLE. It always seems impossible until it is done.”

and a less vital individual:
Peter Scott, founder of World Wildlife Fund, commented:
“If the human population of the world continues to increase at its current rate, there will soon be no room for either wild life or wild places…But I believe that sooner or later man will learn to limit his overpopulation. Then he will be much more concerned with optimum rather than maximum, quality rather than quantity, and will recover the need within himself for contact with wilderness and wild nature.”

English Wikipedia has Human overpopulation which runs parallel to Overpopulation in other Wikipedias so maybe a listing could cover Overpopulation/Human overpopulation.

to make sense of following comments my originally formed proposal (here) had also made prominent mention of biodiversity, extinction and Human impact on the environment with that last article suggestion now being proposed under its own heading below.

Biodiversity is already listed on level 4 (on the science subpage), and Extinction is already on level 3. I would support the addition of biodiversity to level 3, and I would also consider supporting the addition of Human impact on the environment to level 3. The list is not about popularity by the way, it's about vitality. We try to determine if an article is vital for an encycopedia. Those can be but aren't necessarily popular articles. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye:Oh, and the voting process is explained at the top of the page. There have to be five support votes before the article can be added! --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Human impact on the environment[edit]

The title Human impact on the environment isn't as popular but, on a region to region basis, this type of article may have built from possible component parts: Deforestation , Desalination , Desertification , Environmental impact , of agriculture , of aviation , of biodiesel , of concrete , of electricity generation , of the energy industry , of fishing , of irrigation , of mining , of off-roading , of oil shale industry , of palm oil , of paper , of the petroleum industry , of reservoirs , of shipping , of war , Industrialisation , Land degradation , Land reclamation , Overconsumption , Pollution , Quarrying , Urbanization , Loss of green belts , Urban sprawl , Waste , Water scarcity , Overdrafting.

If you have pollution on the list, why not human impacts on the environment? Gregkaye (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support Gregkaye (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
quote from above :) "I would also consider supporting the addition of Human impact on the environment to level 3. The list is not about popularity by the way, it's about vitality. We try to determine if an article is vital for an encycopedia. Those can be but aren't necessarily popular articles. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer a swap with environmentalism and/or pollution. Malerisch (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentrism and recentism in History[edit]

The current History section is too Eurocentric and recentist. I'll first provide evidence and then suggest ways to rectify this problem. Beginning with Eurocentrism:

  • Why is Middle Ages included instead of post-classical history? Middle Ages refers to a period specific to medieval Europe, not to the entire world.
  • A majority of the articles in the "Middle Ages" section deal with Europe. By my count, only Mongol Empire and Tang dynasty are firmly outside European history (Islamic Golden Age is debatable).
  • Two articles are listed dealing with the history of Christianity: East–West Schism and Protestant Reformation. They're certainly intertwined with the history of Europe, but this still seems excessive. What about Hinduism or Buddhism?
  • The bias toward European history is most evident in the "Renaissance to present" section. How many articles don't deal with European history? There is almost zero coverage on Indian or Chinese history.
  • There are two articles dealing with French history in a very short period: French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. This is too detailed.

And a couple of notes on recentism:

  • We place too much focus on modern history: the number of articles in prehistory, ancient history, and post-classical history combined only just beats the number for modern history.
  • There's also a major bias toward the 20th century: we list an astounding 12 articles! That's more than all of post-classical history. Yes, we should cover the 20th century in more detail, but not by this much.

Next, some suggested additions:

And some suggested removals, in reverse chronological order:

