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.
 

Introduction[edit]

FA FA GA GA A Total
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: 23:41, 03 December 2014 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 23:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 23:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove Talmud[edit]

See rationale at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 8#Remove Tanakh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: Keep either one, Talmud or Tanakh and remove the other one. Logical1004 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Same as reason above crystalclear (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I support keeping one subtopic on Judaism. Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Mahayana[edit]

Buddhism is the religion of about 7% people worldwide. This is one of two or three branches of Buddhism, not a household name worldwide. I would rather we add concepts like paganism, wiccan, new religious movements or folk religion. In fact, by removing those and few other entries we could add the scientifically-recognized categorization into Abrahamic religions, Iranian religions, Indian religions, East Asian religions, and potentially something more from the Major_religious_groups#Classification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Buddhist denomination are more significant than the current number of buddhists in the world alone suggests.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Maunus. Cobblet (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Maunus. Mahayana and Theravada are household names where I live (a non-Buddhist country). But as has often been said anyway, household name or commonly known =/= vital. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Theravada[edit]

See rationale for remove Mahayana above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support--Thi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think it's reasonable to list the major schools of Buddhism. Cobblet (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Vajrayana[edit]

According to the article's lead, "Vajrayāna is a complex and multifaceted system of Buddhist thought and practice". In other words, it is a custom / tradition / ritual of Buddhism. We don't list such practices for other religions, so why is this one here? It seems on the same level as something like Eucharist in Christianity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose False analogy based on misunderstanding. Closer to differences between Christian main denominations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Vajrayana is a Buddhist denomination much like the above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Eastern Orthodox Church[edit]

Because it's not as vital as Catholic or Protestant, and I'd rather we add something like Abrahamic religions than this. Now, it is a religion of ~200-300 millions adherent, but they are covered under Christianity already. Also, not a household name outside it's own cultural/Western sphere, I believe (unlike Catholic Church and Protestantism, never really spread through missionaries much). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Meta-wiki lists only the Catholic church. --Thi (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose How exactly is it less vital than Catholicism and Protestantism? Cobblet (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, it is about as important as Catholicism and Protestantism, definitely not much less, and if people have a less good idea what the Orthodox Church is about, that is only more reason for the article to be vital in Wikipedia in this case. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per above. Removing this will just exacerbate the Western European bias on the list, which I thought we were trying to fix. Gizza (t)(c) 12:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Melody Lavender 15:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Removed, 7-1 after 15 days Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 16 December 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 Guru Granth Sahib[edit]

A major religious text of Sikhism, a religion with 28 millions adherents. Not a household name to anyone but them, not a vital concept for world's culture and history, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Too many religious texts listed compared to other works of literature; is this really more important than the Ramayana? Cobblet (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support especially in light of its young age, Sikhism shouldn't be better represented than Shinto, Taoism or Zoroastrianism. Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support per Gizza. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

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 Paganism[edit]

Major religious group, profund historical significance, still present today through a number of smaller groups. A vital religious concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "Major" in what sense? I wouldn't call the early Christian term for non-Christians a vital concept at this level. Nor does the modern revival seem terribly vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 11:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Folk religion[edit]

A grouping of about 6% of different religions per the graph on Major religious groups. Another major container term to increase the diversity here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, Not important enough for level 3 and should stay on level 4. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. --Thi (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose : Agree with Maplestrip Logical1004 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

If folk religion dealt with traditional religions that don't fit within the major religions (such as many traditional African religions) then I could see a case for supporting it. But based on how it's currently written, the article is about the folk versions of major religions which just creates overlap. Gizza (t)(c) 09:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Abrahamic religions[edit]

Grouping of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support crystalclear (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Totally unnecessary. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the broad classifications are not completely arbitrary, but in the scheme of things not vital. This is not an article on religion but comparative religion. Religion draws its vitality from the meaning and experiences it gives to its followers and non-followers. Classification articles are only vital for academia. Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Gizza ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

This is not in the 10,000 list and failed miserably when I suggested adding it there, see here I'd be surprised if it gets in here, but it's not impossible consensus can change and we havesome different users on board now.  Carlwev  08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

with 4 oppose here it looks like it's not going to make it but with 4 support too maybe it will stand a chance in the 10000 list now? who knows?  Carlwev  17:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Eastern religions[edit]

A grouping of Indian religions and East Asian religions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Makes no sense as a grouping. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose also agree with replacing Eastern philosophy with Chinese and Indian separately. Gizza (t)(c) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Does Eastern philosophy, which we list, make any more sense than Eastern religions as a grouping? Malerisch (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Good question. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd now prefer listing Chinese and Indian philosophy separately. Cobblet (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Add New religious movement[edit]

A neutral term for cult, a major religious trend for a lot of relatively well known ideas, such as Wiccan, New Age, neopaganism, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support this is the vital topic, not the problematic term cult which ought to redirect to NRM.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, cult is a much better known word with a lot of overlap with this term. We're going for common names here. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

This really isn't the right place to put this argument, but seeing as it seems to be your argument for inclusion: if cult and New Religious Movement are exactly the same thing or incredibly closely related, should NRM become a redirect to cult as suggested by WP:COMMONNAME? Cult is quite probably the more popular word, as it's much higher in pageviews and even if you don't put quotation marks around things, there are many more Google results on cult. I'd keep the article on level 4. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Monotheism[edit]

A key concept in theology, on the same level as already present Shamanism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, such a term is absolutely vital for an encyclopedia in my opinion. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by theism. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Covered by theism. --Thi (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose : Agree with Cobblet Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Polytheism[edit]

A key concept in theology, on the same level as already present Shamanism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, such a term is absolutely vital for an encyclopedia in my opinion. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by theism. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose : Agree with Cobblet Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Was removed over a year ago 5-0 support see here, but consensus can change.  Carlwev  08:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof that the control by small cabals ebbs and flows over time. This list is the picture of team editing.Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Agnosticism[edit]

A key concept in theology and philosophy, on the same level as already present Atheism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - A major religious concept, on par with Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Atheism, and so forth. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support As I said, my preference is for the big religions to have multiple subtopics so non-religious views should have it likewise. IMO this is next best article after atheism and secularism. Slightly ahead of the types of theism (mono and poly). Gizza (t)(c) 23:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --Thi (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Was removed over a year ago 5-0 support see here, but consensus can change.  Carlwev  08:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've retracted my oppose !vote. I feel this is just one aspect of skepticism and that's the more vital topic, but it's not a strong preference – one might say I'm now agnostic on this issue as a whole. Cobblet (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Irreligion[edit]