Most events in history took place in Afro-Eurasia, so I didn't add any articles about the Americas or Oceania. I'm also not sure if any specific articles on Africa deserve to be included. Anyway, those are my suggestions, and I'd be interested to see what others think. Malerisch (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick read of what you wrote Malerisch. In general, I agree with your comments especially the recentist bias (I don't think the Eurocentric bias is as bad in comparison but will take a further look). At first glance, I will support removing Korean War (at most equal to Vietnam and part of the wider Cold War anyway) and adding the Maurya Empire. Not sure if I can support removing European colonization of the Americas. The Age of Discovery tends to focus on the exploration rather than colonial aspects. The former article covers the major portions of the Spanish Empire and Portuguese Empire. It wasn't just relevant for the people of Europe and Americas, it lead to the Atlantic Slave Trade which affected much of Western Africa. I will also need think about how many empires we should have vs non-empire articles. Gizza (t)(c) 03:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to have 3 or 4 articles each on the Middle East, India and China (as well as many on Europe obviously) it might be a good idea to expand coverage of Pre-Colombian America. Currently there is only Mesoamerica. Perhaps replace that with or simply add Aztec Empire, Inca Empire and Maya civilization? Then there is also Southeast Asia to consider. Maybe History of Southeast Asia? Then again, Southeast Asia is not listed and neither is East Asia while we list History of East Asia. We also have the option of listing Silk Road which connected much of Eurasia as well as some of Africa. Gizza (t)(c) 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with the diagnosis, but disagree with the treatment. The suggestions seem to focus predominantly on formal political entities and recommends deletions of vital topics (Great Depression is more vital than any empire ever). Just because an empire had a lot of people does not translate into vitality in this list, in my opinion. Some of these changes, I would fully support (e.g. remove Korea War). However, on the whole, I would once again suggest moving away from a system where something is deemed vital because "it controlled almost half of the world's population" (a route which leads only to madness and false comparisons between things which are not comparable) and instead move to consider what vital niches a topic fills in a comprehensive list of vital history articles (I'd even suggest starting not with the topics themselves and comparing things which don't compare but start with what niches we would want filled, for example, 700-1400 East Asian Civilization, and then debating what is the most vital topic to fit in that position). One final note: While the suggestions may correct some bias, as noted by the nominator, it does this in a Eastward direction and does not include much of the Southern hemisphere or Western hemisphere. Worthy of attention. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
On the removals you propose, I get behind 1, 2, 3 and 7; not really so much on 4, 5 and 6. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon, one that was responsible for the Holocaust and World II more than any other event (with the possible exception of World War I). If I had to axe one of French Revolution or Napoleonic Wars, I'd axe the Napoleonic Wars. pbp 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(If we're going to refer to these by numbers then maybe we should go back and change them from bullets to numbered to make it easy. RJFJR (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC))
  • I'll tell you another bias we have: there are a shitton of wars on this list. pbp 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the fact we have many articles on recent history is to be unexpected or necessarily a problem. Which am I more likely to need to read to understand a news report: an article about events in the 20th century or an article about what happened over a thousand years ago? We don't want to be exclusively modern, or unduly about modern articles, but we don't want to ignore them just because they are recent. (Everything in its proper balance.) RJFJR (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of the suggestions made, but I don't think the obvious recentist Eurocentrism is a problem. I.e. I agree with the treatment, but not the diagnosis. Population exploded over the course of the existence of mankind, so naturally there is more and more history to write about with the population increasing and with the concentration of the human population in Europe for a large part of history. Concerning removals I agree with every point in Pbp's posting. Most of the adds proposed by Malerisch I would support, except for Abbasid Caliphate. I can't imagine swapping Middle Ages with post-classical history. I don't think two articles on Christian history are OTT, because they are so intertwined with politics. If there is anything comparable in Buddhism, yes, it should be added. Also I think Fall of the Western Roman Empire is a huge omission. It should be on level 3, obviously.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. We do have Rome, Ancient Rome, Byzantine Empire (aka Eastern Roman Empire), Holy Roman Empire and Augustus and Julius Caesar
  2. We don't have Fall of the Western Roman Empire, as pointed out, but we also don't have Western Roman Empire itself, nor even Roman Empire itself either, or Roman Republic.

I am aware there are overlaps, like Ancient Rome with Roman Empire, but Ancient Rome could overlap with well lots. Would we want The fall of the Western Roman Empire before the Western Roman Empire itself, or even the Roman Empire itself. If the Roman Empire is covered by Ancient Rome, then so too is the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and also Caesar and Augustus.....As I said before everything can be covered in part by something else, we have to decide which topics are still important enough on their own for inclusion in spite of that fact a parent topic of sorts may be there too. BTW Ancient Rome covers Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and The Fall of the Western Roman Empire and more within the article. If we were to add one more to this area I would probably add Roman Empire. As always I think more discussion and voting threads are needed to work through ideas and find consensus.  Carlwev  13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, everyone! Here are my responses:

  • It seems like Great Depression and European colonization of the Americas are here to stay. That's okay, and I think your arguments make sense.
  • I have no problem with adding some articles to Pre-Columbian history. In addition to the three empires that Gizza listed, Pre-Columbian era is worth considering as well, possibly as a swap with Mesoamerica. Silk Road is also worthy of consideration.
  • I don't think the latitude bias is a problem: around 90% of the human population currently resides in the Northern Hemisphere (and probably more in the past), and I can't find any significant events/entities besides Inca Empire that deserve mention.
  • I'm not sure whether French Revolution or Napoleonic Wars is more vital (my initial proposal suggested removing Napoleonic Wars instead); either one (or even both) is fine with me.
  • To Melody Lavender specifically: I agree that that there is more to write about for recent history, but there is a line between balanced and excessive coverage of modern history. We will still have more events concentrated toward recent history, even with the removals.
  • Roman Empire could also be added.
  • We need to remain aware of how big the proposed net addition to History should be, especially since we're not removing Great Depression and European colonization of the Americas and probably adding some to the Americas. Would anyone support removing Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age instead? They are divisions of prehistory, but we don't list divisions of the other periods (e.g. Classical antiquity, High Middle Ages, or Early modern period).
  • Honest question: what about removing The Holocaust? It is covered in World War II. I'll understand if people want to keep it though.

Does anyone else want to suggest possible removals? There are too many possible additions at the moment. Malerisch (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: an alternative to removing these history topics would be to start cutting people. To borrow a list that Carlwev proposed above, people like Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Frida Kahlo, and Sergei Eisenstein are not as vital as these history topics. Malerisch (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Napoleon himself is also listed, I support removing Napoleonic Wars and keeping French Revolution. Gizza (t)(c) 11:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the 'Latitude' comment was directed at my comments. I'll be clearer: A Sahel civilization should be included on any vital list. Non-Islamic Africa has only 'History of Africa' and 'Scramble for Africa' for vital articles in history. Ghana or Mali seem the most likely, but there are of course other possible additions. Such attention to capturing the diversity of human experience in a list and not simply attention to the most people bias is the best way to deal with eurocentric and recentist bias. A second comment below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment 2, If I were constructing the list in my imaginary dictatorship (a truly horrible place to visit): It would see the removal of the entire History by Regions section which should be captured by the rest of the list (8 free spots right there), Civilization can be removed, Sumer (wasn't the first city state in Mesopotamia (already covered) and then it gets hard to parse which city state was most vital), swap Achaemenid Empire with Maruya or something, Middle Ages: Byzantine Empire, Crusades, East-West Schism, Ottoman Empire, and Viking age--cut, cut, cut, cut. Modern era: one of French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars, Abolitionism (If Atlantic slave trade isn't vital, why would abolitionism be?), Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Women's Suffrage (prefer replaced with feminism or something), Arab-Israeli conflict, Korean War (looks already done), Movements for Civil Rights (replaced with either human rights or decolonization. I would neither support nor oppose removal of the Holocaust leaving that up to other editors. I like the History of other subjects section and would only do minor tinkering with it. But that's just me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Some interesting ideas in your imaginary dictatorship, escpecially about the history by region-section. Cutting Woman Suffrage or Movements for civil rights? I can't imagine. The latter is about much more than Decolonialization. Atlantic slave trade, currently on level 4, should be on level 3. And: No, I would not support removing The Holocaust and it's not covered by WWII. There are many aspects of this gigantic real life enactment of the Milgram experiment that go beyond the typical war-article-routine. Napoleonic wars are coverd by the French Revolution, they are part of it, the article confirms that.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
But aren't Sahel civilizations still above the Equator? Empire of Brazil is probably a better article to include if you want to reduce the Northern Hemisphere bias. Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the Inca Empire, Bantu expansion and Srivijaya Empire are major Southern Hemisphere events/entities. Not sure if either is vital but they are close. Srivijaya along with the Khmer Empire was one of the two big empires of Southeast Asia for more than 500 years. The Khmer is represented on the list via Angkor Wat. I don't think anything in particular from Oceania is near vital at this level. Possibly History of Oceania itself but again it depends on how many history of regions vs specific events and periods we want. Gizza (t)(c) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The current list and your proposed amendments privilege Europe, North America, the Middle East, India, Russia, and China. I apologize for using the "hemisphere" as a shorthand label, but it was just to draw the topics in a generally southern direction. We should get greater historical additions from Sub-Saharan Africa (Mali, Ghana, Zulu, Ashanti), Southeast Asia (Gizza makes fine suggestions), Latin America, and Oceania (if possible). I think that would be better than correcting the Euro-bias with additional Chinese and Indian civilizations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But those are the places where most humans have lived in the past; they are also the places with the best historical records; they have every reason to be privileged. I'm late to the party, but FTR here's what I think:
  • The Zhou dynasty is worth adding and maybe the Song as well, but not the Ming or Qing.
  • Would support the Gupta and Mughal Empires, maybe the Maurya (would also look into adding Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka) but probably not the Vedic period.
  • Would keep Mesoamerica and add Pre-Columbian era and the Inca Empire (swap with Machu Picchu – architectural works remain overrepresented). Would swap Angkor for any larger topic in Southeast Asian history. Would swap Sumer for the Abbasid Caliphate.
  • Would definitely swap Middle Ages for post-classical history. Would swap Russia's empire for Spain's. Would get rid of the East-West Schism – this plus the Reformation but not the Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam is undue weight toward Christianity.