A key concept in theology and philosophy, a parent concept to atheism and agnosticism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose unnecessary on this level because of its overlap with atheism. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Maplestrip. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are over a billion irreligious/atheist/agnostic people in the world. Their views should probably be represented with more than just atheism. Personally I think the next best article would be secularism. It's better than something like anarchism IMO. Not irreligion. Gizza (t)(c) 12:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose God, no. Agree with Maplestrip. --Melody Lavender 15:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Secularism would make a nice counterweight to theocracy, which is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Fyodor Dostoyevsky[edit]

I don't think we need to list both Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky; it's hard to justify listing two Russian novelists on such a short list – French and Japanese literature receive no representation at all, for example.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Logical1004 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support : crystalclear (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Mark Twain isn't listed. Not sure why his name always comes up. Gizza (t)(c) 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Less vital than Peter the Great and Lenin, and that's what should matter here. Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We can have two or three Americans or Brits but not two Russians? Systemic bias, I call it. Now, I'd support adding Voltaire as a French representative. Japanese, I am afraid, never became as influential abroad. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. --Thi (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Much more vital than Mark Twain whose influence on world literature is minimal. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We've previously voted to remove Lenin from the list. I don't think Dostoyevsky's more vital than Lenin; he may not even be more vital than Pushkin. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Ernest Hemingway[edit]

We're also a bit heavy on 20th-century writers (five on a list of seventeen). And when it comes to American literature, Hemingway shouldn't be listed before Mark Twain. Edgar Allan Poe is the other American writer on the list.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Is Hemingway even the greatest American novelist? I have my doubts. Neljack (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose : Ernest Hemingway and Mark Twain both should be in the list. I will prefer swapping Fyodor Dostoyevsky for Mark Twain rather with Ernest Hemingway. Logical1004 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose if anybody has to go it's Edgar Allan Poe, I still think. --Melody Lavender 15:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'd rather remove Kahlil Gibran. Yes, systemic bias and whatsnot, but I think their influence (and fame/notability) is incomparable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I would support removing Twain who I dont consider a vital author, but not Hemingway.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd also like to swap Virginia Woolf for Jane Austen. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer Mark Twain over Poe as well. Nevertheless I don't see the need for two American writers if hugely significant American leaders like FDR and MLK aren't listed, and if nobody from French literature (Voltaire?) or Japanese literature (Murasaki Shikibu?) is listed. Cobblet (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WHy is Twain even on the list? What is his contribution to world literature? Huck Finn? Poe invented two genres that are still practiced today. What is Twains wider influence? Woolf or Austen would be better than Twain, and perhaps competitive with Poe. Twain is important to American literature - Poe and Hemingway are important to world literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Relax – he isn't on the list, it was just a suggestion. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, Ok. I thought he was on the list. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Giuseppe Verdi, Frédéric Chopin and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky[edit]

Five of the eleven musicians are Europeans from the 19th century. If no jazz musicians are listed and only one person from a non-Western tradition is included, we can afford to trim the Romantic composers. In terms of their impact on the history of Western music, Beethoven and Wagner stand head and shoulders above these three figures. So would several others not currently listed, such as Monteverdi, Haydn, Schubert, Debussy and Stravinsky.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, though it pains me to see Tchaikovsky go, can't go against your argument here ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support : Though all 3 are important, but to maintain a balance, we can move them to level 4 vital articles. Logical1004 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support It's painstakingly obvious that musicians is imbalanced and in some areas very bloated. There are 4 musicians who composed and performed in the late 19th century and zero who composed or performed in the early 20th century. How Duke Ellington was removed before Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky is beyond me. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Does anybody really think that Chopin is more important than Schubert, Mahler, Debussy and Stravinsky? I'd have all of them before any of these three. Neljack (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing Chopin or Tchaikovsky. I'd remove Hildegard of Bingen and Ravi Shankar instead. I support removing Verdi, but since this is a batch nomination, 2 out of 3 I have to oppose. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Piotrus. These composers are too key to remove. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. --Thi (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Vital. Jusdafax 00:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

There's something to be said about classical European music being overrepresented, but - it does seem to represent the global view on that. A bit more focus on the 20th century might help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of European classical music being overrepresented. It's also a matter of Romantic-era music being specifically overrepresented, and with figures that are not even of the highest importance. Schubert should be in before any of these people, for instance. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Walt Disney, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa[edit]

I don't believe film is important enough in the grand scheme of things to require four representatives on the list and I propose keeping just Chaplin. Note for example how we do not list a single architect or physician; and those are essential occupations that have existed since the dawn of civilization (Imhotep).

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support for Walt Disney Logical1004 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support except for Disney  Carlwev  16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support only for Walt Disney : CrystalClear (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


Oppose
  1. Oppose ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa Logical1004 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for Disney and Hitchcock, weak oppose for Kurosawa. Film is a major cultural medium, and film makers are more famous than architects or doctors. I would support adding Hippocrates, however, he is vital enough IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose only Disney,  Carlwev  16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose If film is not important in the grand scheme of things, then screw the grand scheme of things.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - They are vital in my book. Jusdafax 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I support adding Imhotep. I think adding a non-Pharoah Egyptian when there are so many Greeks is a must. Being the mastermind designer of the earliest great Egyptian monuments with a legacy that would last for millennia in addition to his foundational work on medicine makes him vital IMO. I could support Hippocrates as a swap with a weaker Ancient Greek biography. Pericles and Sophocles stand out.