Cobblet (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) The Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam would be a good addition to Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 12:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


6-0 Removed Gizza (t)(c) 12:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Korean War[edit]

Based on the discussion on the history section above, consensus seems to be forming for the removal of the Korean War. It is part of the already listed Cold War. No more vital than the Vietnam War. No more vital than wars within other major wars such as Pacific War or Eastern Front (World War II). There are varying opinions on the emphasis of wars and 20th century events but there are other modern conflicts which are not covered by anything at all currently such as Gulf War and War on Terror unlike Korea (not that I suggest adding them). Gizza (t)(c) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Too many wars, too much stuff from the 20th century, too many topics that cover this anyway, take your pick. pbp 16:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per pbp etal RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per already covered as part of Cold War. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Napoleonic Wars[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any opposition to removing these, so I'm starting some formal removal threads. We already list French Revolution, and there are more important wars in history. (See above discussion for details.) Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support covered by French Revolution and Napoleon. Keeping this is like having Wars of Alexander the Great along with Alexander the Great. Gizza (t)(c) 05:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support part of the French Revolution, not necessary at this level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removed 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Arab–Israeli conflict[edit]

Not that vital (see above). It's a localized conflict that didn't even make it onto the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nomination. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per Malerisch. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose this armed conflict has been going on for 70 or so years. Due to the length alone I think it's vital. The list is still tilted towards an American POV. This article could add a hint of balance. Another long term conflict that is missing are the Ottoman wars in Europe which famously include the Crimean War.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Length alone does not make a war vital: based on that reasoning, Hundred Years' War, Roman–Persian Wars, Punic Wars, and American Indian Wars should all be on the list. I don't see how this conflict can stay when Mongol invasions and conquests and Muslim conquests aren't on the list, which were both much longer and more consequential. As I mentioned in my justification above, how is this more vital than Arab–Byzantine wars (part of the Muslim conquests), which was longer as well, or the Manchu conquest of China, or the Taiping Rebellion? None of these additions would add American POV to the list, either. Malerisch (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

At this level, we should probably avoid having the empire and their wars listed. Ottoman wars in Europe and Mongol invasions and conquests are too similar to Ottoman Empire and Mongol Empire respectively. It is like listing Third Reich and Japanese Empire alongside World War 2. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I don't think they should be listed either. I was just using the Mongol invasions and conquests to justify why the Arab–Israeli conflict shouldn't be included. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removed 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Revolutions of 1989[edit]

Should be covered in Soviet Union, Communism, and Cold War. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as covered by larger articles. RJFJR (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support We don't need to list both the Cold War and the end of the Cold War. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support 3 articles on the one topic in history (Soviet Union, Cold War and this) is excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, is vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removed 5-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Movements for civil rights[edit]