I also believe one sports figure is reasonable when there are over 100 at Level 4. And if there's one and only one, it would clearly be Pelé, being the greatest player of the world's most popular game and elected as "Athlete of the Century" by the IOC. Adding him would provide Brazilian representation in biographies and make him the third person of Sub-Saharan African descent on the list. After the removal of Ellington and Hendrix the only black people are in the list of politicians. As with Egypt, I'd like to think they contributed to the world beyond politics to an extent that makes them vital for the purposes of this list. Gizza (t)(c) 12:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd weakly support Pelé and definitely support adding Imhotep. I feel uncomfortable selecting so few among so many people who have had a big impact on their field, but I guess those two would do a decent job. Cutting out some Greek dudes never seems to be a bad idea, so feel free to suggest them. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In such a short list, its really very difficult to accomodate so many people that have a great impact on various civilizations. Over the three, if I have to prefer, I may chose Walt Disney (though it also have a lot of contribution, but can be safely moved to level-4 in my personal opinion) for the removal. Though I will support adding Imhotep considering his contributions, but I want to throw one more name of Kidinnu in this list. Lets discuss. Logical1004 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Disney would actually be the person I disagree with to remove the strongest... ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Kidinnu is not on the expanded Level 4 list yet. Maybe he should be. With this proposal, I'm leaning towards opposing or partially opposing as well. Note that we're under quota and we have been for a very long time. Most of the current proposals are removals as well. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I always thought animation should be attempted for this list, in place of these filmmakers? vital enough?  Carlwev  16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

...Animation itself isn't on the list yet? Well then it makes sense that you all want Disney gone, haha. Yeah, animation should probably be suggested. ~Maplestrip (chat) 06:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I tossed out suggestions for removing ten people because it's my long-held belief that on this list we have too many people listed, and they are taking up space we need for other vital encyclopedic topics to be added. Of course, we could be listing animation rather than Disney. Instead of listing Kurosawa as a stand-in for Eastern art (Murasaki would be my personal preference), we could think about listing vital genres of the same, like calligraphy or garden. I know it's easier to be attached to what's currently on the list than to think about what isn't there and might be even more important, but if people are looking at this list when they're deciding how to make a better Wikipedia, we need to work on making a better list. Cobblet (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed, 10-5 after 15 days Cobblet (talk) 09:34, 16 December 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 Neil Armstrong[edit]

IMO there are already enough articles related to space exploration on the list (space exploration, moon landing, spaceflight, satellite, even the International Space Station). And why is Armstrong on the list while Yuri Gagarin isn't? Even if you forced me to put someone on the list in order to represent America's contribution to space exploration, I wouldn't choose Armstrong; I'd choose JFK.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Being "first" to explore something should not be a sufficient criterion to list an explorer on level 3—there must be some wider influence/impact from their discoveries. Armstrong's legacy is pretty minimal. Malerisch (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, was wondering about this one as well. Redundant with moon landing. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support : Move it to level 4 Logical1004 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I was going to suggest that some day. --Melody Lavender 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support CrystalClear (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support Indeed Gagarin arguably made the greater "leap", but since he was Russian he doesn't get the same attention. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Obviously Armstrong shouldn't get the credit for being the first human to land on a solid surface outside our home planet. It was the efforts of NASA more than anything. That doesn't make Armstrong non-vital. The front men in every field rely on people in the background for advice, money and support. Columbus and Marie Curie would have achieved very little without the support and encouragement of Isabella I of Castile and Pierre Curie respectively. But the latter are nowhere close to being as vital as the former. Hugely popular singers that get other people to write the songs for them are still more vital than the people behind the scenes. Armstrong is very fortunate but he is going to be remembered forever. The only reason why my oppose is weak is because it is hard to decide between Armstrong and Gagarin. We might as well get rid of moon landing which is written like a history article. And there's already a space article in the history section making it redundant. Armstrong gets more views than Moon landing as well (ranked 1670 vs 6723). Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per DaGizza. He is the human face of space exloration, and is likely to remain that way for a long time. As the most famous explorer of space, I think he is vital enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We can play the alternate history game all day. Fact is, Armstrong left the lander first, Buzz Aldrin be damned. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Supporters leave me flabbergasted with their faulty reasoning. The first man on the moon? I call that vital. Jusdafax 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Leif Erikson strikes me as an odd inclusion. He has a negligible legacy, and I don't believe chronological diversity alone is a good argument for keeping him. Malerisch (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like an obvious removal.--Melody Lavender 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Zhang Qian, Henry the Navigator or Vitus Bering would be better choices, IMO. Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with cobblet. One of the three can go to the list. Go ahead with proposal. Logical1004 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As big of a fan of ISS as I am, I am not sure I would keep ISS here; I'd support it's removal in favor of keeping Neil here. Regarding the four historical names proposed above, I'd support removal / oppose adding any of them. They are not on the same level as Polo, Columbus, de Gama, Magellan, Cook, Amudsen - and Armstrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah he was first man on the Moon and he's significant, but he didn't lead the expedition or NASA or drive it forward like Columbus or Magellan, if he never existed of if he had a cold at the time another man would have gone instead and the Moon landing and the rest of history would be nearly exactly the same. Probably.  Carlwev  16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather swap Neil Armstrong with Apollo 11 than to keep Armstrong. Moon landing isn't actually about the specific event, but about moon landings in general. It's currently 8 supports vs 4 opposes - exciting contest! ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All this talk of explorers, we list several explorers and space exploration but we don't list exploration itself, the article is in bad shape, but we do have articles colonialism and Age of Discovery but that's from a European point of view and one period of history not a general concept itself.  Carlwev  20:17, 3 December 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, 8-0 after 15 days Cobblet (talk) 09:35, 16 December 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 J. Robert Oppenheimer[edit]

We already include Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg. Is the "father of the atomic bomb" (in my view, to call him that is to neglect the contributions of Compton and Fermi, not to mention Einstein of course) really more vital than the Wright brothers or Alexander Graham Bell? Is his role in WW2 more significant than F. D. Roosevelt's? Because we don't list those three people, and yet we list Oppenheimer.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Less vital than the figures Cobblet mentioned, in addition to Louis Pasteur, another significant omission in the scientist section. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, and maybe add Bell and the Wright brothers on this level? ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Logical1004 (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender 15:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Pasteur will be a good addition. Gizza (t)(c) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Leaning support. Not as famous as Einstein, through I wonder if any other physicist other then Newton would be... Hmmm. Have we ever discussed adding Stephen Hawking? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawking would definitely beat Oppenheimer, and his ideas have a great encyclopedic value. Also, his popularity with the masses despite his complex field is a big reason to have the best article possible for him. That all being said, there hasn't been enough time to build on his works, making him a lot less vital than the people who he has followed. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Pasteur would be an excellent choice, but since vaccine and pasteurization are listed, I can live with a list that doesn't include him. When it comes to 20th-century physicists, I'd definitely take Feynman and Schrodinger before Hawking. Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 4 December 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 nuclear technology[edit]

Nuclear power and nuclear weapon are both listed, making this umbrella topic rather redundant – nuclear medicine does not really need to be discussed on level 3.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose : I will rather remove Nuclear power and nuclear weapon as both are covered in nuclear technology article. Logical1004 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Logical. This umbrella topic seems sufficient enough to drop the other two and free two spots here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Logical1004. CrystalClear (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Nuclear power and nuclear weapon comes under nuclear technology article. As level 3 article list is limited, we can remove Nuclear power and nuclear weapon and add just nuclear technology. Although Nuclear power and nuclear weapon can be added to next level, if necessary. Logical1004 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I'd support both ideas, though I have a hard time deciding which would be best. It would be somewhat odd to have nuclear technology on level 4, but not on level 3, while these two remain on level 3... On the other hand, it's these two things that are absolutely vital about nuclear technology... Tough call. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Nuclear power and weapon are listed because of the comparable articles listed. Nuclear power should be in if solar power and wind power are listed as it is more widely used and has been used for a longer time. Nuclear weapon is a basic category of weapon like artillery, sword and firearm. If anything it's more vital because of the catastrophic consequences of using nuclear weapons. Removing power and weapon will create imbalances. Nuclear technology is just the umbrella article. Broader is not always more vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@DaGizza: In that scenario also nuclear technology is justified as it is listed under the umbrella of "Technology" section. In that case I will support the removal of "tool" which can be move from this section to everydays life section. Logical1004 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Added, 9-2 after 15 days Cobblet (talk) 09:36, 16 December 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 Thailand[edit]

User:Red Slash's proposal to swap Canada for Thailand prompted a flurry of countries being added to the list, but Thailand somehow got lost in the mix. It's the most populous nation not currently listed (ranking 21st in the world, ahead of the UK, Italy and South Africa) and I need not defend the notability of its culture and history – suffice it to say that it is not inferior to Vietnam, Indonesia or the Philippines in that regard, and those three countries are all listed.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support There are more English-speakers in Thailand than Israel and Poland. See here. OTOH, if it's the people who are editing and viewing the English Wikipedia which is so important, we could copy and paste the list from [1] or [2]. Don't agree with that myself but anyway, agree with the others Thailand's contributions to the world. Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support --Thi (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support This list is not of things that are vital in the English-speaking world. Neljack (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital, not in the English-speaking world. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I don't find the counter-arguments that convincing, so - moving here from neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
I am neutral regarding the addition of Thailand to the list. I am not sure what is the basic reason to include countries to the list. If it is the population, then there are 20 more countries before it. Also regarding culture of Thailand, its the same as most of the South-Asian countries (Thats what I inferred after reading the article, If I am wrong, correct me). I will prefer adding the countries that have some historical significance. I would avoid the dominance of a particular set of things and hence prefer diverse culture in the list. Logical1004 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Logical. What makes Thailand special? I am sorry, with regards to the op saying it needs no defense for its notability or history - please defend it, if you'd. As far as I can tell Thailand has never been a major player in world - or even its region's - politics, economy nor culture; it's biggest cultural influence worldwide is probably the Thai cuisine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that never succumbed to European colonization, I cannot possibly fathom how you might think it's not a major player in its own region. Please try to understand its history a little yourself first before you disparage it with naive comments. Cobblet (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think what may make it appear worse is tha this nation is close by to some very big players that overshadow it, China, India and to a lesser extent Japan. China and India are truly huge, they both, on their own, have more population than every other whole continent other than Asia let alone every other country so they would overshadow anything. I wouldn't leave of Poland as we had Germany, Russia and France, I think Thailand is very historically and culturally important, it's just near some huge countries that overshadow it. In the 10'000 list we have History of Thailand, but not history of the Philippines, suggests Thailand is more important than other nations who's history is missing, from that area or others.  Carlwev  16:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree with you for the most part Carl. Just one thing to note is that sometimes a country can be L3 vital and its history not L4 vital (like Bangladesh) or vice versa (like History of Afghanistan). Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 2 December 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 Male and Female, Add Sexual reproduction[edit]

It doesn't make any sense to list the first two concepts but not to list the latter. Note that man and woman are also already listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. SUpport Male and female are words. Sexual reproduction is what makes them exist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose see comment. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose : Agree with Maplestrip Logical1004 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removing male and female. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose : Instead of removing Male and Female, man and woman can be dropped from the list. CrystalClear (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd propose adding asexual reproduction as well; it may not be necessary to list reproduction at all if we add these two. Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd rather remove man and woman from this level than male and female. I do agree that having both man and male, and both woman and female, is somewhat ridiculoous... Sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction are already covered by sex and reproduction. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I assumed sex was about human sexual intercourse; I guess not. I think it makes sense to list both articles of relevance to biology in general (sexual reproduction) and humans in particular (human sexuality and human sexual activity). Maybe I'll rework this proposal some other time. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have reproduction; I think the division of reproduction into sexual and asexual is not as crucial for Vital 1000, certainly not enough to justify trading those two for male and female concepts. We also have Sex, Gender, Human sexuality and Sexual orientation. Hmmm, how about Third gender, Gay or LGBT? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely support homosexuality, but LGBT isn't even on level 4 yet and I'd definitely oppose Third gender on this level. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
All that I have to add, at this time anyway, on this topic is that the sex and gender distinction exists. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oooh, that is really good, and probably deserves a spot on level 4. It's a vital topic in any conversation about sex and gender, but the topic isn't popular enough...? Either way, it does not replace any of the articles that are discussed here, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talkcontribs) 09:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Cult[edit]

Second choice after New religious movement, based on comments expressed there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, cult wasn't in yet!? Well then, I think it probably should be. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I read the NRM comments and not sure I find this convincing. As a sociological phenomenon of study it may be vital for level 4, but as a religious set of practices is fringe and teaches us little about the world. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Added, 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 16 December 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 Secularism[edit]

Quoting User:DaGizza: "There are over a billion irreligious/atheist/agnostic people in the world. Their views should probably be represented with more than just atheism. Personally I think the next best article would be secularism."