Even if we agree that the civil rights movement should be included, this is the wrong article to include to refer to that movement. There was no global movement for civil rights (any google scholar or google books search will reveal no real sources). 90% of references in RSs are to the U.S. Civil Rights movement, with most of the rest referring to the Northern Ireland movements. But the OR article Movements for civil rights includes examples like Communist movements in Germany and anti-Communist movements in Prague together with no clear reason. Alternatives could be to either: A) include something about the international human rights movement (an international movement with actual literature about it as opposed to the movement for civil rights), B) The U.S. Civil Rights movement, which appears to be the usage in every encyclopedia, or C) Point to other global movements in the post-World War II era (Decolonization is probably the most important of these). Regardless, the Movements for civil rights article should not be on the vital articles list. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as Nominator. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nomination. Gizza (t)(c) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Agree that the article is an uneasy synthesis of tenuously related topics. Would support removing abolitionism and swapping women's suffrage for suffrage. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose, in this case I think the more general article is important. There can be additional examples, but the basic overview article should be there. The rationale given (article is not developed and is lacking sources) is not something that decides vitality. It will have sources some day, and there is no doubt literature about these important issues. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not an issue of waiting for sources someday to justify the general article, this is an article that didn't occur. There was never a "worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." This didn't occur. There won't ever be sources for things that didn't happen. The general thing didn't happen in this case. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but if this article really does not meet WP:RS, shouldn't it be nominated at WP:AFD, let alone removed from VA? Malerisch (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It will be sent to AFD once I get a book from interlibrary loan just to confirm that there are no reliable sources for the topic. But I'd rather not nominate it for deletion (really not deletion--but turning it into a disambiguation page) until it is completely clear. Regardless, that discussion is exclusive of this one. Even if the page is voted notable, that doesn't make it a vital article. Look at any encyclopedia for an article that is similar in scope to this one and tell me when you find one (I looked in 11 and found no "global civil rights movements" articles at all). We should not list an article in the Vital Articles that is not in any encyclopedia at all. That should be a basic first condition: Is the article listed in any other encyclopedia? If not, then it can't possibly be vital. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Melody. Neljack (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Women's suffrage too. Not because it is an unimportant topic but I don't think human rights articles are suitable for the history section. At the moment the article on women's suffrage is mostly structured like a list and just mentions when various countries gave women the right to vote. It can be improved but I don't think the intention of the article is to talk about the history of women's suffrage. There are better ways to cover particular human rights. Women's rights is an option but there is a strong overlap with feminism and sexism. Articles like gender, abortion and birth control are somewhat related too.

Then again, we shouldn't go too far in covering civil rights and women's rights when there are so many human rights issues and forms of discrimination. We've got plenty of general human rights articles (human rights, civil liberties, discrimination, political freedom, justice) while articles such as sexualism/homophobia, ableism (discrimination against people with disabilities), sizeism and anti-left handedness are not even on the list. Honestly, I think our coverage of rights is already adequate. If there is scope for addition, maybe suffrage itself or universal suffrage is a good idea. Gizza (t)(c) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I will support Decolonization too although that might make colonialism redundant as the biggest colonial empires and events are already listed separately. Gizza (t)(c) 06:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article is OR, should it be removed from level 4 as well? Malerisch (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It can be replaced with African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) is already listed at Level 4. The non-US aspects of the Civil Rights Movement as mentioned above is OR. Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it appears not to be clear, this article is not vital. Clarity:

  • "In contemporary political thought, the term ‘civil rights’ is indissolubly linked to the struggle for equality of American blacks during the 1950s and 60s" -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Only listed of American Civil Rights Movement -Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Definition of civil rights movement for Merriam Webster: "Movement for racial equality in the U.S. that, through nonviolent protest, broke the pattern of racial segregation in the South and achieved equal rights legislation for blacks." Merriam Webster
  • Sociology: A Global Perspective provides the standard description. This is a text with an explicitly global perspective and which deals with other racial and rights movements in their own terms. The Civil Rights movement is reserved for the U.S. context.
  • VIAF shows no library headings at any of the top libraries in the world for "Civil Rights movements".

Now, yes there were some other movements for "civil rights" in Northern Ireland (with some texts comparing it with the U.S. experience) and some movements in Canada, and the civil rights banner has been taken up by other movements in the U.S. and Canada. But-"Movements for civil rights" never existed and is not listed in other resources. This is not a case of a page being underdeveloped, the page is actually over-developed and includes too much stuff, but a case of listing an article that goes against near-universal usage and the context in 99% of RSs. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove East–West Schism[edit]

Protestant Reformation is already listed, and it's excessive to list two articles on the history of Christianity when significant historical events from other religions are not listed. Where are the Succession to Muhammad and (as Cobblet pointed out) the Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam? Or the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism? Vedic period isn't listed, either. Malerisch (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support It's not like there isn't coverage of this in Eastern Orthodox Church. Meanwhile the immediate political consequences of the Protestant Reformation were much more severe. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


We have simple machine, Mechanical engineering, tool, Wheel and several machines dotted about like several engines, vehicles, weapons, and electronic, media, communication devices. We don't have Machine. Also we don't have Mechanics at lev3 but we have Classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics. I would have thought machine is at least lev 3 material anyone else agree?.  Carlwev  14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Machine seems like a good add. I think classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are more important than the general mechanics article, though. Malerisch (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely vital. Swap with Simple machine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Simple machine is also vital. (Note: simple machine does not mean a machine that is simple, it refers to a specific class of basic devices that are components of other machines.) RJFJR (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Machine[edit]