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Per my earlier comments as well as Cobblet's. This will be a good counterweight to theocracy as well. Probably more vital than theocracy. Gizza (t)(c) 12:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender 19:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discussion

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 Frida Kahlo[edit]

I know - Mexican, female, lesbian - systemic bias and all. However, is she really Vital? Ranked 1821 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org, compared to 860 for Picasso or 833 for Van Gogh. I know popularity is not everything (Hokusai is way below, for example), but I have doubts she is in the same league (influence/significance-wise) as Holusai, or for the modern artists, Picasso. (Through yes, she does rank about as high as Dalí). Still, her placement as the Top 10 artists of all time seems worthy of discussion. Instead, why not another Asian artist like Korean Jeong Seon or contemporary Ai Weiwei? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Artists are a bit overrepresented, and I entirely fail to see why she's a better choice than Hernán Cortés to represent Mexico. Malerisch (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose : She is definitely in the same league. Logical1004 (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Malerisch, Cortes was a Spaniard, born and died in Spain, and is universally hated in Mexico. And yes Kahlo is in the same league as the main European artists of the period. 1821 is a very good traffic rate for a painter. Definitely as influential as Hokusai.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. --Melody Lavender 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose : CrystalClear (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose In terms of page views, Kahlo is most popular than Rembrandt and Claude Monet, and vastly more than El Greco and Hokusai (neither of whom are in the top 10,000). Kahlo receives more views in one day than Jeong Seon does in an entire month. She does pretty well for a person who was supposedly added for diversity reasons only. Also unlike the sciences and to some extent politics and social science where the contributions the people make are universal in scope, the influence of painters is largely restricted to their own cultural region. It is an area where geographic diversity should be more achievable. I would remove one of the Spanish painters, either El Greco or Dali. There are more Spanish painters than Italian and Dutch right now, which doesn't seem right. Gizza (t)(c) 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose One of the most influential Latin Americans. Also, pretty sure she was bi, not lesbian. pbp 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Someone described as "the most famous female artist in history" by the top art museum in the world (Tate Modern) should be on the list. See also Newsweek: "Frida Kahlo is, in the words of one of her many scholars, the most famous painter in the world. Not the most famous female painter, not the most famous Mexican painter, not even the most famous disabled painter, though she was all those things." (If you doubt this assessment, go try and see her painting at MoMA on a weekend--tell me how many bruises you get from the crowd). Or the Guardian: "among modern artists, only Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso and Warhol have such name recognition." AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm very much aware that Cortés was a Spaniard, but that shouldn't affect his influence in Mexico. He did spend over half his life in the New World, after all. I don't see why his representation in Mexico should matter—we still list Adolf Hitler, who I note was born in Austria-Hungary, spent ~40% of his life there, and is universally vilified in modern-day Germany. Malerisch (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Animation[edit]

...I don't know what rationale to give; it's a major, multimillion artform. Many great animated films have been made in the past ~100 years. People would love to read in an encyclopedia how animation even works.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support : Logical1004 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I see it as more important than several artists and musicians we have  Carlwev  16:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support agree with Carl. --Melody Lavender 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. It should belong to this list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm wary of the equating of business profits with vitality here. Love animation--but the reason given is that its movies make a lot of money and are pretty good. Science Fiction movies make lots of money and many of them are good, but we wouldn't add that (or 'romantic comedy'...please no one propose this). Much of the importance of 'Animation' is captured by highlighting one of the producers who brought it to mass consumption, 'Walt Disney' who is already on the list. If Disney gets deleted, I think we can consider this (or it could be proposed as a straight swap), but having both at level 3 is overemphasis on a relatively small business (floral industry is bigger business, in all fairness). AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per AbstractIllusions and Piotrus. It's a film/TV genre and I can't see it being more vital than any other. I could possibly consider it as a swap with Disney but then why not other art forms and movements like puppetry, fable, design, fashion, calligraphy and handicraft? Many of these forms have been around for thousands and developed independently throughout the world. And there are other films genres as already mentioned. I guess it's more vital than opera though, which is clearly redundant to theatre and should be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

Hmmm. I am almost convinced by Carl's argument to support, but... can't we think of other art forms that are similar and yet missing? I am afraid we could open a new pandora box here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Animation is not actually a genre, as it does not imply anything other than how the movie is made. "Live-action" isn't usually refered to as a genre either. The market and good works for it was only half of my argument, "how it even works" is a pretty important part to it and is the main reason for its vitality. That is where its encyclopedic value lies. However, I do think that it's odd that we don't have some of those articles Gizza mentioned on this level. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Saudi Arabia[edit]

In my view, to list both Israel and Jerusalem, but to list neither Saudi Arabia nor Mecca, would be a symptom of "systemic bias", as someone else has put it. I nominate the country; not only does the region carry tremendous historical, religious and cultural significance as the location of Islam's two holiest sites, but the modern country is also vital to the global economy and geopolitics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. I was thinking of Saudi Arabia and Iraq as an article to add from the Middle Eastern heartland. Iraq is partially covered by Mesopotamia (as is some of Syria) so I believe Saudi Arabia is the better choice. Gizza (t)(c) 12:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We all know my reasoning. I think we have too many countries and are adding them for really problematic reasons. (I also wonder about some of our political statements--e.g. adding Israel because the country has major sites of the monotheistic religions even though most of these sites are in the occupied territories of the Palestinian Authority. But whatever, I'm just gonna be a contrarian on the country adds because I think they've gone overboard). I would support an add of Mecca. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Leif Erikson[edit]

To quote Malerisch: "Leif Erikson strikes me as an odd inclusion. He has a negligible legacy, and I don't believe chronological diversity alone is a good argument for keeping him. Malerisch (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)". Being able to call "First!" shouldn't be a reason for inclusion in level 3. Great guy to keep on level 4.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Main vitality is captured better in 'The Viking Age', already in the list, which includes Eric the Red (who has more Google scholar hits that Leif Erikson, by the way) and other explorers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

Negligible legacy in English-speaking countries, perhaps. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Composers[edit]

4 out of the 11 composers were active in the mid-to-late 19th century, and all belong to something not too far removed from romanticism:

Richard Wagner Giuseppe Verdi Frédéric Chopin Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Narssarssuaq, there is a removal proposal above addressing the disproportionate number of Romantic music composers of the list here. Gizza (t)(c) 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Add LGBT[edit]

Nomination based on comments at #Remove Male and Female, Add Sexual reproduction. Because sexual orientation doesn't talk about the major social and cultural aspects that are covered by LGBT topic. This has became a major social and cultural topic of the last few decades, and I think is more comprehensive than homosexuality (which also isn't on the list). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose nowhere near vital level 3 I think. Doesn't affect as many people as the media hype makes it look like. Sexual orientation isn't even an issue for many people - either because they are straight or just don't care about anybody's sexual orientation. Would support it at level 4 though.--Melody Lavender 14:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Flyer22: the article is about the term "LGBT". A discussion of the history of the LGBT term and alternate terminology of sexual orientation groupings (what does LGBTQQIAAP even mean?) is not level 3 material, and arguably not level 4 material either. Malerisch (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Flyer22 and Malerisch. An article discussing terminology and labels relating to sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 12:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Note that LGBT isn't even on level 4 yet. I do think it has a good chance of inclusion here, though. ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sexual orientation article does indeed talk about the major social and cultural aspects that are covered by the LGBT topic, albeit not all of them. Furthermore, the LGBT article is about the initialism. If you want an article about the LGBT community, then the LGBT community article is more so about that than the LGBT article is. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That some people are "not affected by it" is a really bad argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly right - that's why I'm saying most people aren't.--Melody Lavender 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The majority of all people don't care about the majority of the items on this list. Ask an average joe on the street about Richard Wagner or the Tang Dynasty or even Nigeria and odds are that they don't know much about the topic and that the topic's history hasn't affected them much. It is indeed not a good argument. Also, I took the liberty to move this conversation to the "discuss"-part of the suggestion. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If the numbers in this article: Demographics of sexual orientation are correct, there is an incidence of about 1%, the number for "experimented once" is slightly higher, always in the low single digits, though. The issue is represented disproportionately higher in media. And I so, oh so, agree about what you're saying about history topics. The section is bloated. I keep thinking that with exactly that argument. The average joe doesn't care. And history is kind of represented on the list. Especially the history of so and so articles are candidates for removal.--Melody Lavender 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
What is 1%? The incidence of homosexuality is not 1%; the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, as shown in the Homosexuality article, do not indicate a 1% matter for homosexuality. The 1% argument is more common regarding asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
" 1%" appears three times in said article, indicating the amount of people homosexual in the UK, homosexual in Canada and bisexual in Canada. I've not checked the sources. Obviously, this automatically means that way more than 1% of the population of these countries are not cishet. I'd say more than 1% of the population being affected is quite a lot myself. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, sexual identity is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation. While it is common that 1% of people identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual in a population, that number is usually significantly higher for same-sex sexual activity and/or same-sex sexual attraction; the Demographics of sexual orientation article also makes this clear. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Had not even considered that - good catch, my bad. All of this counts up to pretty high numbers on a topic that is way too often ignored as a taboo. Plus, it is culture-independent: LGBT exists everywhere in some form. I don't know how I could have ever opposed to homosexuality below... ~Maplestrip (chat) 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Homosexuality[edit]

Second choice per rationale above, I'd not support if LGBT is added (one is enough), but in case this is the preferred choice, here it is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Homosexuality is what defines heterosexuality, which only emerged as a category as the opposite of the former. Its cultural significance is monumental. Its existence affects all people who are at all connected to global discursive networks. LGBT could be added in stead but I think this one is the right choice, for its historical cultural significance. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Looking at the numbers some more and thinking about the other possibilities, I've changed my mind. I think homosexuality is probably the best candidate for increasing the nonexisting coverage of non-cishet topics and would be an important addition on this level. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we can't just add homosexuality without heterosexuality. And ideally other major sexualities should then be added too. Otherwise the list will be imbalanced. It is like adding black people but not white people (and other "races") or adding woman but not man. Gizza (t)(c) 11:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose, have to agree with Gizza here, there are too many topics with similar importance that should exist next to eachtoher in such a list. I think only an overarching article could make it... ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose nowhere near vital level 3, I think. Doesn't affect as many people as the media hype makes it look like. Sexual orientation isn't even an issue for many people - either because they are straight or just don't care about anybody's sexual orientation. --Melody Lavender 14:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Homosexuality was previously removed in favor of including sexual orientation, and the latter adequately covers the former for the purposes of a vital articles list. Is redundant coverage of a type of sexual orientation really a more important topic of human sexuality than physical attractiveness, which affects a much larger percentage of the population? Yes, homosexuality is a defining characteristic of some people's lives, but so are blindness and hearing loss, which are excluded in favor of the parent topic of disability. Social class is another defining characteristic that affects many more people and is more important as well. Malerisch (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose A reasonable suggestion, but maybe not vital level 3. --Thi (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