I'll open this for the reasons stated above, several others appear to like it. Someone else can suggest removing simple machine if they want to, I'm not sure on that. Machine like tool is a basic and vital tech article and wouldn't be that out of place in the vital 100, we list several machines already as I said above.  Carlwev  22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support  Carlwev  22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Other than the fact that one has white English-speaking people and one doesn't, I'm not sure how Canada gets in ahead of Thailand. Red Slash 04:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple takes on this. One consideration that I believe was taken in account when the list of countries was being compiled was continental diversity. This explains why Australia is on the list but not Canada since North America is well represented with the United States and Mexico. The other as you say, is a preference towards native English-speaking countries. There is also the fact that Canada in terms of area is huge. Most information on countries is about it's people but some of it is about its territory, climate and wildlife and those aspects, Canada is quite vital.
Having said that, I still think Thailand should be on the list. Maybe Vietnam, Ethiopia and Argentina too? The number of countries can be bumped up a little. We're under the limit and even if we have to make cuts, there are many sections that can be cut. Inside geography, the ratio of cities to countries should probably go down. There are not many cities that are as vital as the major countries of the world. It is often just the cpital or biggest city of the same listed countries anyway so there is overlap. Very few of the cities are from countries not on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 06:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's my take on your question: the only major statistic where Thailand beats Canada is population (67 million vs. 35 million). Other than that, the following statistics show that Canada is more vital than Thailand:
That being said, there have been proposals to add more countries. I don't think that the language a country speaks should be taken into account, though. Malerisch (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The only vital statistic where Earth beats the Antennae Galaxies is also population. While Canada is richer and bigger (and again, far better-represented on Wikipedia) it is far, far less important in the most crucial of all statistics. (Australia? It's really not listed for its status as a country; it's there for the same reason that Antarctica is.) Red Slash 03:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I'm also not quite sure what Italy as a country has done to merit its placement here ahead of Thailand. It's a country that occupies the land that was made famous by the Romans, but... Red Slash 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
If population is used as the single criterioon for inclusion of countries, then Vietnam and Ethiopia are more vital than Thailand. Replacing the current list of 24 countries with the 24 most populated countries will lead to including Vietnam, Ethiopia, Thailand and Burma and removing Canada, Spain, South Africa and Australia (possibly replaced with Australia (continent) although Oceania is already listed). Italy will stay using this method. The difference between the populations of Thailand and Italy is only about 4 million anyway. And Italy has been politically and culturally influential beyond its borders far more than Thailand has. Not just the Romans but the Catholic Church, Maritime Republics, Marco Polo, Renaissance, Pasta, Pizza, Mussolini, Sicilian Mafia, Ferrari, Giorgio Armani and other brands. Gizza (t)(c) 04:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
India currently has a population of around 1.25 billion. The United States only has a population of around 320 million—just over a quarter of India's population. Is India more vital than the United States? Many people would say yes, and many others would say no. Either way, the debate wouldn't be as clear-cut as the population difference would have you believe; arguments on both sides would take into account not only population, but also economy, geography, history, and international relations, among other things. Population is not the deciding factor in this case.
Similar questions can be raised about other entities: is Russia (population 150 million) clearly less vital than Indonesia (population 250 million)? Is Germany (population 80 million) less vital than Bangladesh (population 160 million)? Why is the European Union (population 500 million) listed but not BRICS (population 3 billion)? The answers clearly lie beyond just their populations.
I have been trying to point out, though, that I am in favor of simply increasing the number of countries listed, which would make this whole discussion moot, and I'm clearly not the only one. Our country list isn't written in stone—as you pointed out, Thailand may have a case over Italy. You are welcome to propose a formal addition or a swap, and I believe constructive discussion will emerge out of that regarding the number of countries to include.
(If population is the deciding factor for you, why are advocating for Thailand instead of Vietnam, which has a population of 90 million?) Malerisch (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Vietnam is a better addition. Good call. I was reading about Thailand the same day I wrote it, I saw teensy-weensy Canada listed, and I thought, wait a second, that isn't right. Okay, will do. Red Slash 04:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Currently only racism and sexism are listed as subcategories of discrimination. Disabled people are one of the largest minorities at approximately 10% of the world population. In addition to size, ableism also covers a wide scope: There is a great diversity within the disabled population, since disability includes everything from injuries and illnesses to the various neurotypes. Muffinator (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No thoughts on ableism for now, but disability isn't on the list either. Shouldn't that article be more vital? Malerisch (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't realize that. Definitely agree that Disability itself is more vital than ableism. If these two topics fight for space, I would support relegating ableism to level 4, but currently there are only 989 listings, so replacement isn't yet an issue. Muffinator (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I will support disability at the moment and think about ableism. To compare it with similar topics, we list racism but not race, we list sexism, sex and gender (note that sex discusses the biological differences), we replaced homosexuality with sexual orientation some time ago and don't list sexualism/homophobia. At Level 4, both social class and class discrimination are listed (along with other class articles) although neither are listed here. Indigenous people is listed at Level 3 and some caste related articles are listed at Level 4. At no level do we list anything related to ageism, handedness or sizeism barring the aging process (the biological phenonmenon). Gizza (t)(c) 01:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that level 4 is a work-in-progress, so a topic not being included there (as is the case with ableism) is not necessarily an indication that it is not vital enough for level 3. I don't anticipate much disagreement about disability being level 3 vital or ableism being level 4 vital, but more discussion on whether ableism is level 3 vital would be very useful. Muffinator (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I will probably support ableism at level 4 too or at least more articles relating to disability. Every level on Vital Articles is a work-in-progress just like all of Wikipedia. Gizza (t)(c) 03:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would support both Agism and Abelism on level 3. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Disability[edit]