It makes sense to me to add the Homosexuality article but not the Heterosexuality article; this is because, as noted in the Homosexuality article, homosexuality has been, and largely still is, stigmatized. People are killed just for being LGBT. There are a variety of injustices concerning non-heterosexuals, which is also why the Heteronormativity and Heterosexism articles exist. Similar cannot be stated of heterosexuality, except in the few cases where an LGBT person targets a heterosexual person because of the injustices done to LGBT people. The social differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality is why the Homosexuality article is far bigger than the Heterosexuality article, and has far more WP:Watchers than the Heterosexuality article. I typically don't compare race (human classification) issues to sexuality issues, and I don't see comparing them to the "black vs. white" matter as a solid argument in this case. Yes, black people have been heavily discriminated against, far more than any other racial/ethnicity group, and people are killed just for being black, but there is a lot of material that can go along with that if we were to add articles dealing with both sides (black people and white people), and racial/ethnicity matters are very different than heterosexual/LGBT matters. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support and article about the discrimination of LGBT, the closest we have is heterosexism. --Melody Lavender 20:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And did I mention that I think the race article should be removed? --Melody Lavender 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC) On level 4. This is the wrong level to ask for this article to be removed. But we have race on 4, and racism on 3. So why not heterosexism on 3, and LGBT on 4?--Melody Lavender 20:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record: As someone very familiar with the literature on homosexuality, I disagree with your argument that homosexuality "[d]oesn't affect as many people as the media hype makes it look like." But as for more LGBT article proposals, the Violence against LGBT people article also exists. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? Among 1,000 articles to represent everything from the sun to WW II? I have my doubts that it's one of the thousand most important topics in the universe. Media talk a lot more about LGBT (and sex in general) than they talk about world hunger. Which is more vital? But if you're familiar with the literature maybe you can come up with some convincing link?--Melody Lavender 11:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thousand most important topics for humans. Homosexuality is less vital than famine or malnutrition, but those topics should appear on this list as well (I'm actually surprised famine isn't on level 3, I might suggest that). We add things that are important to many people in the world and have value to be documented. It's odd that you're saying "the media talks a lot about x" as if it's a reason not to include it. Not that the media talks about it as much as you would make me believe anyway. What is important is how much impact it has on humanity. If more than 1% of the human population is homosexual and this has a huge effect on those people's lives, then I find it hard to find it "not vital."
Anyway, what kind of source would it take to change your mind? I mean, these numbers are on the statistics page mentioned before. I'm not sure what to add... ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Melody Lavender, I'm sure. But I'm also not sure what source/type of statement you'd be interested in on that matter; however, there are various scholarly sources on Google Books to support it. And if we can validly add asexuality as vital, a sexual attraction topic that affects far less people than homosexuality does, I don't see why we cannot validly add homosexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, you're linking to an archive page for the expanded vital articles list (also called level 4, those are the 10,000 most vital articles). It might be a better idea to try to get LGBT or homosexuality added there first. It's even harder to get something added to level 3 (1,000 msot vital articles, that's this page) directly if it's not on level 4. Maplestrip I wanted to express that the intense presence of this topic in the media in this decade and the last decade makes the topic appear more important than it really is to the Average Joe/Jane. Famine, hunger, and malnutrition are on level 4 and several people have mentioned the need to add it here. I'd support all three.--Melody Lavender 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality has been on level 4 for a long time, and yes, I have noticed malnurition being suggested on this page. I'll suggest Famine right away. ~Maplestrip (chat) 18:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Famine[edit]

Famine is "widespread scarcity of food." There are many causes for famine, and famine causes hunger and malnurition in an entire class of people. The study of famine is incredibly important for humanity as something we should know how to prevent and know what kind of impact it has.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 18:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender 19:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support--Thi (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. A condition that is still too common today, and very common historically. We have war and death already. How about pestilence? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

An interesting proposal. Should we include epidemic or pandemic as well? Neither of those are even on level 4 (although epidemiology was recently added) – it would probably be good to add them there first before we try adding them here. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Those too are very vital topics for humanity, though the overlap with epidemology might be an issue. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait. How come natural disaster is not on our list? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove All People[edit]

The more I think about it, no individual is 1000-article vital (Level 3). While individuals did great/horrible things and changed history, much of this was luck (I mean if Hammurabi wouldn't have written down law, someone would have a couple years later, right?). We can capture more of the content of the world by highlighting historical forces (e.g. slave trade, spice trade, etc), collective entities like cities and countries, things that impact people around the globe, and even more physical/natural entities. This can also help reduce systemic bias on the list as a whole (135 pages is too small to allow an anti-bias approach--you gotta have the canon and that leaves little else to add). Let's just save individuals for Level 4.

Support
  1. Support I'm not 100% convinced of this and posed the argument in stronger language than I actually think. So might withdraw this, but figured I'd pose it to everyone. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, I think this is indeed the right thing to do, in stages as said. ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Well, individuals make history, so that the section "People" should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I am unwilling to make a sweeping statement about all 'people articles' and would strongly prefer discussing them individually. Also, I think this list should be curated by individual discussions and we gain strength from being willing to debate each article. RJFJR (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose I have my doubts that non-biography articles can be swapped in for every person. Hokusai could be in the 10 most vital artists but Japanese painting is not among the 20 most vital general articles on visual arts. And there are other articles in a similar position. It will be awkward only swapping half of the people out of keeping half of them in. I will support the proposal on the condition that we can revert back to the current state if we cannot successfully complete phasing out all people. Having e.g. Newton swapped out but not Galileo will be silly. Gizza (t)(c) 10:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Yes, people are vital. We can discuss how many should be in. But cutting it would require making a very strong case for why other topics are more vital. I fear very strongly that this would just lead to inclusion of general overbroad topics that noone is ever going to look for in an encyclopedia. You would have to convince me that an encyclopedia where you cant find Hitler, Julius Caesar or Socrates is an encyclopedia at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Note: If this passes, I think the deletion should proceed in stages while we make sure that conceptual gaps are filled (for example, if we want Nazism to be represented we would delete Hitler and add Nazism). I would think religious figures might be moved down to the religion section and not removed entirely. So, it shouldn't be automatic upon voting, but it would at least give a clear consensus to proceed and figure out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe that Vital Articles is essentially about creating a list of articles that should be a priority in becoming high quality and eventually featured. Wikipedia is an all-purpose reference work or compendium, covering all branches of human knowledge in a summarized, introductory way.
    • I came to this project on November 2 2013 when I saw that Sea was Today's Featured Article. It completely stood out from the usual featured articles that are incredibly technical, specific, minor and just not important at all to be considered vital. For the sake of comparison, the last four FA's featured on the main page are SMS Scharnhorst, Ford Island, 2008 ACC Championship Game and Irreplaceable. None of these articles when featured would have receive several compliments and comments on the talk that Wikipedia is on the right path and countering systemic bias like sea did. 2008 ACC Championship Game in particular is the type of article that receives criticism from anon IP's who would rhetorically ask, "Is Beyoncé and online video games all that Wikipedia has to offer". The critics of Wikipedia exaggerate the disparity of articles appealing Western middle-class 15-30 year old males and everything else but it very much exists.
    • I'm leaning towards the view that biographies are something that should be covered. I think if Da Vinci, Einstein and Mandela became featured, you would see a similar reaction to that of sea. Wikipedia would be on the right path. Also on the Main Page, one of the main portals is Portal:Biography. It is a basic category of knowledge. People is something that a general encyclopedia is expected to cover. Still undecided on how many people though.
    • They may be a hurdle in swapping bios with non-bios. Many scientists and philosophers were known for multiple establishing multiple theories. Einstein should ideally be swapped in for both general relativity and special relativity as his bio article deal with both theories in detail in addition to his other groundbreaking work. Doing these swaps will result in a net increase of articles. Then there are articles whose non-biographical equivalent just doesn't seem vital or doesn't make sense. Presumably Simon Bolivar will be replaced with Spanish American Wars of Independence, which in turn is not as vital as Spanish Empire. But adding the Spanish Empire is not going to focus on the decolonization and independence movements. Bolivar is the best article for that as he is a hero among Latin American people. Heliocentrism is now an outdated theory since the sun is not in the middle of the universe but Galileo Galilei is still one of the greatest scientists. Gizza (t)(c) 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