Per the discussion above.

  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support for the same reasons I nominated ableism for: Disabled people are one of the largest minorities at approximately 10% of the world population, and it's a diverse set of topics since disability includes everything from injuries and illnesses to the various neurotypes. Muffinator (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on Level 4, this will go into the Medicine section. Space doesn't really need to be made for it although burn can be removed as there are too many types of injury to list at this level (we removed bone fracture recently too). Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree; burn should be removed. Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to close this, but I'm not sure if I should put this under Social issues or Health and medicine, considering the move discussion on the Expanded page. There isn't consensus to move Disability yet, so where should this be added? Malerisch (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus there definitely leans toward listing it under Society (I see no reason to enforce the use of !votes on every single decision we take besides adding and removing articles, since this is generally not how Wikipedia operates) and the arguments are equally valid here. Cobblet (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Burn[edit]

Burns aren't more important than other types of injuries such as frostbite, wounds, or bone fractures (removed here). Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - Fire is a big enough topic for level 3 but an article about fire-related injuries should be at level 4. Muffinator (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per Malerisch and Muffinator. Gizza (t)(c) 04:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Semiconductor device[edit]

This nomination just failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. Malerisch (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Too much overlap with integrated circuits and transistors which are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose note that at level 4 they have semiconductor but not semiconductor device, level 3 does not have semiconductor so I oppose removing semiconductor device though would be willing to consider swapping semiconductor for semiconductor device. RJFJR (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be okay with simply removing it without a vote as well. I'm not sure how this process is supposed to work. Malerisch (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus on what to do in this situation. It might be best to set up a discussion to create formal rules so we aren't left in limbo in the future. Gizza (t)(c) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we should just remove it. Most people think nesting is an established paradigm. And from what I recall from the recent discussion on this, AbstractIllusions (talk · contribs) had some doubts about nesting, but didn't want to open a discussion. So should we really discuss nesting now? --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I opened up a discussion on level 4 to hopefully resolve this issue. Malerisch (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap Canada out for Vietnam[edit]

Other than the fact that its population mostly speaks English, I'm not sure how Canada makes it onto this list. Its geography is well-covered in North America (or should be) and it's a fairly small country as far as population goes.

Vietnam has over double the souls living within its borders and has had a tremendous influence on regional culture and (within the last fifty years) on international levels. Its cuisine is well-known, its military fights are world-famous, and again, it has nearly triple the population of Canada. It's not as rich--who cares? Red Slash 04:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Red Slash 04:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - I would rather add Vietnam without removing Canada. I'm not opposed to removal, just don't think Canada is the right choice. Muffinator (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    I mean, I understand; Canada has a bunch of English speakers which means it's well-represented here. Red Slash 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    No need to repeat concerns that were already addressed in the Thailand section above. Canada is a major economy and accounts for 5% of Earth's land mass, second only to Russia. Muffinator (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Insufficient reason given to remove Canada. RJFJR (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As Cobblet and I have said before, I would prefer more countries, I would prefer Canada and Vietnam and Thailand too. I don't like to choose from Canada or Vietnam.  Carlwev  09:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. And I believe Gizza does too ("The number of countries can be bumped up a little" in the Thailand section). I think we're close to a consensus! Malerisch (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that both Vietnam and Thailand should be added, without removing Canada. I'd like to add that if "what to replace" is an issue then lakes, rivers, and cities would be better candidates. Muffinator (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Explosive material[edit]

Another fire-related removal - I'm suggesting to remove this as an alternative to burn. I don't think the impact of explosive material is big enough to make it vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I do. If there's one thing from the chemical technology section worth removing it's gasoline. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - Explosion is currently not listed, and is surely more vital than explosive material. Muffinator (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Gunpowder, a specific type of explosive material, though an important one, is also listed. Another option would be swapping it with bomb or explosive weapon, which are surely just as vital as the weapons already on the list like sword, firearm and bow and arrow. Gizza (t)(c) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap Explosive material out for Explosion[edit]

Parent category; clearly more vital.

  1. Support as nom. Muffinator (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Not at all clear. If explosion is a vital concept it is because throughout history, new artificial explosives have revolutionized engineering and warfare whenever they've been introduced. Cobblet (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swapped 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Add Digestion, Remove Human gastrointestinal tract[edit]

This swap has been mentioned a few times now, so I think it may be time for a formal proposal. We don't currently list any other articles that are specific to human anatomy besides this one (e.g. human skeleton, human heart, human eye, and human liver aren't listed), and I can't see why this article would be special. Besides, human gastrointestinal tract is the wrong article to include, even for human anatomy; human digestive system is the right one. Malerisch (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, more general article. RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - parent category is more vital on top of having the more recognized name. Muffinator (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Would anyone kindly direct me to a prior discussion why the field of education is relegated to a single article, rather than a section of its own? If no prior discussion on this exists, I'd like to start it here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any prior discussion on education for this list specifically. What other articles do you have in mind? Malerisch (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please, let's add some education topics. The topic is lacking a lot, even on Expanded, which has an education section which is mostly a list of libraries, apart from that the following topics are listed:
I think it was me who added school to the 10,000 a long time ago, very odd that college and university where added but this left out, if any education articles are added to the 1000 school was the first I was thinking of, seems equal or higher than library at least, we have museum under art too next to library in level 3 which is kind of education related. College and or university have half a chance too. In level 4 I don't think we have Test (assessment) aka examination, that surely is vital to education at the 10'000 article limit, they are pretty much universal to everywhere all forms of education have them not to mention adult training for career positions, driving etc. Another topic I had in mind for level 4 is reading (process) which is mid ground between language/recreation/education, if language, linguistics, writing, literature and book make the vital 100, I'm sure reading is level 10,000.  Carlwev  15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Support adding subsections of Learning, Library, School, Teacher and Reading (process). The rest of the articles mentioned here I think should stay at level 4. In particular I'd like to note that College, Curriculum, Boarding school, and University are all subcategories of School. Muffinator (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Support school. Don't see why both education and learning have to be listed at this level, or why any specific careers need to be listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right about teacher. Professions are not vital at this level. Education and learning are distinct concepts, but may be too similar to warrant listing both. Muffinator (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I support school and am undecided about learning. The other articles mentioned either expand on education or school so I won't support them at this level. The coverage of education at Level 3 isn't as bare as it first seems since many related articles have been placed in other sections (knowledge, book, mind). There have also been suggestions to add intelligence to the 1,000. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed 5-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Imperial and US customary measurement systems[edit]

This nomination also failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. I haven't made up my mind on this nomination, so I won't vote just yet.

I believe that this nomination could be troublesome: it failed 3-3 on level 4, but 3-3 isn't enough to remove it from level 3 either. Malerisch (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support User:Rwessel's arguments in that thread are persuasive. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I would rather have International System of Units on the list. Malerisch (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose the article is even more vital than the individual articles because it includes the conversion. Maybe replace by Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems. Also note that 3-3 is not enough to remove an article; there would have to be at least 5 support votes according to the current rules. It was nominated for informational purposes only, not because we're seriously un-nesting. Yet (?). --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose significant to understanding historical and current measurements. And I do not accept the idea that a vote on a different list is binding on this one. RJFJR (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't have Imperial units or SI units, I don't think this is more vital. We do have, metric system.  Carlwev  18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add School[edit]

Education deserves better coverage. School is more vital than the currently listed library and museum.

  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. was thinking about starting "add school" myself.  Carlwev  17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and the "Education" discussion above. Muffinator (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)