...and Galileo also had an interesting biography, he was persecuted during the inquisition - "and yet it turns" is a frequently used phrase that might make people want to look up his bio. Similar, but not as clear: swap Sigmund Freud for psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is definitely not level 3 vital, but Freud is perceived as the first psychiatrist ever, which he isn't, but he started a huge expansion of the industry, in that psychiatrists now perceived the root cause of psychiatric illnesses as mental, and not only organic. Like Einstein, Freud also has a huge presence in pop culture and a large percentage of people know his name. Speaking of mental illness - should the most crazy of them all, Hitler, be switched for Nazism? Hitler was really just a single madman. The interesting thing is how his psychosis spread to so many people. While mass psychosis is a phenomenon that is scientifically researched, there is as of yet very little science on how a single case of psychiatric illness affects a group of sane(?) people, making them do insane things. There is hardly any research on that in general and in the Hitler/Nazi case specifically. Nazism is an ideology, so not sure if that is vital. The interesting thing is how Hitler executed mass murder. There is no article on that but Hitler personifies these enigmatic happenings. Many biographies thus can't be cut. As stated in the OP, if Hammurabi hadn't proposed the law, someone else would have. It's just this feature of interchangeability that makes biographies an interesting read. People read biographies and compare them to their own lives and the lives of those they personally know and they also put themselves in their shoes. I would however support swaps with historical forces in cases where it is possible, and I would support collapsing the people section into other topics, which is implicitely also suggested in the OP.--Melody Lavender 08:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm somewhat undecided, but I do like the idea. If we do go through with this, I definitely agree with Abstract that it should be done in stages, removing one person at a time, switching them with something else if deemed appropriate. Or not, of course. I would support collapsing people into otehr topics, but if that isn't done on level 4 also, it might be a bit inconsistant... ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with RJFJR about the importance of focused discussions (and have said as much elsewhere). But the issue is comparing unlike things without some group consensus to guide it. So if I propose Swap of Hammurabi with Contract, how do we weigh the completely different vitality of the two things? We seem to have good consensus from all so far that even if this passes, it should be done in stages considering each individual--but with a rough norm for eventually phasing out individuals. (Also, just a related note--we seem to have moved away from the Swap proposals and with the list as high as it is currently, we should probably clearly put which deletion will accompany each add at this point as good practice again). AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Another posibility is trying to cut people down to ~50, or something along those lines, so you have your Hitlers and Napoleons, but keep the amount of people in the list down to the most vital and well-known people in human history - people that will definitely be looked up. I have no idea if that would actually solve things, though, and it might even make things worse. Just throwing it out there. ~Mable (chat) 08:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Epidemiology[edit]

Much like Famine, epidemics/pandemics are one of the largest and timeless human disasters. I personally think epidemic would do better on this level, but due to overlap, this is probably the best choice. It's simply such a major topic, both in history and simply for the survival of the human race entirely. Absolutely vital for an encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Fashion[edit]

Came up in the animation discussion. A much more vital cultural concept that it; on the level of video games and such. I think it's current not inclusion is the result of a systemic bias (Wikipedia is written by young male geeks who don't care much for fashion). Let's remedy this. Like it or not, for most people the choice of which clothes to wear is pretty vital, and more so than the topics like animation or video games. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Much more encyclopedially vital than the clothing industry. This is culturally significant in the extreme. It is in fact almost the cover concept for cultural significance itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per Piotrus and Maunus. Also fashion doesn't just mean clothing fashion. Fashion is more distinct from clothing than animation is from drawing. It is a huge cultural phenomenon becoming universal in a globalized world. Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per comments. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

This crossed my mind before and I brought it up a few didn't like the idea, clothing is in the 100 and 1000 lists, fashion is not a technology or craft separate from clothing like animation or video games, but an art form or creative expression through/with clothing, is it distinct enough from clothing for this level? I am neutral at the moment...Also for regular everyday things like clothing, the article furniture was previously in, but removed without discussion, furniture is pretty vital to majority of people in their everyday life, and is not really covered by anything other than house, that I can see anyway. I would like to add furniture back before something like fashion. Is common place vital, with things like furniture? the expanded list has furniture plus several examples of it too. Carlwev  09:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good argument. I'm not completely sure about it anymore either, as "the art of [blank]" isn't that important when [blank] is already on the list. ... I just checked the article and it is dedicated for a good portion to the cultural aspects of clothing. I think that should be enough for this topic, yes. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Natural disaster[edit]

While we cover some in Earth science section, this parent topic is vital enough of a basic concept to warrant inclusion, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Much like Disaster below, this also more a dictionary definition than a specific thing. However, the article basically lists different kinds of natural disasters. It's very broad, perhaps too broad. I haven't decided yet... ~Mable (chat) 08:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Natural disaster is in the core articles project, another project similar to this with a 150 article limit. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics  Carlwev  09:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Disaster[edit]

In case some would think we already cover most natural disasters, and/or that we would have to add the man-made disasters, perhaps we can compromise with this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, disaster is too much of a word for this list. It's hard to get encyclopedic information on something so general. ~Mable (chat) 08:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose (per Mable) RJFJR (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

This is not Lev4 listed yet either.  Carlwev  08:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Mecca[edit]

Just read the lead of it and you'll know that it is crucial and should be in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, there are plenty of vital topics to cover Islam with, but I don't think we need this one on this level ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss