Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

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.
 

This is the talk page for Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. Comments made on its subpages will not appear here unless added manually.

Introduction[edit]

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed anytime as PASSED if at least five !votes have been cast in support, and at least two-thirds of the total !votes are in favor of the proposal. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and 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 you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles/Expanded 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 other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

  • 15 days ago: 06:17, 08 July 2014 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 06:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 06:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose a section below:

Thank you for participating in the Vital Articles/Expanded project.

Contents

People[edit]

Entertainers[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Carl Reiner[edit]

Comedians seem way over-represented to me, and I fail to see the importance of this particular entry. One of too many Americans here. Not at all well known outside the States (if known inside?). --Rsm77 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Carl who?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I have never heard of him. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support I had noted the massive over-representation of American comedians and had thought about proposing some removals, but my lack of familiarity with them meant I found it difficult to work out who to propose. I think this is an area that is still ripe for pruning. Neljack (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose almost wholly based upon the fact that the nomination and those who have "explained" their support for this removal cite only that (A) he's an American, (B) he's a comedian, or (C) "I've never heard of him" as their reasoning. I would listen to valid arguments against the inclusion of this article. Those are simply not valid. If "Carl who" and "I have never heard of him", and "One of too many Americans here" are accepted as valid arguments against an article's inclusion, then what is this process for, really? There are MANY vital articles that I have never heard of before; in such cases, I recuse myself, as should all above who cited that and similar reasons for their support of this removal proposal. There is certainly discussion to be had here, but it will not be found jumping from an anti-American or an argument from ignorance. Lithistman (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Lithistman: Then give us an reason why he should stay. We have to cover the entire history of the earth on this list. So why Carl Reiner instead of Insulin or the Human hand? The reason why we cut Americans is because years ago, in the beginning of this list everybody just added their favorite celebrity without discussion. So many of the quotes you read here are not Anti-American at all, they can be explained by the history of this project. And, I might add, I think, maybe you're right, maybe we are going to far and deleting too many Americans. --Melody Lavender (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

When Sid Caesar is deemed not significant enough to include (look at what Reiner himself had to say about him), I don't see grounds for keeping Reiner. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Do not wantonly accuse others of anti-Americanism when you have not seen the care that has been taken to allow Americans who deserve to make the list make the list while removing those who do not. The ratio of American athletes vs. those of other countries was quantified and commented on here, and I strongly suspect a similar survey of the entertainers will yield similar results. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I did nothing "wantonly." I enumerated my concerns, with only 1/3 of my concerns being that some support for this is of the "he's an American" variety. In actuality, it concerns me FAR more that people would use "I haven't heard of him" as justification for removing the article. My concern is with the form this nomination took, and the lack of real discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of either keeping or removing the Reiner article. For the record, I could probably support a nomination to remove the CR article that explained itself much better than this one did. But this nomination was in really poor form, citing only his nationality, as well as the fact that the nominator hadn't heard of him in support. If those are legitimate criteria for removal, then what are we here for really? Lithistman (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I apologize for mischaracterizing you. There was some discussion of whether comedians were overrepresented a year ago. I think it's reasonable to suggest that an important component in the vitality of a pop culture icon is the public's familiarity with them, and that familiarity has to be more than just fleeting; I think what !voters (some of whom are American) might be indicating here is that Reiner's star has faded with time. But that's just my interpretation and I don't mean to put words in people's mouths. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability is a way to measure vitality. Not knowing who someone is is one strike against vitality. Of course, it is not the only way to determine vitality as it is just myself. That was just an additional comment. With respect to anti-Americanism, you make a good point there. Many people being removed are American. Still, I do not mind it as long as it does not get excessive. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Reiner is most notable for his work behind the camera, not in front of it. As such, it doesn't surprise me that people who don't follow American popular culture much at all haven't heard of him. But not having heard of a person like Reiner is NOT, in fact, "one strike against vitality", given that his primary contributions do not involve his being in front of the camera. Otherwise, many scientists, researchers, etc. may have a "strike" against their article's inclusion, because many people "haven't heard of them." Lithistman (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can be convinced that Reiner should be removed. It's just that none of the arguments put forward against the article have been in any way persuasive to me, and in fact have counterpersuaded me. Lithistman (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
To address the unnecessary raising of the rhetoric of "anti-Americanism," the reason I stated there are too many Americans is that there are more than four times as many US comedians as those of other nationalities. I believe that is an imbalance, and the general representation should be obvious from just looking at the list without counting. The reason I say that he is not well-known (not simply that I haven't heard of him) is that having read through his article that appears to be true. There is no good evidence in the article that he is well-known. If he is notable for his work behind the camera, is it fair to say he is most famous as a director of Steve Martin comedies and US TV shows? Is that a good reason to include him? Would be interesting to hear a good argument for his inclusion. And as for the idea that there are too many comedians, that was clearly given as my opinion and there for people to either agree or disagree with. If people didn't agree that comedians could lose one member (at least temporarily) they would not vote in support. This is how the list always works. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I would also say that people on this list are not generally swept along on a tide of enthusiasm to blindly back any proposal going. If they have doubts they freely express them. And I suppose that has happened here too. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You proposed the removal--it is on you to make an actual argument to remove, which you have yet to do.Lithistman (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Artists[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Writers[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Alexander Grin[edit]

There are so many obscure Russians and it's not like we need them. A few alternatives would include notably Fernando Pessoa and maybe others if I think some more. Colette? Derek Walcott? Anyway, must be better choices. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Yeah, I'd been struck by the number of Russian writers too. Neljack (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Korney Chukovsky[edit]

See above. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Figures more relevant to Russia's literary history we could include are Nestor the Chronicler, Symeon of Polotsk, Ivan Krylov, Vasily Zhukovsky and Mikhail Bakhtin. Cobblet (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add François Villon[edit]

Major mediaeval French poet who has become influential on English literature. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Our coverage of French literature is lacking: Rabelais and The Song of Roland are also missing. Cobblet (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Has had a remarkable influence over the centuries. Neljack (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Fernando Pessoa[edit]

One of the most significant literary figures of the 20th century, known for his poetry and the prose work The Book of Disquiet. Considerably more important than many on the list. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support An excellent suggestion! Neljack (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Musicians and composers[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

Remove John Lennon and Paul McCartney[edit]

I can see this one being controversial but do we really need to include these guys twice? Take away their Beatles involvement and their solo careers were not *all* that extraordinary. And Imagine (song) is also included in the Arts section. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per Rsm77. Weak for Lennon and Strong for McCartney. Looking at their solo careers in isolation, John and Paul (and George) would still meet the notability criteria but none of them would so notable as to be vital. John Lennon would be the closest but since his most successful song "Imagine" is listed, there is too much overlap. Gizza (t)(c) 09:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The cultural significance of these two men extends beyond the Beatles, including Lennon's assassination as a cultural touchpoint in American history, as well as Sir Paul's ongoing presence on the cultural scene. George and Ringo? They are only significant because of the Beatles. John and Paul's significance runs far deeper than that. Lithistman (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose These men are cultural icons in America and around the world. Their music brought a taste of democracy to people living under communist rule in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Their significance extends even further than their music, which in my view would make them vital by itself. However, I would not mind removing the song Imagine if that is what everyone wants to do. It only really depends on whether the most famous song of a musician should be on the list. I am leaning towards no, but I will have to think it through. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree that their cultural significance is such that they warrant individual listing (unlike George and Ringo). Neljack (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We still have a Beatles album and 2 Beatles songs and a Lennon song, I think a print encyclopedia, would more likely have entries for these 2 men before 4 of their works . I don't think we should remove them, not while their works are still present at least, just looks a bit to me to do it that way. Looking back it's odd we removed George Harrison before these 4 works. I wouldn't remove Lennon before "Imagine" for example, the man is more vital than one his songs, I would probably support removing Imagine, and maybe a Beatle work or 2 also.  Carlwev  19:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have thought that All You Need Is Love is a little bit of an odd choice as a song. It is not all that significant - for example it appears at 21 in a Rolling Stone list of best Beatles songs - and several of their songs are more popular - it appears at 10 here on a list of most played songs for the last six months.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
We've got "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as well. I don't see how any individual Beatles song is vital, or at least they all seem less important than "Imagine" to me. Maybe a second album besides Sgt. Pepper like Revolver (Beatles album) is a better choice than either song? Cobblet (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Neljack (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
What made All You Need Is Love distinctive was the situation in which it was first performed and recorded. It's unique in that regard. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Bessie Smith[edit]

One of the most popular and best respected singers of her day and still highly respected for her contributions today. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the greatest blues singers. Neljack (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

And Nina Simone is also not on the list. How is Mariah Carey on the list and these two not? There are other modern musicians who really should not be on there.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Add David Attenborough[edit]

We have many in the entertainment business, be it music, film or sport, sport in the spot light right now. We have over 100 people among actors, actresses and directors in the film industry, vast majority of which are in the realm of fiction as opposed to facts. When it comes to facts we have a list of journalists, plus some writers of non fiction I suppose. Not only is there no broadcasting person in the realm of nature I'm not sure there is any person on the list primarily known for documentary or factual films at all outside of the news readers and reporters in journalists, apart from perhaps Oprah if you want to count chat shows, I'm aware fiction TV and movies is by far the bigger than factual TV and film, but to have over 100 fiction film people but zero factual does not seem wise of fair representation of on screen entertainment. Also in the general area of entertainment to miss of a man such as this but argue over approx 100 athletes including 13ish tennis players among others. Attenborough is been in his business over 60 years, only just slowing down now in his 80s, I can't think of a bigger name, not only for nature but for fact/documentary film in general, he is a heavily decorated sir with numerous awards and I believe him to have had a large impact on his industry and culture, and a larger impact on the wide area of entertainment in general than many existing people across the several areas of entertainment. I bought him up passing a few times a couple of people said they liked the idea, no one said they didn't so I'll open this now. A long time ago there where 1 or 2 documentary film makers but I removed them as they where fairly obscure and not comparable to Attenborough really.  Carlwev  11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We do have Joseph Pulitzer. Perhaps we can add a few more modern journalists, reporters, television anchors. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Businesspeople[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

Religious figures[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Explorers[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Politicians and leaders[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Military leaders[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Military leaders and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Add Emmy Noether[edit]

Emmy Noether was a German mathematician who made many contributions to mathematics and physics. She was called the "most important woman in the history of mathematics," and "she is consistently ranked as one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century." This proposal accompanies my nomination of Noether's theorem. Malerisch (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I've nominated her before. She's important enough that a case for her could be made for the level 3 list over somebody like Frida Kahlo. Cobblet (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Gizza (t)(c) 01:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Johannes Diderik van der Waals[edit]

I was surprised to see that Johannes Diderik van der Waals was not among the vital articles. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1910 for his Van der Waals equation and many of us know his name from the Van der Waals force. – Editør (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Made several important contributions. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The number of scientists can do with a moderate increase. The natural sciences section is the most underrepresented area. I was thinking of Claude Bernard as a possible addition. I've also had my eye on Aryabhata which will provide greater coverage of scientists/mathematicians of antiquity. Gizza (t)(c) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At first glance I don't think we're doing too badly in terms of 20th-century physicists. Just looking at pre-WWII Nobel Physics prizewinners, I could point to Zeeman, Onnes, von Laue, de Broglie and Raman as people not on the list who seem to me like they have a case comparable to vdW, Chadwick or a number of figures already on the list; going back just a little earlier, how about Heinrich Hertz? Is anyone checking how balanced the physicists are by field? (e.g. EM, QM, thermo, atomic physics, etc.; I don't really have the expertise.) I find it easier to point to earlier figures in history whose omission is more obviously egregious to me (Paracelsus, Robert Hooke, Andreas Vesalius, William Harvey). Cobblet (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Add James Chadwick[edit]

Chadwick discovered the neutron, for which he was awarded the 1935 Nobel Prize in Physics, and also headed the British arm of the Manhattan Project. I think he would fit nicely in our list of scientists. Malerisch (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Discovery of the electron neutron is pretty important. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

@Neljack: Chadwick actually discovered the neutron, not the electron. Hopefully that was just a typo and doesn't affect your vote :) Malerisch (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed what I meant to say - I obviously wasn't paying sufficient attention! Thanks for letting me know, Malerisch! Neljack (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sports figures[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

Add Richie McCaw[edit]

Plenty of people, including leading international coaches from other nations,[1][2] regard Richie McCaw as the greatest rugby player of all time. He's won the IRB International Player of the Year award a record three times and been nominated eight times in total - twice as many as anyone else. His 90 tests as captain is a record for any nationality. He led New Zealand to victory in the 2011 World Cup despite playing with a broken foot! Neljack (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We do have other current athletes on the list. Rafael Nadal is an example of that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Perhaps in a few years, when he's retired and it's easier to judge his actual place in history. Lithistman (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

It is difficult to assess Richie McCaw's place among the greats as he is still playing. I'm personally a bit reluctant to support adding current players of any game. Gizza (t)(c) 12:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Bjørn Dæhlie[edit]

The man Bjørndalen overtook at the top of the Winter Olympics medal table, Bjørn Dæhlie won 12 Olympic medals, including 8 golds. Also won 17 World Championship medals and 46 World Cup races, making him the most successful male cross-country skier of all time. He would undoubtedly have won more but for a career-ending injury while at the peak of his powers. He is a cultural icon in Norway. Neljack (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Marit Bjørgen[edit]

The most decorated female Winter Olympian, Marit Bjørgen has won 10 medals, including 6 gold. She has also won 12 World Championship titles (plus seven other medals) and 66 World Cup races, both records. Neljack (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • User:Neljack, I'd feel more comfortable supporting your proposals if you proposed some removals (preferably of American athletes). I know some people think athletes is right-sized or maybe even too small, but I'm not one of them. I think it's bad that we have ~150 athletes (and 5 more if your proposals succeed) against only ~450 politicians and leaders. We have more athletes than generals, or than artists! pbp 15:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    pbp, I do intend to propose removals too, since I would ideally like my proposals to be at least neutral in terms of numbers. I tend to think that we need to try to restrict things to a handful of people for each sport (we currently have 17 for soccer, 14 for tennis, and 11 for baseball, for instance). I agree about American sports, but frankly I lack familiarity with them (except, to a certain extent, basketball). So if you or others have any ideas about, say, who is the least vital of the baseballers we list, that would be very helpful! Neljack (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Roger Bannister[edit]

He broke an arbitrary barrier, setting a world record that lasted for all of six weeks. Didn't do much else of note in his career, apart from one Commonwealth Games gold. Never won an Olympic medal. Neljack (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Great runner but not that close to the record now. He simply broke an arbitrary barrier. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support If this is the greatest British athlete of all time then poor Brits.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: When I said "remove some athletes", this is not the guy I meant. The fact is that he was the first to break one of sports' significant barriers. He's without question the greatest British athlete of all time. pbp 15:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: --Rsm77 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: The time and distance barrier that he broke was arbitrary, based on one system of units, but it was very significant historically, and there will be much occasion by users of Wikipedia to look up Bannister. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Lithistman (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

pbp, I am bemused by your comment that Bannister is "without question the greatest British athlete of all time". I'm not sure whether you are just referring to track and field or whether you mean to include all sports, but even assuming the narrower definition I find this hard to accept. I have seen a number of discussions about who is the greatest British athlete (in the track and field sense), but I don't think I have ever seen Bannister mentioned. Sebastian Coe, for instance, thinks Mo Farah and Daley Thompson are the greatest British athletes.[3] Coe himself is also frequently mentioned. The absence of Bannister is not surprising - as I said, he didn't do much else apart from the 4 minute mile. In contrast, Coe won back-to-back Olympic 1500m golds (and back-to-back 800m silvers), as well as setting 13 world records including an 800m one that lasted for 16 years. Thompson is regarded as one of the greatest decathletes in history, winning back-to-back Olympic golds, three Commonwealth Games golds, and World and European titles, as well as setting four world records. Farah has won an Olympic and two World Champs titles in the 5000m, and an Olympic and World Champs gold (plus another World Champs silver) in the 10000m. He also holds the European record for the 1500m and the English record for the marathon. I fail to see how Bannister can compare to them. Indeed comparing them to him was what led me to propose his removal. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Roger Bannister is significant because he was a transcendent figure who did something that had never been done before, just like we have explorers for taking the trip the first time, even if the trip is done by thousands daily and in fair less time. The breaking of the four-minute mile was one of the most significant accomplishments in sports history to that time. On his career stats alone, Jackie Robinson is probably not in the top 10-15 greatest baseball players ever; he makes the list as a transcendent figure. I doubt anybody would argue for Carl Lewis being a more vital athlete than Jesse Owens, despite Lewis have more hardware AND faster times. Likewise, nobody would say Adrian Dantley was a better basketball player than Larry Bird, even though Dantley scored more points in his career. People rank Dantley below George Mikan even, who only played six-and-a-half seasons in the NBA. They were just six-and-a-half transcendent seasons, because he was the NBA's first superstar. pbp 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Robinson (and Owens) had a genuinely important social impact; Bannister broke an arbitrary barrier. I understand your point, but I just don't think they are comparable. After all, everyone who sets a world record does someone that has never been done before. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The barrier he broke may have been arbitrary, but it has huge symbolic meaning. VA is not based on merit (see Capone and Hitler). --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Arguing against Bannister's inclusion because he "broke an arbitrary barrier" is akin to arguing against including Neil Armstrong because multiple men walked on the moon after he did it. The fact is, before he did it, it had never been done in sporting history. In fact, there were scientists arguing that it was, in fact, physically impossible to break that "arbitrary barrier." His doing so puts him in the pantheon of athletes whose names will always be remembered, and as such argues for the inclusion of the article about him in this list of vital articles. Lithistman (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Arnold Palmer[edit]

There are too many American golfers on this list. Palmer has fewer tour wins than Hogan, Woods or Nicklaus. Really, when you think about it, we probably don’t need any golfers other than Nicklaus, Woods, and maybe Gary Player for the international angle. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not the best golfer ever (though still one of the greats), but often tops rankings of the most influential - e.g. this from World Golf.[4] He was instrumental in popularising golf, transforming it from a pastime of the elite into a sport with mass appeal ("Arnie's Army" were a whole new breed of golf fans) and greatly increasing the amount of money to be made in the sport in the process. With Nicklaus and Player, one of the "Big Three". This article from Golf Today gives a good explanation of his influence.[5] Neljack (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per Neljack. Lithistman (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, per Neljack. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Somebody explain to me why it's necessary to have so many golfers. We have more American golfers than we do American presidents between Lincoln and FDR! We have as many American golfers as we do Mexican political leaders. Get your priorities straight, people! pbp 06:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Relative prominence of soccer vs. Big Three American sports[edit]

We seem to be nearing a consensus that there are too many American athletes on this lest. To me, a large portion of this seems attributable to the relative prominence of athletes of the sports of baseball, basketball and American football. Baseball and basketball are big in the United States, Canada, Venezuela and the Caribbean, but take a backseat to soccer elsewhere. American football is played almost exclusively in the United States and Canada. Yet, baseball, basketball and American football have 25 athletes (18.6%) on this list; and 23 of those 25 are American. Soccer has but 17 (12.6%) on this list, and 16 of them aren’t American (it is widely played and followed globally). As such, the combined athletes in baseball, basketball and American football should probably be 10 or less. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football
  1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I think we should have some ceiling number, and ten is fine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support There is a whopping US bias in sports, it needs to be reined in. The claim that baseball is popular in Latin America etc. is false, they are occasionally played but have hardly any relevance at all in the general sports picture they are not broadcast or followed. These are par excellence American sports tailored to an American audience, and fueled by American media. Any importance they have outside of the US is due to local US fetichism. In Europe for example Handball is at least as popular as Basketball yet has zero representation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Too many athletes period, and too biased towards Americans. Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support the general principle and reduction. Maybe not quite as low as 10. It will depend on the what the consensus is for the total number of sports figures. I don't know how a proposal making the number of US athletes proportionate to their worldwide popularity and impact on wider society is "anti-American" any more than the current relative under-representation of the rest of world is motivated by anti-Asian, anti-European, anti-African sentiments, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football
  1. I know it's outdated and has its biases, but I still find ESPN's Top North Americans of the Century an interesting reference point. Leaving out the Canadian hockey players, the top 25 Americans (your suggested figure for this list) include six baseball players, five basketball players, and three football players, as well as Jim Thorpe. That over half (15/25) of America's most vital athletes should come from these sports sounds about right to me, so I think ten would be too few. The glut of Americans on our list isn't just in those sports: it's also obvious in boxing, golf and tennis. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as a blanket rule. What we should do is what Cobblet suggests here, that is turn to a reliable reference book and figure out what the overall world notability (in the English-speaking world, as this is English Wikipedia) is for various sports figures. The plurality of users of English Wikipedia live in the United States, and many of the other users of English Wikipedia live in the "inner circle" of countries where the majority of residents are native speakers of English. If we use published reference books and authoritative professionally edited online resources that serve the English-speaking world as guides (this goes for all topics on the Vital Articles list), we should be able to achieve consensus about how to refine the list so that it is maximally useful for our fellow Wikipedians and all readers of Wikipedia. My experiences differ from everyone else's, and I say nothing here about how Spanish Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, or Hindi Wikipedia should be edited, but for English Wikipedia let's turn early and often to reference books and professionally edited specialist websites to guide our editorial decisions about what to add and what to remove to level 4 of the vital articles project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose What everyone seems to forget is that many of the American sports leagues are popular in other countries. For example, baseball is played in Japan and Latin American, American football is adapted to Canadian football, basketball is popular in Europe, and hockey is played in Canada and Europe. These American leagues are simply the top level of their respective sports. It would be illogical to remove players in these leagues for players that are not as good in other leagues. Not to mention that many of these players in these leagues are not American. With respect to the other leagues, we should keep the best American players and then add in other players from around the world. A mass deletion of Americans would simply shrink the list and make it less comprehensive. In other words, if you want to remove someone from the list, propose someone in return. Being an American does not make a person less vital, and if you want to remove Americans from a certain tier, others should also be removed that are at the same tier of their sport. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for reasons stated well above. Also, there seems to be some anti-Americanism driving some of the decisions on these proposals. Lithistman (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cobblet:, considering that list (which BTW is also available at SportsCentury, the obvious next step is to nominate any 20th century figures who are off the list, or way, way down the list, for deletion. You are correct that there is also a glot in boxing, golf and tennis. I just nominated Palmer for removal and I'm going to follow that up with Hogan and Snead. Could you tackle the boxing glut? pbp 22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably nominate Marciano and Sugar Ray Leonard for removal, but I'll think about it a little more first. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Marciano it is. I was thinking of him too. pbp 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @PointsofNoReturn:: I think 130-some-odd athletes is too many in relation to everything else we have on this list, and I am perfectly comfortable with the list of athletes being shrunk to 100 and 30 people being added somewhere else. While basketball is played in Europe, it's not anywhere near as big a deal as a) basketball here, and b) soccer in Europe. Also, while we have two non-American baseball players, we don't have a single non-American basketball player or Canadian football player, and we probably shouldn't, as the most talented of they wouldn't make the top 10 all time (Consider that there are no Canadian footballers in the SportsCentury top 50). pbp 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Purplebackpack89: Honestly, I am quite fine with the amount of sports figures that are on the list. The 134 sports figures currently on the list is comparable to all the main sections of the list of people. Some sections have fewer people simply because there are fewer people in those fields. For example, explorers only consist of 30 people because there were fewer explorers in history. Meanwhile, the politicians and leaders section has 473 people on the list. The number of sports figures we have is a fair amount considering how many people we have in other topics on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
      • @PointsofNoReturn:, So you're saying it's OK to have as many athletes as religious figures, even though religious figures have been around for a much longer period of time, and are of greater global importance than athletes? pbp 01:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "there were fewer explorers in history."[citation needed] Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I support an overall reduction of sports figures to 100. 100 out of 2000 people is still a lot when you consider that it is just one of many branches of entertainment. These people only cover about 150 years of history as well. Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Except that sports figures are one of the most vital types of entertainers. The fact that they cover 150 years of history does not mean the number of them should be reduced. I am quite content with the amount of the athletes present on the list as of now. To be honest, I would rather have 200 athletes on the list because that is how vital they are to the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
              • I guess we can agree to disagree. I believe that individual entertainers themselves are generally not that vital let alone those connected to sport. The other issue with the sports figures list, is that they invariably only deal with professional sports. Sport can vital as entertainment or a recreational activity, something you do or play instead of watch on TV. For instance, rock climbing is vital while no rock climber would be vital. IMO, the fact that sports biographies can only be vital from an entertainment perspective only also weakens their case for inclusion. I think that if the meta:Gender gap didn't exist or was reversed, we would be seeing a lot more fashion designers and models among other sorts of people listed, probably at the expense of sports figures. Gizza (t)(c) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Frankly I'd support a massive reduction in the number of athletes on the list. IMO, either they'd need to have immense dominance in a sport (and more so than say Michael Jordon or Mohamed Ali - IOW, I doubt that we could find a dozen meeting that criteria), or having some major influence or innovation in the conduct/execution of their sport (again, only a handful of possibilities), or a major non-sporting influence on their sport or world (a handful of people like Jesse Owens). Athletes who are merely good at there sport, even for a fairly long time, or merely setting ordinary records, are simply not, IMO, that important to the world. Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But is importance to the world a criteria for inclusion into a list of vital articles? Or is it prominence of an athlete among other athletes? I am going for the latter. Technically, very few athletes actually affected history in any way. I am happy with the amount of athletes we list right now. Baseball can be trimmed by a bit, as I am doing right now. The other sports are not that bad. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree. There are luminaries in a lot of other fields that are missing. pbp 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Lithistman:, if mine (and others') attempts to remove American athletes from this list is "anti-American", I'd counter that the current distribution of American athletes is jingoist. Americans make up 5% of the American population; they are not entitled to 50% of the athletes. pbp 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    And with this post you prove my point. LHMask me a question 02:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Lithistman:, So you're saying that even if American athletes is bloated, it's anti-American to fight that bloat? pbp 04:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm saying each athlete article should be judged in a vacuum, leaving nationality aside. And I'm also saying that just because there are many American athlete articles included doesn't mean they're "bloated." En.wikipedia has a large base of American users, which means that "vital" articles in En.wiki should have an American "flavor", so-to-speak. And the general tenor of some of the discussions on VA pages has been disturbing to me, as "too American" seems to be an acceptable argument here. That's what I'm saying. LHMask me a question 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Lithistman:, If we leave 25-30 American athletes out of 100-120 total athletes, it will still have an American "flavor". If we're cutting athletes, most of the low-lying fruit ripe for cuts are American, because the non-Americans on here have generally made unambiguously significant contributions to the field of sports. pbp 20:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpackonthetrail: I have absolutely no problem with removing any athlete if, in a vacuum not taking into account their nationality at all, that athlete's article is judged to be non-vital. But nationality should never, at any point, play a role in the discussion. And I see far too many discussions here (and this is not just a problem with athletes) where American nationality is being used as an argument against an article being added or for an article being removed. That is just utterly unacceptable in the English Wikipedia. Can you imagine similar "too French" or "too Nigerian" arguments being made in the equivalent encyclopedias? LHMask me a question 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Furthermore, @Lithistman:, it seems a lot easier for an American athlete to get or stay on this list than a) an American in other categories, or b) an athlete in other countries pbp 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If there were only 25-30 American athletes, who would they be?[edit]

I think it’s time to throw a hand grenade in the athletes section. The way I would go about it is to remove all the American athletes, who will still constitute over 40% even if the presently-proposed removals passed. I think we should remove all the American athletes, and then only add back 25-30 of them. So that’s gotten me thinking about which they should be. I’ve only come up with 11 so far: Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, Jack Nicklaus, Billy Jean King, Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, Babe Didrikson, and Jim Thorpe. Any thoughts on the others? pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on 25-30 American athletes
Support proposal to remove all American athletes and add 25-30 back as needed
  1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Lithistman (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I think 30 American sports figures is about right. I prefer the more conventional method where we discuss which people should be removed instead of removing them all and then asking who should be re-added. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the conventional method is best. But to comment on your list above I don't think Billie Jean King is a shoo-in by any means. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe Montana and Jerry Rice should also be on the list. Otherwise you are leaving out American Football completely. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

American Baseball Players[edit]

There are too many American ballplayers. Considering that it is mainly played in the US, I would support removing four ballplayers from the list of 9. I will be proposing four separate removals in the next few days in order to balance the list a bit more. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support removing at least five. There should be fewer baseball players than cricketers or basketball players since both those sports have greater international popularity (baseball is no longer an Olympic sport for this reason). Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks PointsofNoReturn, that sounds good. I'd been thinking that baseball could do with some trimming too. Neljack (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Good call on culling baseball. pbp 13:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's rather astounding to watch what's going on here. From people acting like baseball is only (or chiefly) played in the U.S., to others seeming to not understand that an article's "vitality" should be about more than the players "advanced metrics", the argument seems to be less about making sure a given article is actually vital, and more about finding select American articles to prune from the list of athletes. As I've noted up and down these pages, articles should be judged on their merits, not on whether certain sections need "pruned" of a given sport or nationality. LHMask me a question 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lithistman:, What I find astounding is that there are 2-3x as many American athletes on this list as there are American political leaders. I had to move heaven and earth to get Henry Clay onto the list, while people are opposing removing the 3rd-best American golfer or the 8th-best American baseball player. I believe that athletes are generally not as significant to the grand scheme of things as political, scientific or literary figures; as such, I believe the total number of athletes should be less than 100. I also find it unfortunate that when people cite "greatest athletes" lists, they invariably cite American lists, rather than lists from the 95% of the world. pbp 20:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89:The vast plurality (2-to-1 over second place) of English speakers are from America. I have no problem at all with the VA lists (both athletic and non-athletic) being made up of many America-related articles. LHMask me a question 23:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
So, @Lithistman:, you're saying that the vital articles list should only care about the English-speaking world? pbp 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89:No. Read it again. That's not what I wrote, and I think you know it. LHMask me a question 02:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lithistman:, you use prominence in the English-speaking world as justification for American bloat. How else am I supposed to read that? pbp 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Mickey Mantle[edit]

He is one of my favorite baseball players because I am a Yankee fan. However, that does not make him vital. He only had 536 homeruns, enough to get into the hall of fame, but not to be on a list of vital articles. Mickie Mantle is only number 37 on the list of the top 100 North American athletes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support: He's not Ruth, Mays, Cobb or Young. pbp 20:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I've had a look for some lists of greatest baseball players of all-time from reliable sources. Mantle ranks highly, but not right at the top. The Society for American Baseball Research has him 12th,[6] Sporting News (often known as "the Bible of Baseball") has him 17th,[7] ESPN has him 9th,[8], the AP doesn't have him in their top 10,[9] and Bill James (the eminent sabermetrics expert) has him 6th[10] (while acknowledging that this is "higher than anyone else does").[11] Neljack (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

See my notes on the Young and Clemente removal nominations. This is just out of control. LHMask me a question 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman:, What's out of control is having 150 athletes when you really only need about 50. Or 50-60 American athletes when you only need about 20. pbp 06:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Cy Young[edit]

Not ranked very highly on the lists I mentioned above in the my comment on Mantle - he's ranked 18th by SABR, 14th by Sporting News, 18th by ESPN,[12] 23rd by Bill James, and isn't in the AP's top 10. In fact, he's not even the highest ranked pitcher on any of these lists, with Walter Johnson ranked ahead of him on them all. Bill James has Paige (whom we've just removed) ahead of him too. And Mantle's ranked ahead of him on most of them, with only the Sporting News having Young slightly ahead. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Cy Young's name is on the award given to the finest pitcher in baseball every year. Whatever the various statistical rankings say, his influence goes far beyond the sheer numbers of his career. The same is also the case with Satchel Paige, though to a lesser extent. I feel the removal of the Paige article was a travesty, and this article's removal would be even worse. LHMask me a question 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us about the nature of his influence? Because his article (a GA) doesn't have much to say about it. Having an award named after you is hardly sufficient to establish that he is vital in this context. Frankly, there are too many baseballers - arguably too many sportspeople in general - and some difficult choices need to be made. Neljack (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As an American baseball fan, I do not like removing baseball players. Sadly, though, we have to make choices. In all honesty, baseball is a major sport, but is not that major around the world. I am willing to remove a few more baseball players based off of international attention to the sport. However, I do agree that removing Cy Young is a bad idea. 7 baseball players might be low enough. Then we can make room for athletes from other sports around the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Roberto Clemente[edit]

Ranked even lower - 20th by both SABR and the Sporting News, 34th by ESPN,[13] 74th by Bill James, and not in the AP top 10. One of only two non-American baseballers on the list, but it's better to seek national diversity through increasing the representation of sports that aren't popular in the English-speaking world, rather than including non-American baseballers whose inclusion can't be objectively justified. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Lithistman PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

These nominations are almost becoming ludicrous. As per my note on Cy Young above, this isn't about his statistics! Roberto Clemente's influence goes well beyond his basic statistics. There is a reason Major League Baseball named an award after him. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: If we are going to have an international baseball player on this list, Clemente is the best candidate. And if the Caribbean is to be represented on the athletes lists, baseball is probably the sport to do it with. pbp 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the other international baseballer we have, Sadaharu Oh, is a better candidate. He is probably the greatest player in Japan League history and is the worldwide home run career record-holder. And there is at least one other Caribbean athlete on the list - Usain Bolt. Given the success of Caribbean nations in sprinting, that seems to me to be at least as appropriate a sport as baseball to have a Caribbean athlete from. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
How many native English speakers know who Sadaharu Oh is? Ask yourself the same question about Roberto Clemente. That should close the case. LHMask me a question 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
LHM, it has nothing to do with language. Just because this is the English Wikipedia it does not mean that we apply different standards of notability or vitality to people from non-English speaking countries. If Oh is a sufficiently important baseball player, then the fact that he is from Japan and best-known to Japanese-speakers is irrelevant. If we really applied the test of who is best-known among English-speakers, we would doubtless end up with a list full of recent pop culture figures but lacking many far more important scientists and historical figures. Neljack (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's nonsense, and you know it. It also shows a stunning xenophobia on your part, regarding your perception of the intelligence of the English-speaking world. And it is my contention that vitality with regards to the English Wikipedia does depend, to an extent, on the relative likelihood of one article versus another to be searched out by English speakers. And Clemente far outpaces Oh in that regard, period. And Clemente is not to be dismissed the proverbial "recent pop culture figures" wave of the hand as you attempt to do above. LHMask me a question 04:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lithistman:, Above, you said that you weren't arguing that prominence in the English-speaking world matter. But here that's exactly what you're arguing. You're arguing for the removal of Oh because of his lack of prominence in the English-speaking world. The vast majority of the world is non-English-speaking, but you don't really seem to care about them being fairly represented on this list. pbp 05:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Journalists[edit]

PASSED:

Swapped 7-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 12:42, 20 July 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: Remove Studs Terkel, Add Bartolomé de las Casas[edit]

Terkel was an American oral historian who doesn't even seem that vital in the context of American historiography. (American historians, feel free to rebut.) In his place I nominate probably the first and one of the most influential historians of the Americas, Bartolomé de las Casas. His polemic A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies was widely distributed and influenced the passage of the New Laws prohibiting the slavery of native Americans, although their effectiveness was short-lived. Translations of it were read by Spain's rivals in Europe, providing fodder for the Black Legend. He remains controversial in Spain but revered in Latin America, having inspired Simon Bolivar and other revolutionary leaders. To quote Britannica, "the modern significance of Las Casas lies in the fact that he was the first European to perceive the economic, political, and cultural injustice of the colonial or neocolonial system maintained by the North Atlantic powers since the 16th century...."

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support This is a very good proposal. Las Casas is surely a far more important figure than Terkel. The journalists section is still heavily weighted towards the US. Neljack (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. 'Support I didnt suggest adding Las Casas because I am the main contributor to the article. But I am happy to support this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support, is Bartolomé going into historians? I thought of suggesting Studs before for removal  Carlwev  21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I should mention for completeness's sake that we list three other US historians (McCullough, F. J. Turner, Tuchman) and no historians from Latin America. And if somebody more knowledgeable about historians wants to take a look at who we've got there, it seems to me that there are some odd choices in there – who are Charles Oman and Samuel Rawson Gardiner and why are they listed ahead of somebody like Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay? Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I imagine Bartolomé should be listed as a historian, yes. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 5 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.


History[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History for the list of topics in this category.

History by continent and region[edit]

Prehistory and ancient history[edit]

Middle Ages[edit]

Swap: Remove Salic law, Add Solomonic Dynasty[edit]

More than half, specifically 71 out of 135 articles in the Middle Ages section relate to Europe. It makes sense that Europe has the biggest section in Early Modern History since that was when the Age of Discovery, Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred. Even there it makes up a smaller proportion of total articles (35 out of 87). But the Middle Ages section needs some serious balancing.

France alone has 8 articles while Africa in total has 7. There are no articles in relation to East Africa. I picked Salic law as the lowest hanging fruit in the France subsection as it is far less influential than other bodies of law listed such as the Corpus Juris Civilis and Napoleonic Code. The House of Solomon was the longest lasting dynasty within the Ethiopian Empire. It began in the 13th century and lasted well into the 20th. Well known figures part of this dynasty included Menelik II and Haile Selassie.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Support the removal and the motivation behind it. Oppose the addition: we already list History of Ethiopia, and the history of Ethiopia from the 13th century to 1974 is the history of the Solomonic Dynasty. To me this is too much overlap: I don't think it would be a good idea to add Monarchy of Thailand in addition to History of Thailand either. I was going to suggest the Ajuran Sultanate (a mercantile empire that lasted four centuries, saw frequent conflict with its neighbours and Portugal, and left a significant architectural legacy) as a significant East African polity not covered on the list (we don't list History of Somalia). Cobblet (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Swap: Remove Salic law, Add Ajuran Sultanate[edit]

In light of Cobblet's comments and the lack of further comments and votes by others, this is an alternative to the above. The rationale is basically the same. Gizza (t)(c) 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Early modern history[edit]

Modern history[edit]

Add Arab–Israeli conflict[edit]

The first of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. I won't vote on these right now since I'm just starting a general discussion, but the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, is included. Malerisch (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI this article was previously nominated to this list here and didn't pass. Malerisch (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Might as well !vote on this, considering that all the others are being decided this way. Malerisch (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:Melody Lavender has just added this to level 4. Do we still need to !vote on this? Personally I think it's quite an obvious omission. Cobblet (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sold on it at Level 3 but is clearly vital on the expanded list even when you consider the overlap with Israel-Palestine. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily belongs on Level 3 either. When Israel itself isn't on the list, why would this article be? Malerisch (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I would have Israel on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Israel was explicitly removed from the Level 3 list here. Malerisch (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agreed with and voted in that swap but Israel could return if there is a consensus to increase the number of countries at Level 3 (possibly at the expense of cities or something else). But OTOH, arguably the conflict is more notable and vital than the country. Israel on its own is a small country by population, area and economy. The main reason why Israel is a well known nation is unfortunately because of the conflict. The conflict also goes beyond Israel and covers much of recent Middle Eastern history (obviously the other Arab side to the story) and that makes the article broader. But then maybe the Middle East shouldn't be listed at Level 3. Choices, choices. Gizza (t)(c) 02:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

History of science and technology[edit]

Geography[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Basics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Bodies of water[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Bodies of water for the list of topics in this category.

Islands[edit]

Land relief[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Land relief for the list of topics in this category.

Add Mount Fuji[edit]

Emblematic for Japan, no other mountain has as much cultural and religious symbolic significance. It might not be as geographically significant as other mountains on the list but geographical importance should not be the only criterion. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support even though "no other mountain" is certainly an exaggeration. I'll propose other swaps later. Cobblet (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Rwessel (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Iconic. Huge cultural significance. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support, definitely, seems more vital than the highest peaks of Oceania, Australia, Hawaii which we have.  Carlwev  19:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Also, I agree with Carlwev, though perhaps we should leave at least one peak in Australia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support There definitely aren't any mountains in Australia that are comparable to Mount Fuji. Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Agree about removing Mount Kosciuszko. It's not a very high mountain - even just in Australasia, Aoraki / Mount Cook, the highest mountain in New Zealand, is more than two-thirds as high again - not to mention more culturally significant. Neljack (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose


Discussion

Well there is Uluru, but that is listed as part of Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Another one of my thoughts on having the highest mountain of Australia, we don't even list Australia's capital city, Canberra but it is small 380K pop, but then we also miss Adelaide a city of 1.3M pop, they're not as vital as Sydney but probably more vital than the tallest mountain there. A swap or add for Canberra failed a long while back, but the one for adding Wellington capital of NZ passed, Wellington and Canberra have vaguely similar population and history length.  Carlwev  10:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Mount Kosciuszko, Add Mount Tai[edit]

We already list Oceania's tallest peak as well as its most notable volcano. Kosciuszko is Australia's tallest mountain but is neither particularly tall nor prominent in an absolute sense. In its place I suggest adding the most culturally significant mountain to the Chinese people, foremost among the Sacred Mountains of China and a World Heritage Site.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Mount Parnassus, Add Mount Kailash[edit]

The most significant mountain in Greek mythology is already listed. I can't believe somebody chose Mt. Parnassus as a second example of a culturally significant mountain from the Eastern Mediterranean when they could've chosen Mount Sinai (although the Sinai Peninsula is listed), Mount Ararat or even Mount Athos which is also in Greece. When four of 18 mountains listed are in Europe I think it's time to look for examples from elsewhere, so I suggest we add the most sacred mountain in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd prefer this as a straight add. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Sinai Peninsula, Add Mount Sinai[edit]

The Sinai Peninsula is only notable as where Mount Sinai is. Mount Sinai is the holiest mountain in Judaism. It is also of major significance to Christianity. As we are adding mountains important to various cultures, Mount Sinai should be on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd prefer this as a straight add. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mount Sinai is not the holiest mountain in Judaism; the Temple Mount is. Mount Sinai (both the Biblical place and the modern place, which may be completely different) has no real permanent holiness. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As a Jew myself, I always thought the temple mount wasn't as important as the actual Western Wall. I didn't know that the actual hill had any real significance. Still, I think that Mt. Sinai is important enough to be on the list. It is where God gave the Torah to the Israelites and is important to both Judaism and Christianity. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, the Western Wall is only important because it's the last remnant of Temple, which was on the Temple Mount. Secondly, the article being proposed is not about the historical Mt. Sinai; it's about a mountain which might be the place the Torah was given. Thirdly, the peninsula is pretty important on its own as the bridge between Africa and Asia. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be better to add the article Biblical Mount Sinai then? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
My first thought on Biblical locations was remembering we already removed Garden of Eden, and I would place place Garden of Eden higher importance than Biblical Mount Sinai. Other biblical things we don't have which are probably higher could be Ark of the Covenant, and old and new testament.  Carlwev  10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the Old Testament redundant with the Torah and included in the bible with the New Testament? I would add the Garden of Eden and the Ark of the Covenant too.

Parks and preserves[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Parks and preserves for the list of topics in this category.

Countries[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Regions for the list of topics in this category.

Cities[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Cities for the list of topics in this category.

Arts[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Architecture[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

Comment: I am taking the liberty of putting up a number of proposals simultaneously. They have all been on the "Vital articles" talk page for months. I would anticipate that the vast majority of these buildings are so obviously of vital importance that their names alone are sufficient. Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I believe the architecture section can definitely be expanded to 50 at the very least. It is underrepresented compared to other forms of art as the list currently stands. However, I can support only a few of the proposed additions below if any. With the exception of Fallingwater, the scope of the suggestions is extremely narrow. They are limited in terms of geography (Western Europe), time (Middle Ages - Renaissance) and purpose (not only religious but all Christian). Churches and cathedrals are already very well represented on VA. Chartres Cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris, St. Peter's Basilica, The Kremlin (parts of which are cathedrals]] as well as church and cathedral themselves are all currently listed. Other civilisations with great architectural traditions are represented by one article or none at all. There is one Hindu-Buddhist temple, no mosques, nothing from Mesoamerica, one Chinese palace (nothing else from East Asia), one mausoleum from South Asia, nothing from Sub-Saharan Africa, and one article for South America.
I was thinking about proposing a different set of articles when I looked at this list and saw the gaping holes within it. The articles I had in mind included Tikal Temple I/Chitzen Itza, Kiyomizu-dera, Great Zimbabwe, Persepolis, Potala Palace, Alhambra, Petra, Moai and Christ the Redeemer among others (the latter two probably fit better under Sculpture). Even with regards to Western Europe, adding a castle instead of another cathedral would improve the architectural diversity of the list. Gizza (t)(c) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer more broader topics on this list, rather than individual buildings. That being said, I like the Alhambra proposal, as a very distinct and notable mix, as well as WHS. --ELEKHHT 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Gizza's and Elekhh's points. However, Petra is listed under History and Moai is subsumed by Easter Island. I proposed Chichen Itza once. I'll have to read up more before I !vote on the proposals below. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to expand the architecture section, we need to contract some articles from the list. I would support removing some biological species from the list to make room for more articles in the arts section. There are way too many biological species on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to take a broad view here. As Cobblet, has pointed out, the selections, including my proposed additions, are weighted towards Western Europe and Christianity. On one hand, many of these great buildings are still present, fully functional, very well documented and beyond doubt among the greatest buildings. However, I suspect to many, the great cathedrals all look pretty much the same. I think what we need to do is define some categories and weight them.
It might be appealing to try to balance things regionally, but this simply doesn't work. Australia is a geographic region the size of Europe where the architecture of world significance starts and ends with the Sydney Opera House. Italy, on the other hand, is a small country in which there is a single city that contains 1. the two most significant Ancient Roman buildings, 2. the best extant examples of Early Christian buildings. 3. Romanesque buildings which we are not even going to think about. 4. The supreme masterpiece of the Renaissance, 5. several incredibly innovative Baroque buildings 6. Important Modern buildings which are not going to make the list. In other words, a least three buildings on the list: Colisseum, Pantheon, St Peter's Basilica, are within a mile of each other, yet they are not a "precinct". This imbalance is unavoidable. Like Rome, Florence, London and the region around Paris, for historical reasons, are weighty in terms of architecture.
I don't know how you go about balancing the cathedrals and other great churches of Europe against the buildings of other regions. In the case of the great churches, we have huge buildings, many of the World Heritage Listed, form a cohesive, changing architectural sequence where the styles have been the subject of much study. On the other hand, many of the marvellous temples of South East Asia, and much of the architecture of ancient south America was simply eaten up by the jungle. Among the temples of South East Asia, how many are innovative architecturally?
Looking at this a different way: the Parthenon requires listing. Experts on Greek architecture define three separate styles, dependent on the details. But overall, an Ancient Greek temple looks just like an Ancient Greek temple, regardless of whether it has Doric, Ionic or Corinthian capitals. Is this more or less difference than the difference between a Byzantine church (centrally planned, with five domes), a Romanesque abbey (long, cross-shaped, with round arches, barrel vault and flat buttresses) and a Gothic Cathedral (with huge traceried windows, ribbed vault, flying buttresses)? Some are going to say "All three are Christian churches." However, they represent types where architectural innovation was highly valued. Geographically, the balance of these innovative buildings is weighted. France just happens to have a really significant number of Medieval churches of the highest order. England is not far behind. Germany specialises in Romanesque, but then there is Cologne Cathedral (Gothic).
Mosques. There are two main types, domed and hypostyle, and some of the larger mosques have both characteristics. The buildings (traditionally) generally have similar forms in terms of the shapes of the arches, the type of dome, the nature of the decoration. Some are based on the great Christian building Hagia Sophia. In general, innovation was not of as great importance as in European Medieval, but there are some notable exceptions such as the hypostyle hall of the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba.
Looking at the Baroque period, London has St Paul's Cathedral, Vienna has Karlskirche, Venice has Santa Maria della Salute, and Rome has Sant'Agnese in Agone. They are all important. St Paul's dominates and is the symbol of its city (and the nation) in a way that the other three are not.
Then we have domestic architecture. And Government architecture. Do we need one of the great Town Halls of Belgium? What houses what palaces? what state buildings?
In the Orient, what are the stylistic differences to be seen in countries where maintaining the design formulas was closely linked to religion and often more important than design innovation?
I suggest we add more buildings to the list below, and then try to reconcile them, in terms of date, style, innovative qualities and region. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think you've identified the important questions we need to address. I have two things to add:

  1. Obviously Italy's played a vastly greater role in the history of architecture than Australia. If people are wondering what a geographically "balanced" list might actually look like, perhaps a good first point of reference is the Table of World Heritage Sites by country: specifically, it's the cultural heritage sites we're interested in. But consistent with their mandate to encourage preservation efforts, UNESCO prefers to list sites where such efforts are being taken, and this naturally favours developed countries. We have no such mandate and this criterion shouldn't apply to our list.
  2. I gather that Western art historians tend to emphasize the significance of innovation in design. Other cultures may stress other factors more strongly, e.g. perfection in craftsmanship, the ability to realize a preconceived ideal, or in the specific case of architecture, the harmonization of a building with its surroundings. Western values shouldn't be used to assess the work of other cultures. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add: Wells Cathedral[edit]

Wells Cathedral, unlike the early Gothic cathedrals of France, and its English contemporary at Canterbury, (late 12th-century) has completely broken away from any hint of the Romanesque architectural origins. It is the earliest building to truly embody the Gothic style, and in achieving this, a succession of architects have been extremely innovative in the development of architectural form. The west front is regarded as the greatest demonstration of synthesis of the plastic arts (i.e. architecture, architectural carving and figurative sculpture) in England.

Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. I agree with Amandajms rationale. Especially the facade is unique (as described in the nomination's rationale: combination of sculpture and architecture) and makes it more important for the architecture section than Canterbury. Melody Lavender (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

On the other hand, either Canterbury Cathedral or Lincoln Cathedral would be a suitable alternative. Both are exceedingly fine buildings, and Canterbury, of course, has the greatest historical significance, for at least three reasons.

Add: Canterbury Cathedral[edit]

as an alternative to Wells Cathedral. Of enormous architectural variety, with every part important; and of the greatest historic important as St Augustine's church, the mother church of the Church of England, and the major pilgrimage destination in the UK.

Support

  1. Amandajm (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) as an alternative to Wells

Oppose

  1. Oppose. We dont need more English churches. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion


PASSED:

Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:40, 19 July 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: La Sagrada Familia[edit]

Gaudi's unique basilica in Barcelona

Support

  1. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support If there is one piece of architecture in Spain or Catalunya that people are likely to know this is it. If there is one piece of modern architecture in Europe that people are likely to know besides the Eiffel Tower this is it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per Maunus. Malerisch (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose There are many historically important Spanish works of architecture to choose from, from the Aqueduct of Segovia to the Alhambra to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. I'm not convinced this is the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Cobblet, as a work of Spanish architecture, La Sagrada Familia has just one tiny advantage over the three that you have named; it is, in fact, Spanish. The Aqueduct of Segovia is Roman, the Alhambra is Islamic and the Guggenheim is by a Canadian. Amandajm (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Excepot that La Sagrada familia is Catalan.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, "Spanish" as in "in Spain". Anyway, El Escorial too seems like a stronger choice. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that by 20th century architecture where the individual style of the architect is highly relevant, and where the architect is notable for his whole oeuvre rather than a single building, including the article about the architect is probably more important. In this case the question is whether Gaudi is so important that among the 10,000 most important articles there should be two about his work. I'd rather have more 20th century architects on the list (i.e. Tange, Piano, Siza). --ELEKHHT 09:15, 30 May 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: El Escorial[edit]

Support

  1. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I don't believe El Escorial is comparable to the palaces already listed. There are many other palaces that have an equally strong case for inclusion including Pena National Palace, Mysore Palace and Potala Palace. Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add: Karnak[edit]

Support
  1. Amandajm (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The World Heritage site is called Thebes, which is already listed. Karnak is a part of it.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Redtigerxyz and Cobblet. I can support a swap with either Luxor and Thebes. Gizza (t)(c) 02:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

Obviously this is a very important site, but in view of Gizza's comments regarding Ur I guess it's important to point out we already list Luxor, Thebes, Egypt and Valley of the Kings. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would support a swap with Thebes, Egypt. I don't think there is a good case for having Thebes on the list - it's mostly about the modern city (or at least it's conceivable that it will be some day, as of today the article is not well developed). Karnak is the most important part of Thebes for architecture and history of art. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Literature[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

Music[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.


Piano: a percussion instrument or a string instrument?[edit]

String instrument
  1. I always thought it was a string instrument According to the article on the piano, it is classified as a chordophone, so I would leave it in string instruments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Percussion instrument
  1. The strings on a piano are struck, not plucked, therefore it is a percussion instrument. pbp 01:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. It is generally considered a percussion instrument, and that is all that should matter for us. While you can construct a perfectly reasonable argument for classifying it as a string instrument, we should go for how it is usually classified, not our own personal opinions. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Tapping his guitar doesnt make Joe Satriani a percussionist. The article state that the piano can be considered either, which means that it is arbitrary and thus insignificant in which category we place it. I have no opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oversimplification is a leading cause of Wikidrama. If we really want to solve the problem instead of engaging in pointless argument, I suggest we do what musicologists do and use the Hornbostel–Sachs system to classify instruments. Cobblet (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus and Cobblet. It is a waste of time to dwell on this. The most important question is what is vital. The only time when the question where a vital article should be listed is relevant IMO is when "like" articles are not together, making it difficult to compare like with like. For example, there are companies in the business section and technology section. These dispersed articles should ideally be compared against each other. In this case, regardless of whether piano is listed as a percussion or strings instrument, it is easy to compare it with the other instruments. Its position within the list hardly changes. Gizza (t)(c) 13:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Internationale and Dixie (song), Add National anthem[edit]

There are too many individual songs listed and not enough general topics on music. Anthems, like flags, are important state symbols, but I don't think we need specific anthems any more than we need specific flags. I don't think the Internationale is more vital to one's understanding of socialism than unlisted topics like cooperative or planned economy. And the implication that Dixie's more vital than The Star-Spangled Banner is downright terrifying.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We had the US and UK anthems before but they removed without discussion as "unfair" to other nations, anthems are important and the overview article is decent and could be seen as fairer than including one or 2 individual anthems. We also list flag but no individual flags.  Carlwev  19:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Dixie most certainly should be removed, I could see a case for retaining The Internationale because of it's trans-national status. Rwessel (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support the removals and neutral on the addition. Strongly support removing Dixie per the discussion. I understand the point of view that specific songs are of more value than categories of songs. But even the Internationale as a symbol isn't as pervasive as the red flag or the Swastika whose proposed addition was unsuccessful. On the other side, adding national anthem could put us down a slippery slope where using similar logic, national flag, national animal, national flower, coat of arms, etc. can all be added. 13:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support addition, and support removal of Dixie L'Internationale is used (not surprisingly) internationally. Dixie is only in the United States, and only in part of the United States. It is also ridiculous to have Dixie when you don't have the Star-Spangled Banner, My Country 'Tis of Thee or God Bless America. pbp 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose People are interested in knowing about specific songs, not general categories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Maunus. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the removal, Support the addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The Internationale strikes me as considerably more significant than most songs on there. It is a song of, well, truly international impact. Dixie is less clear, but it too has had a considerable cultural impact. Neljack (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal of L'Internationale pbp 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

First, national anthem should cover examples of specific anthems and discuss them in detail if they're important. And even if you believe specific songs are so important, I don't think these are the most vital anthems (let alone songs) to know about, ahead of La Marseillaise or God Save the Queen, or other songs strongly identified with particular countries/cultures like Waltzing Matilda or Sakura Sakura or Hava Nagila. How many such songs do you think we should have? Cobblet (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed a problem, and I think I would at least vote support to remove Dixie, and perhaps also Internationale though its social and global influence is of course far greater.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd definitely support removing Dixie, I don't see the need for National anthem on the list. The problem with Internationale is that it is a left wing hymn and we don't have a right wing equivalent.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I dont see why that would be a problem, vital articles doesnt have to be fair an balanced. We include what is vital to know and what isnt we include. I guess we could include "Deutschland Uber Alles" or the Horst Wessel Lied if we absolutely wanted a rightwing "equivalent", but I am not sure they are as vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little perplexed to see a nomination to add swastika Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 28#Add Swastika fail but people are so keen on keeping The Internationale. Isn't the former more vital? I'm not even sure The Internationale is the most recognizable left-wing anthem anymore: to me that's the Solidaritätslied. Are we conflating the global "impact" of the song with the global impact of socialism itself? Cobblet (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Stardust (song), Add Singer-songwriter[edit]

Stardust is not really up there with other songs on the list. Singer-songwriter is hugely important. I think of it as a genre myself, though the article is not particularly written that way. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Performing Arts[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Swap: Remove Monologue, Add Peking opera[edit]

A monologue is just a dramatic device. It seems a weak article and we don't include more fundamental literary devices like metaphor (I don't think we should either). Peking opera is a rich theatrical tradition, with considerable visibility in the English-speaking world. Whether it belongs in performing arts with musical theatre or in music with opera may be a question. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Probably better placed in the performing arts. For consistency, we could also move the stuff on ballet, musicals and opera from music to the performing arts. Cobblet (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Visual arts[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Modern visual arts[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Fictional characters[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy and religion[edit]

Philosophy[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.

Esoterics, magic and mysticism[edit]

Religion and spirituality[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Specific religions[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology[edit]

Everyday life[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Family and kinship[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Family and kinship for the list of topics in this category.

Sexuality[edit]

Stages of life[edit]

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Household items[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Household items for the list of topics in this category.

Sports and recreation[edit]

Add Cheating[edit]

We are poised to add Doping in sports to the list, but we seem to be missing the overarching concept of gaming the system. pbp 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cheating is more than sportmanship. It is one of the biggest concepts worldwide and should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Shouldn't cheating in sport be covered under sportsmanship? Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. oppose Cheating is just any illicit circumvention of established rules. It is not a coherent topic, because it depends on the social context in which rules are being broken whether sport, marriage, games, exams, etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Agree that sportsmanship is the general term, having noted the discussion below. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Cheating mentions other things, not just within sports but, exams and relationships, and could also mention, other games, like card, board, video games, gambling, and feasibly some other dishonest activities or crimes, anywhere where one could break written or non-written rules. Not that that means we should have it any more or less.  Carlwev  13:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Timekeeping[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Colors[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Colors for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: Remove Brightness, Colorfulness and Hue, Add HSL and HSV[edit]

We should list the article on the colour models rather than their individual components.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Speaking of colour models, I think we should list both color model and the most important one (RGB color model). I also thought about swapping out cyan and magenta for CMYK color model since these colours have no real significance other than being part of that system; but it seems a little weird to list either the colour model or its colours when colour printing (their only major application) isn't on the list and could probably cover the concept. Thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what we need is Color theory. --ELEKHHT 13:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, I see is already listed at Arts. --ELEKHHT 13:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I would support the color model articles, but I don't believe removing any individual colors is necessary. A few other notes:

Society and social sciences[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Move Race (classification of humans) from Anthropology to Sociology, Social status[edit]

Race is not today considered to be primarily a biological category, there is discussion of its status as a possible biological category but everyone agrees that it has a significant social significance. I think rather than having it as the odd extra article in the anthropology section it makes sense to move it to the other categories describing social groupings. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support but I think you're referring to the subsection under Society. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Maunus knows this topic well and does much responsible article editing on related articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support the move. Other than that I don't think the concept is vital. It should be removed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Extremely vital concept socially. Race has been a deciding factor on how humans treat each other. It is less important biologically because all humans are the same species. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • @Melody Lavender:, why don't you think this concept is vital? Yes, it's a social construct, but a VERY important social construct. pbp 14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89:, the important article in that respect is Racism, not race. Race is a concept that is vital to racism, not to VA/E.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Melody Lavender:, how can you have the concept of racism without the concept of race? pbp 17:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89:What I'm trying to say is that racists base their discrimination on the perceived existence of races. Most serious scientists don't think human races can be defined. That's why we are moving it out of anthropology, of course. We all agree that Racism, for the purposes of this list, is vital, it's on level 3. So we have covered the issue. There is no need to give this obscure theory more room. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think race is a very vital concept both for social science and for peoples lives. Whether it is objectively real or not is less of an issue. Ethnic groups also are not objectively real but they have a significant impact on how we live our lives. More importantly an encyclopedia that does not have articles on both race and racism would be seriously amiss.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe at this level the topic is covered by racsim and ethnic group. I'm not saying I'd delete it from Wikipedia, but I'd remove it from the list of 10,000 most vital articles. 100,000? Maybe. There are other topics that are competing for this space. I'd rather have Quantum superposition on this list than Race. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm with php and Maunus on this one. Race is vital IMO at this level. Not as vital as racism but racism is listed on the more exclusive 1000 list. Removing race but keeping articles like ethnic group, caste, gender and social class will create a huge anomaly. Gizza (t)(c) 04:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Move Ethnic group to Sociology, Social status[edit]

Basically the same reason as above.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support A bit odd (but not at all unusual for the list) to put ethnic group in a different category than the list of ethnic groups, but I see why you'd want to keep race and ethnicity together. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per Maunus rationale.
  4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Yeah, there is some slightly weird divisions of topic. I think that probably instead of having separate entries for society, anthropology and ethnology they should be merged and then there could be subsections. Right now the anthropology section has only 5 entries and all the disciplines bread and butter is in the Culture and Society sections. Perhaps a single social sciences section could work with the main disciplines at the root and then subsections for the groupings of different concepts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Business and Economics[edit]

Add Perfect competition[edit]

The topic came up several times during the past weeks. An obvious omission. It's an important conceptin capitalism and in politics. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support As a complement to monopoly. I wouldn't support any further articles related to competition however. Gizza (t)(c) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Companies[edit]

Culture[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Education[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Ethnology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

International organizations[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Language[edit]

PASSED:

Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 22 July 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 Orthography[edit]

Suggested as better than punctuation when I opened add Punctuation which was not added in the end. Orthography, "the methodology of writing a language including rules of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation." includes punctuation and more, so is a wider article, with nearly 170 articles for language this may deserve a place.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Having common orthographic conventions is crucial to communication. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support as a topic that pertains to all human languages with writing systems. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Vital concept in linguistics. Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose and Writing, and Writing system.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

My only reservation with adding this is that there's substantial overlap with writing system. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 21 June 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 Devanagari[edit]

Complementary to the add proposal above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Redtigerxyz: Cobblet was referring to this discussion as justification for removing Devanagari. I archived it earlier, so I'm just checking to see if you saw that discussion before opposing. Malerisch (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Rhetoric[edit]

Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. It dates back to antiquity and was especially notable in ancient Greece. Rhetoric, grammar, and logic were the original core elements of a liberal arts education and are still valuable skills today. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support LHMask me a question 15:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Law[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.


Add Family law[edit]

One of the oldest and most important areas of law. Since time immemorial the law has been regulating marriage, divorce, children, etc. Laws in this area have major social consequences. Historically they have played an important role in upholding and maintaining patriarchal structures. The article is terrible, but that is neither uncommon with vital articles (unfortunately) nor a disqualification. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not sure how one of the most ancient areas of law, which is examined in most legal traditions (including religious law) and has dedicated courts in many parts of the world, could be considered "non-core". Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for reasons outlined well by Gizza below. LHMask me a question 16:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Family law is a non-core area of law. Core subjects such as procedural law and conflicts of laws are currently missing. Family law is on par with commercial law/companies law, environmental law, labour law, immigration law and tax law at the very least.

The concept of family and articles relating to it such as marriage and divorce are obviously vital and are all listed. The legal aspect is only one part of familial relations along with the social and psychological aspects. These articles when written well will cover everything including the legal aspects. Gizza (t)(c) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are aspects of marriage that might be better covered by an article on family law than an article on marriage: how different cultures look at domestic violence, for example. We have a number of topics related to family law that we could consider removing, like civil marriage. We list civil union and domestic partnership but not same-sex marriage – wouldn't the broadest treatment of the subject be same-sex union legislation? Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In terms of the study of law today (in common law jurisdictions at least), family law is indeed generally not a core subject like contract, property, criminal law, etc. But this is not a reflection on its lack of importance - rather it is a reflection on its specialist nature. The legal regulation of family relationships and personal status has been regarded as immensely important for hundreds, even thousands, of years. Think of the enormous impact it has always had on countless people at a person level. Think of the immense social, political and religious significance that has been attached to issues in family law regarding marriage, divorce, children, etc. Neljack (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the study of law and to a lesser extent the practice of it in common law jurisdictions. I understand that the practical impact of family law on the day-to-day lives of ordinary people is more important than some of the areas that I mentioned above. I still think general articles on procedure and commercial law and distinct articles on public and private international law/conflicts (they are currently bundled together in international law) should be in before family. But I will change positions if there is consensus to significantly increase the number of articles in the law section, which I think can be reasonably argued. Gizza (t)(c) 13:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not a core topic, but it's vital enough for the top 10,000. So are all the other areas Gizza mentioned and should also be in: commercial law/companies law, environmental law, labour law, immigration law and tax law + of course more importantly procedural law and conflicts of laws. I would support those. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass media[edit]

PASSED:

Removed 7-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 12:54, 20 July 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 eBay[edit]

I'm not convinced that eBay is one of the most vital websites to include in this list. On Alexa (which Wikipedia uses), it currently languishes at the 24th most visited website. E-commerce is also already listed. Yahoo! or Baidu (China's Google) are better choices if a replacement is needed: they're ranked as 4th and 5th.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Closer in vitality to something like Netscape than Google. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm not convinced that we need more websites than newspapers. The internet is rather new, after all, whereas newspapers have a much longer history of influence. Neljack (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Alexa ranks are not really an argument for putting something on the vital article list. Alexa may provide a hint at which sites we should take a closer look. The sociological and economical impact of eBay is and was enormous and incomparable. This may only be visible from a historic perspective in the future for most people. But market failure is one of the biggest problems mankind currently has. Market failure is the driving force behind political disputes, poverty, etc. - some even think it's a relevant factor in crime. Places like eBay open a perspective to improve market access (for sellers) and work against market failure. eBay has grown beyond the dingy online store where antique dealers and ordinary citizens sell their old stuff. Much of the merchandise sold is already new, and more or less the same as in any shopping mall. If you have ever thought more deeply about eCommerce, opening a store, marketing an invention, you might be starting to grasp why eBay is one of the sites that is probably going to have a lasting impact. Also, don't forget that eBay is the main success factor for PayPal, a fully owned subsidiary of eBay which is significant for all kinds of transcontinental payments, not just eBay sales. PayPal might win the battle against duopolists Visa and Mastercard. If you try to filter out the tech hype surrounding the internet, and try to accept a more sober perspective, Google pales in comparison to eBay. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose. Yahoo? Seriously? EBay is a completely different (and much more influential) type of website than Yahoo--and it's not particularly close. Lithistman (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

There is a famous quote from one of the founders of eBay that he had the intention of creating the perfect competition market. EBay may reach lasting notability because of that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, we currently list Monopoly but don't list perfect competition or competition (economics). I wonder if that can be improved. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I would add competition (economics). I am not as sure about perfect competition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Failry significant but looks like this is going no matter what I do, but I must say we have twice as many tennis players than websites, which still bugs me. I also think one video game Pong looks odd, we should maybe list a few or none at all, maybe Tetris and Pac-Man are just as deserving? TV shows looks questionable too, we have Monty Python and Monty Python's Flying Circus we have Gunsmoke I would maybe prefer simply Western (genre)? plus other issues.  Carlwev  12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The double-listing of Monty Python is a really nice catch: I say we remove the TV program and keep the comedy group. Your comparison between tennis and the internet isn't quite complete: besides the players, we don't list tennis equipment or tournaments. Besides specific websites, there are plenty of internet-related articles listed under Tech. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
We've currently allotted space for 2000 biographies. I don't think that's unreasonable but it does mean that the vitality standards for people are lower than other topics. The people at WikiProject Football and Baseball will probably consider articles on teams like Manchester United and the New York Yankees to be equally, if not more important than the best players. But the current quotas mean that no sports team has a chance at getting in. I think there's no point comparing a biography section with a non-bio section for that reason. And even though tennis isn't as important as the internet generally, the tennis players cover a greater span of time. The internet in its modern shape and form is still quite young. Roger Federer has been playing professional tennis for a longer time than Twitter has existed (he had already won 7 Grand Slams when it was founded). Gizza (t)(c) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
We make the quotas, we can change them. I'd prefer to have teams for team sports instead of individual celebrities. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Melody Lavender: I think you bring up some good points for discussion, but from my perspective, these types of economic arguments need to be backed up by numbers. On that note, I looked up the gross merchandise volume (indicating the total value of sales) for eBay and two other e-commerce giants—Alibaba Group and Amazon.com—in 2013. By all accounts, Alibaba is the biggest company out of all three, with a GMV of $248 billion (source, see intro and bar graph on GMV). Amazon.com trails at ~$100 billion while eBay lags behind at $76.5 billion (source, which is also corroborated by the graph). I'll let you put that number in perspective for yourself, but if you're looking to nominate an e-commerce company, Alibaba's the right one, not eBay. I don't think PayPal is that significant since like you said, Visa and MasterCard dominate the industry at the moment. I'll leave the debate of Google vs. eBay to someone else. Malerisch (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Alibaba is a business to business website, that's a whole different story. Amazon might be worth considering, it seems to have become just like eBay in many ways. The numbers you're quoting are only their current sales (+ don't include PayPal). We are in an area where we have to make an educated guess about what is going to be a valid vital article in the long run. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Alibaba Group is not just Alibaba.com (a business-to-business website); it also includes Taobao, which is a consumer-to-consumer shopping platform. Alibaba also controls Alipay, which is larger than Paypal (source). Amazon.com is already listed. Besides, we shouldn't be making educated guesses about what might be influential: this list is based on the present, not the future. Malerisch (talk) 06:56, 15 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.


Museums[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Museums, 18 for the list of topics in this category.

Add National Palace Museum[edit]

Most visited museum in Asia [14] after the Palace Museum in Beijing (Forbidden City is already va-4); 4.5 million visitors in 2013.

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The most important museum in the Sinosphere. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support There is an interesting story behind how the museum's collection got there in the first place. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Rijksmuseum[edit]

Large collection of Dutch Golden Age painting (already va-4) and largest collection of works by Rembrandt (already va-3/4); 2.2 million visitors in 2013.

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose because Dutch Golden Age painting is already on the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Frankly I don't think we need any more museums from Europe and the US: we should be looking to diversify this list from a global perspective. The Egyptian Museum and the Museo Nacional de Antropología are the kinds of museums I'm thinking of. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some global spreading is preferred, but in the end, the museums that are most important should be on the list, despite their locations. – Editør (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Naturally. But a list of "the most important" museums in the world in which every museum except for the American Museum of Natural History displays Western art is making a radical statement about what's important. Of course some museums listed do more than just that, but the Rijksmuseum and Van Gogh Museum are not such museums. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The concept of a museum is probably a Western thing. However, the Rijksmuseum has many historical objects on display and their Asian pavilion is dedicated to Asian art, so it is definitely not only Western or only art. – Editør (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that pavilion seems to be small and only a recent addition. The National Museum of Korea or Tokyo National Museum have to be better choices to represent Asian art. Cobblet (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
We could add those museums. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that prevents me from nominating them is that I don't know how many museums we should have and I don't know whether to propose swaps or straight-up additions. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Philadelphia Museum of Art[edit]

Eight American art museums is a lot and some of these are not so notable. The collection of the Art Institute of Chicago is at least as outstanding (I think it's much more so) and it isn't on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support – Editør (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Agree with nom. too many of the same thing, if visitors is anything to go by, only 800k pre year compared to 4.5m for the National Palace Museum, which thread just opened.  Carlwev  11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Fair enough. At some point we have too many American museums. Almost every major city has an art museum, but that does not not mean that every major city's art museum should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd nominate the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum for removal since we've recently added Fallingwater to represent Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural achievements – the actual collection inside the museum is similarly less than the cream of the cream. It could be argued that FLW does deserve to have two of his buildings on the list: but it's tough to make that case when the Architecture list remains as pithy as it is. That being said, multiple listings of works by authors and musicians are common. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be an okay addition. The question is whether we put this article in the art section or in the architectual section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
From the article, I get the impression that the most notable aspect of the Guggengeim is the architectural design, so I agree that this building should be moved from Museums to Architecture or removed entirely. – Editør (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The list at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Most visited art museums shows that the Guggenheim is just one of several well-visited museums in major U.S. cities. – Editør (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I've added the nomination for the Guggenheim. – Editør (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Add National Gallery[edit]

The National Gallery is the 4th most visited museum in the world, behind only The Louvre, the British Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. If needed, this could be swapped with the Tate Modern, which was established almost 200 years later, is also in the UK, and had 1.5 million less visitors. We're not exactly lacking in modern art museums, either. Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support – Editør (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Lithistman (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Most visited art museums[edit]

To give insight in the current vital articles, here are some museums from the List of most visited art museums in the world. Of course, this offers only a quantitative indication of only art museums. Hopefully this will help making new additions and removals in order to improve the vital museum articles. – Editør (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

9+ million visitors
  1. The Louvre va-4 Museums/Europe
6–7 million visitors
  1. British Museum va-4 Museums/Europe
  2. Metropolitan Museum of Art va-4 Museums/Americas
  3. National Gallery nominated for va-4 Museums/Europe
5–6 million visitors
  1. Vatican Museums va-4 Museums/Europe (Sistine Chapel va-4 Architecture)
4–5 million visitors
  1. National Palace Museum nominated for va-4 Museums/Asia
  2. Tate Modern va-4 Museums/Europe
  3. National Gallery of Art va-4 Museums/Americas
3–4 million visitors
  1. Musée National d'Art Moderne va-4 Museums/Europe
  2. Musée d'Orsay va-4 Museums/Europe
  3. Victoria and Albert Museum
  4. Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía
  5. Museum of Modern Art va-4 Museums/Americas
  6. National Museum of Korea
2–3 million visitors
  1. Hermitage Museum va-4 Museums/Europe
  2. National Folk Museum of Korea
  3. Somerset House
  4. Museo del Prado va-4 Museums/Europe
  5. Rijksmuseum nominated for va-4 Museums/Europe
  6. The National Art Center, Tokyo
  7. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro) see also #33 and #69 on the list
  8. National Portrait Gallery, London
1–2 million visitors
  1. Shanghai Museum
  2. National Gallery of Victoria
  3. Uffizi va-4 Museums/Europe
  4. Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations
  5. National Museum of Scotland
  6. Moscow Kremlin va-4 Architecture
  7. J. Paul Getty Museum va-4 Museums/Americas
  8. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
  9. Art Institute of Chicago
  10. Saatchi Gallery
  11. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (Brasilia) see also #21 and #69 on the list
  12. National Galleries of Scotland
  13. Van Gogh Museum
  14. Grand Palais
  15. Tokyo National Museum
  16. Tate Britain
  17. Tretyakov Gallery
  18. Dalí Theatre and Museum
  19. Musée du quai Branly
  20. Doge's Palace
  21. Gyeongju National Museum
  22. Australian Centre for the Moving Image
  23. Pergamon Museum
  24. Galleria dell'Accademia
  25. Queensland Art Gallery/Queensland Gallery of Modern Art
  26. Mori Art Museum
  27. Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  28. Smithsonian American Art Museum/Renwick Gallery (Smithsonian Institution va-4 Museums/Americas)
  29. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum va-4 Museums/Americas: nominated for removal
  30. Institut Valencià d'Art Modern
  31. Art Gallery of New South Wales
  32. National Museum of Western Art
  33. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
  34. Museo Soumaya
  35. Acropolis Museum (Acropolis of Athens and Parthenon va-4 Architecture)
  36. National Portrait Gallery (United States)
  37. National Art Museum of China
  38. Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum
  39. Royal Academy of Arts
  40. Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
<1 million visitors
  1. Philadelphia Museum of Art va-4 Museums/Americas: nominated for removal

Remove Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum[edit]

I nominate this article for removal, because it is only the 51st most visited art museum in the world, it is not as important as the Met and MoMA also in New York City, which are listed, and it is not as well visited as Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Art Institute of Chicago, Los Angeles County Museum of Art in other major cities in the US, which are not on the list. The architectural design alone does not qualify the article to be listed under Museums. – Editør (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I think Central Park would be a better choice for another architectural landmark in NYC. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I oppose a straight removal, but would support moving the article to architecture, where it is a better fit for VA purposes, in my view. LHMask me a question 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    With Wright's Fallingwater already on the Architecture list, he would then become the only architect with two buildings on the list. – Editør (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal, support a move to architecture. Its not that big a deal that an architect has two buildings on the list. I don't see that as a reason to keep it off the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Natural History Museum, London[edit]

Science museums are woefully underrepresented compared to art museums: we list only the Smithsonian (which is both) and the American Museum of Natural History. London's Natural History Museum received five million visitors in 2012, putting it ahead of all but five art museums in the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support – Editør (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • But we should be aware of the number of museums from each city, considering the nomination of the National Gallery is likely to pass, this would be the 4th museum from London. – Editør (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
If we believe that individual museums can be vital and we're looking for the most important examples, I see no reason to hide the fact that London and New York outclass any other city in the world in this regard. Credit where credit is due. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, if that is the case the museums should be listed. – Editør (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Politics and government[edit]

Psychology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

General comment on psychology topics[edit]

I've been reviewing the vital articles project criteria, the list of 100, the list of 1,000, and the current proposed level 4 list. I've also been looking at WikiProject Psychology's assessment task force page, and have left a notice on the project's main talk page to let other Wikipedians interested in psychology know about this current effort to expand the vital articles list. I'll be digging into authoritative reference books, textbooks, and practitioner's handbooks about psychology to make various article addition or swap suggestions in the next several days. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's always good to have people who are knowledgeable about a subject area! Neljack (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
PASSED:

Removed Aphasia 5-2 and moved Sleep 8-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 13:10, 20 July 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 Aphasia and Sleep (or move those articles to appropriate subcategory of Biology and health sciences category)[edit]

Now that I've had more time to check reference books, and especially the WikiProject assessment pages of WikiProject Psychology, I'll begin making a lot of recommendations of adding, removing, or moving articles currently proposed under the psychology subcategory of the proposed 10,000 articles list for level 4. The article Aphasia is inherently a topic of human medicine (pathological loss of ability to speak) and is neither a top priority nor high priority article for WikiProject Psychology. Aphasia is listed as a mid-importance article by WikiProject Medicine. Aphasia is not really a topic of the discipline of psychology, and it is far more likely that a medical doctor, rather than a professor of psychology or clinical psychologist, will have adequate reference materials to improve that article. The medicine category currently lists more general medical topics as topics that are just being added at level 4, so maybe Aphasia doesn't belong on the vital articles list at all. Sleep is plainly a topic of huge importance, and it is already a level 2 (list of 100) vital article, categorized under "everyday life." But sleep is also either a medical topic (if considered from the human point of view) or a biology topic (if considered from the all-animals point of view). The current article Sleep is currently primarily focused on human beings (as the article makes clear right at the beginning) and is designated as top-priority article for WikiProject Psychology and a mid-priority article for WikiProject Medicine. (That wasn't my decision, and I might reverse those priorities as to those two projects, given the importance of medically reliable sources for articles on topics like this.) Sleep is also a top-priority article for WikiProject Neuroscience, which makes a lot of sense. My overall suggestion is to remove Aphasia from the 10,000 list entirely and move Sleep to a category that will better match the expert attention it will need to become a good article and then a featured article, one of the subcategories in the Biology and health sciences category main category. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support removing aphasia and moving sleep. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support The field that cares most about aphasia is actually neuroscience; studies on aphasia led to the birth of neurolinguistics as a discipline. (Broca's area and Wernicke's area are classified high-importance to both neuroscience and anatomy.) But neuroscience itself isn't even on our list right now (let's discuss this below), and I suspect that there are much more important articles related to the history of medicine that we're missing (germ theory of disease?), so I'm OK with removing aphasia for now. Cobblet (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support the removal and move - the nom makes a convincing case. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Move pbp 22:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Move sleep. For now I have no opinion on Aphasia. The medical section is much to small. We would have to see this in proportion to a decent size medical section. Also, the list doesn't cover neuroscience well, I've mentioned it before and see it mentioned here. We should have neuroscience and maybe it'll fit there. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Move both. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Support removal and move. Malerisch (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Should we add cognitive science or neuroscience to the list? Where should they go? Cobblet (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I thought sleep should be in with life and biology at all levels before, if this is successful are we going to move this at all levels? would be logical. Not 100% sure on removing aphasia. it's borderline, in case anyone doesn't know it was only added this January, (see here) but opinions can change and it may go anyway. How about sleep disorder what do we think of that? covers several conditions, effects many people.  Carlwev  19:36, 20 June 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.


Society[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

War and military[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Biology and health sciences[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Targets[edit]

The target for "Biology and health sciences" is 1500 article and as at 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC) we are 14 articles under the target. The current target for "Health, medicine and disease" is 250 and we are at 216 (36 under) at the moment. The de facto target for "Organisms" seems to be 1000 and we at 998 right now so 2 under. This leaves "Other Biology" where the target is 250 but we're currently at 267 and therefore 17 over.

I went through the other biology list and think that it will be very difficult to find 17 articles that aren't vital bearing in mind that some of the less vital articles could be swapped for articles not even included yet. It may also be a challenge to find 36 more vital articles related to health. I propose that the health target number be reduced to 225 (still means we're 11 under), formally state the organism target as 1000 and therefore increase the other biology target to 275. Gizza (t)(c) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Organisms could most likely be cut by another 100 articles – look at the fish, birds, butterflies and animal breeds. Many vital medical signs are missing, as I pointed out in an old thread. There are entire fields of medicine like epidemiology/public health or physical therapy not present. We have no medicinal drugs besides penicillin and morphine which I originally put in as an alkaloid under Biochem, but on second thought fits better in the Medicine section. I'm sure a medical professional could think of more things to add. Cobblet (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Tangential to the changes in the target itself, but what do people think about moving the articles listed underWikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Biomes, 27 to the ecology section of the Biology sub-list? There is some in maintaining the status quo; I can see people wanting to find mountain, lake, forest and desert listed close together (but I also wonder whether topics like moutain and lake are more appropriate for the Geography sublist). If biomes were moved, there are a few other articles in other sections of the Physical Sciences that maybe should go with them (e.g. coral reef and oasis seem more relevant as biomes than as landforms). Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Like you said, biomes and other geographical features could be organized in a number of different ways, but I don't mind the current setup. Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it will be helpful to reduce the number of psychology articles (I will be providing suggestions about that over the next few days) and I would support increasing the number of biology articles correspondingly. Right now, I think the psychology target number is too high, and the biology target number is evidently a bit too low. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of organisms[edit]

The list of organisms is massive. Surely we can reduce it. I'm not sure that every variety of insect is needed since I doubt many people know them. This list needs a large amount of removal. We currently have 994 organisms, which I think is way too much. I am creating this section to see how many people share my sentiments. If you support it, you support mass removal of organisms from the list. I would also decrease the quota for organisms. How low is the subject of this discussion.;

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Tentative Support see comments below. Gizza (t)(c) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Tentative Support After all, no one is advocating that any of the articles be removed from Wikipedia. The issue here is whether there are really almost 1,000 distinct classification categories, organisms, and breeds that are among the 10,000 most vital topics on Wikipedia. That seems rather unlikely to me, even though I have looked up articles about animals and plants during the last year on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. We need room for subjects like health: we have no, and I mean no, human anatomy section and we virtually ignore that pharmaceutical science exists). Compared to other sections, the organism section is way too big. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The number of organisms can drop to 900 but not lower than that IMO. Whatever the agreed outcome is, it shouldn't be rushed like the mass removal of regions from the Geography section. And there shouldn't be any inverted voting rules as there were then. Removals require 5 supports and a two-thirds majority. They don't require 5 supports to be "kept".

As to where to cut, the sections on fishes, birds, some parts of mammals and animal breeds contain the largest bloat. Possibly a few plants as well. The insect section isn't that big when you consider that there are millions of species of them, they represent more than 90% of all animal life and occupy incredibly important ecological niches. The fact that many people don't know much about insects is irrelevant. Vital articles are about what people should know, not actually know. Various lists of WP:Popular pages already exist. It is important to ensure that the most visited pages are well written, adequately references, free of vandalism and the like for reasons other than vitality. Vital articles serve a different purpose and there would no points making it a replica of those other lists.

I'm still not certain that the insect section needs to be so large, regardless that they are 90% of animal life. I honestly think the species section could be cut by a few hundred, but I am not sure exactly how to do it. I also do not want to do a mass deletion without thought, so we will see where this leads us. The actual species to remove could be discussed later. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The health section and other biology sections can have their quotas increased once the removals take place. It will depend on how much is cut but their quotas probably won't need to increase to the extent that organisms is decreased. The remaining space may be allocated to history, art, society or maybe somewhere else. The society section currently has a lot of space for further additions. In the history and art sections, I can see plenty of articles that are far too specific to be vital. Then again in respect of history, moving the "history of" topics has pushed the number up and there are significant holes in its current coverage. We don't need to decide now I guess. Gizza (t)(c) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of not very vital stuff presently in the organisms section, but there are vital things missing. In balance, there's probably more unimportant organisms listed as vital than important organisms not listed. The organism section could be reduced, this should be an incremental process, not a hack and slash of the current list. It would be nice if editors more familiar with other groups of organisms got involved in the process here. Plantdrew (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That is true. All I know is that we do not need that many insects on the list. Just because insects are the most common type of animal doesn't mean they are the most vital. In fact, its the opposite. I would want to take insects off the list first, then from other lists. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to invite a few people with all-rounded expertise and knowledge in zoology to the discussion. Insects and other arthropods play many critical and niche roles in the food web. If many other animals were to disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow, it will be sad but life will move on from a anthropocentric view. If any of the insects were to disappear, the consequences would be catastrophic. Ignorance does not mean something is non-vital. Neither are animals that are large in size or aesthetically pleasing automatically vital. In any case, a hasty mass deletion of articles when every section except for chemistry and earth science is under target is pointless. We'll end up having to do 20 swaps to bring back the articles that shouldn't have been removed in the first place just like with regions and geography.
The best approaching in removing articles for all organisms is to remove the overlap. If we have a family or some other higher rank along with for example 5 species in that family, we can remove either the family or some of the species. I would definitely not remove both. And I would be hesitant in removing something that doesn't have overlap.Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's not overinclude at level 4. Per the thoughful discussion by several editors above, it is duplicative to list multiple taxonomic levels for the same organism, so that we have an article for an obscure organism, and then five articles above that for the genus, family, order, etc. that includes that obscure organism. I think it will be easy to achieve trimming the current organisms list by 100 entries if we keep in mind that all the organism articles have infoboxes that show their place in current systems of taxonomy, so that readers can always trace up the hierarchy from an organism article to find a genus, family, etc., and for the most part can also rely on hypertext to trace from any family to any included genus, and from any genus to all the species that have articles on Wikipedia, and so on. So for the 10,000 articles of vital articles project level 4, we can afford to be a little more selective, focusing on articles on "a list of subjects for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles," serving "as a centralized watchlist to track the status of Wikipedia's most essential articles." I'll nominate some organism subsection articles for removal after checking biology reference sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of organisms for removal[edit]

As before, as we discuss the level 4 list of 10,000 vital articles among the 4,563,413 articles on Wikipedia, we can keep in mind the vital articles project goals of serving "as a centralized watchlist to track the status of Wikipedia's most essential articles." The list of organisms articles currently includes articles on topics down to specific breeds or varieties and up to very broad classification categories, including classification categories that are not generally known (or looked up) by the general public or accepted by scientists. I've thought for a few days about a procedure for trimming the list. If an organism article is a vital article, someone must have occasion to look it up, so I'd expect the term that forms the article title to be in the index of a major biology textbook or in a "college" dictionary of the English language for general use. I'd also expect an article that belongs in the level 4 list of 10,000 vital articles to have article traffic statistics that at least put it in the top 40,000 or so (in round figures) of Wikipedia articles by number of visits. And I'd wonder who will work on updating it, or if there are even reliable sources for improving the article, if the article has been at stub status for a long time. I'm checking the American Heritage Dictionary new college edition 1980, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1988, Biology by Brooker, Widmaier, et al. second edition 2008, and Campbell Biology ninth edition 2011 (other members of my household passionately study biology) and the article page view statistics and identifying articles for removal to trim the list. Of course your comments and suggestions are very welcome as we proceed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Basics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Add Invasive species[edit]

We currently list many examples of pests and weeds but have none of pest, weed, introduced species or invasive species. I think we should improve our coverage on this significant ecological issue. Gizza (t)(c) 03:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support This should go under ecology. Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Agree with Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support, but include at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Ecology.2C_10 not Basics. Plantdrew (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Yeah ecology is a better section to put this than basics. The ecology section doesn't seemed to be linked to on the Vital articles talk page. There are a few biology subsections missing here. Gizza (t)(c) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

PASSED:

Added 7-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:22, 23 July 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 Symbiosis[edit]

Seems important enough at 10'000 level, in biology I think the bugs and fish being removed can make way for articles such as these. We have Parasitism, which I believe vital, symbiosis is a decent article and also an overview covering mutualistic and Commensalism, which are mildly important in themselves and at the moment aren't covered by anything except by Ethology (study of animal behavior). We have Endosymbiotic theory, the theory that mitochondria, chloroplasts, and other organelles came about through symbiosis of separate single cell organisms, as they normally have different DNA to the main organism. If we have this article the overview looks like it makes sense too.  Carlwev  11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support, but consider including at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Ecology.2C_10 rather than Basics. Plantdrew (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Add Neuroscience[edit]

A significant interdisciplinary field of study currently missing. It expands on Brain and Nervous system, both of which are listed at Level 3. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Cell biology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

Animals[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Animals for the list of topics in this category.

Add Ground beetle, Rove beetle, Weevil[edit]

Beetles, which comprise almost 25% of all animal species and 40% of all insect species, are now glaringly underrepresented on the list after we took a hatchet to it some time ago. The three largest families of beetles (>40 000 species) deserve to be on the list (technically that should include Curculionidae (the true weevils), but since that taxon is disputed I've nominated the superfamily of weevils in general).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Is Coleoptera on the list? That should be enough, as is for biology textbooks. The first two terms proposed here are not attested in reference books and not familiar to most people who will ever use Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per WBB, thought I might be able to support adding Weevil, since it is more familiar and likely to be searched for in an encyclopedia. LHMask me a question 14:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

To quote what User:Plantdrew once said here, "there are 3 general ways an article on an organism might be vital: evolutionary significance, ecological significance and human significance". Even if you ignore human significance completely, beetles are underrepresented due to their ecological and evolutionary roles. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding human significance, weevils are notorious pests (e.g. the boll weevil), and ground beetles can be both pests and beneficial insects. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Britannica a reference work? It's got both ground beetle and rove beetle. If you google either term you will find plenty of websites that use these terms, even educational websites intended for a young audience. Coleoptera redirects to Beetle. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED:

Swapped 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:02, 19 July 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: Remove Carassius, Add Silver carp[edit]

The Crucian carp is fairly notable as a farmed fish but the silver carp is more significant in this regard, ranking second in tonnage (behind the grass carp) and third in economic value (behind the Atlantic salmon and grass carp) worldwide in 2012.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, you're thinking along the right lines here. Remove the overarching concept nobody is going to look up, and adding a common name. Crucian carp should also be added. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support LHMask me a question 15:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
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 Barbus, Common bream, Tench and Burbot[edit]

Fish that have some notability as food fishes and are popular among anglers, but the list already includes Esox and catfish (and the wels catfish is also listed separately) and species like brown trout, rainbow trout, grayling, walleye or Micropterus seem like better choices not currently on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support LHMask me a question 15:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

For this kind of suggestion, I think it is helpful to check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages list to see where reader interest lies, as the actual pageviews of thousands of Wikipedia users may give us a better reality check than the personal experience of a dozen or so active editors on this page. Does anyone have any reference books about this particular topic (ichthyology) at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Page views can be helpful, but I try not to rely too much on them as there's so much fluctuation over time. For example, menhaden (an article I seriously considered nominating as a swap somewhere) languished at 284th in popularity among Wikiproject Fishes articles a year ago, spiked to 2nd around the end of last year, and is currently sitting at 11th. Why the sudden intense interest, I have no idea. And then there's the question of just how seriously page views should be taken as an indication of vitality. Blobfish has been consistently ranked in the top 50 for the last four years: do you consider the world's ugliest animal (as determined by online polling) to be vital? Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that these and the other species I alluded to in the nomination are fishes mainly familiar to a Western audience. We're very selective when it comes to including notable food fishes from other parts of the world (Nile perch, pomfret, Pacific saury or either of the major Larimichthys species aren't listed; really the only examples we have are milkfish, ilish and grass carp) and we should be similarly selective when it comes to these. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Bonefishes, Bowfin and Tarpon[edit]

Again, these have some notability in sport fishing but we have better examples like marlin and swordfish.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Muraena[edit]

The Romans considered it a delicacy, but they also considered Otala lactea a delicacy; that doesn't mean we have to list either one of them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't think it's vital, and not for biting, we don't have articles like Insect bites and stings, snake bite, shark attack, Dog attack etc  Carlwev  12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Piranhas (already listed) are what most people would associate with biting fish, not this. Malerisch (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. With all the species I've never heard of on the vitals list I'd hate to remove a famous fish that is in the news sometimes (for biting people). --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd be open to swap this out in exchange for moray eel. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did consider that possibility, but if we're cutting katydids and daddy long-legs I don't see how moray eels are any more notable. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED:

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:33, 23 July 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 Gecko[edit]

We are refining the animal and plant list, reptiles like garter snake are in, as are the numerous fairly unknown butterflies, other insects and fish species and families/genus. Reptiles have less than mammals birds fish and insects, geckos are of interest to non specialists and also studied due to their gripping or sticky feet.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support One other notable type of lizard we're missing is iguana. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Add Mole (animal)[edit]

I think moles are significant enough to be included, known, and sometimes hated for great digging ability, good senses despite near blind, and notorious pest to some, we have the family Talpidae but the mole itself may be more appropriate. My only first negative thought was Talpaidae interlinks to more languages but the ones I've checked translate to mole anyway, maybe many other languages don't have separate articles for the two.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support' PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support The article should probably be merged with Talpidae. I see no reason why they have seperate articles. All the links to other languages you're missing are in the Talpidae article, but I think we should list the common name article on VA.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Prefer a swap for Talpidae since that family's other members don't look vital. If English has common names for animals that other languages don't have, we shouldn't switch to an unfamiliar taxonomic rank just to maintain some sort of artificial "consistency" between Wikipedias. It's natural and expected that different languages work differently. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

PASSED:

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:36, 23 July 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 Domestic pig[edit]

We have Pig (vital, but largely about the genus) and we have wild boar as a type of pig, so we should also have domestic pig. Domestic pig is long article and links to many languages many that translate to simply "pig". I think we should include this seeing as we have 24 breeds/types of cats, dogs, horse, sheep as well as pork, bacon, ham, sausage and hot dog. With that many breeds, to not include the domestic pig along side the wild kind does not seem smart. Article says that domestic pigs first domesticated perhaps as long ago as 13000 BC in Near East and separately in 8000 BC in China, and that they number today at approximately 1 billion.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Longhorn cattle[edit]

This article is currently a disambiguation page, but it's not obvious which cattle breed was intended for this link, so I'm putting this up for a short discussion instead of just fixing it. The article originally pointed to English Longhorn, but the reason for the page move was that "most links to this page seem to be intend for Texas Longhorn (cattle), a more numerous, historically-important breed." What should this link be changed to? Malerisch (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I question whether Texas longhorn is vital. It is 343rd on the list of what people search for the most in wikiproject agriculture. However, if we are going to choose between English longhorn and Texas Longhorn, I would choose Texas Longhorn. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Plants[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Plants for the list of topics in this category.

Taxus baccata[edit]

Had my mind on the European Yew today, can't think of a swap right now, straight add??, seems equal or higher than some other plants we have, what are others opinions, especially Plantdrew's.  Carlwev  05:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not that much knowledge in the field of biology, but I agree that the European Yew should be added. I would support a swap seeing that there are so many different species on the list. I personally would not mind removing some of them to be honest. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not super excited about adding it. Certainly it's equal or higher than some of the other plants already listed, but I'd look towards removing those, not adding yew. I'm not sure I'd consider it one of the 200-250 most vital plants, although it does have some cultural/symbolic importance in Europe, as well as being a source of timber for some specialized applications (e.g. bows), and it is a common ornamental plant in landscaping. In recent times, I think the ornamental use might be the most vital aspect of this species. The ornamental plants on the vital list right now aren't really very well chosen; I haven't been doing much with VA/E the last couple of weeks, but I might start think about swaps for ornamentals (it's kind of hard though; there is hard data on how widely grown various food plants are, but nothing like that for ornamentals). Plantdrew (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Other notable tree species not currently listed include oil palm, willow, nutmeg, olive. I recognize the historical importance of yew, but I think I'd take these first. Cobblet (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd support yew, along with the others that Cobblet mentions. Neljack (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of them you mention willow, nutmeg, olive seem relevant and possibilities with swaps, I was also thinking about Henna.  Carlwev  18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
PASSED:

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:50, 23 July 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 Olive[edit]

Brought up several times now, I may as well open this. Fairly widely eaten and since prehistoric times, much more vital than other food plants like tomatillo.  Carlwev  12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Add Poison Ivy[edit]

This plant is one of the most well-known weeds in the world. Hikers always watch out for it and camp counselors have to make sure that campers do not walk into it. Numerous products have been created to kill this weed and heal the rash. The plant even has a comic book character named after it (Poison Ivy (comics)).

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Vital to campers only. Cobblet (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Nettle would be a better bid imho, but I would also vote against that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 06:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

The problem with this is we don't have ivy to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Then lets add ivy too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
We are also missing weed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
We can add that too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Anyone who owns a house has to deal with this weed. It is how multiple children get rashes in their own backyard. It is not known only to campers. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Anyone who owns a house" – really? Let me know which part of the US you live in so I know never to move there. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I live in New York, although poison ivy lives almost everywhere in the US and southern Canada. It only doesn't live in the extremely high mountains and the desert. It also has a relative plant in Africa. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Poison ivy redirects to Toxicodendron radicans, and I have a problem with the scope implied by the redirect (I took a stab at the underlying issue in my sandbox:User:Plantdrew/Poison ivy). There are two species of "poison ivy" in North America, and two species of "poison oak". All four species are variable in leaf shape and growth form. They can have leaves with pointed ivy-like teeth, or rounded oak-like lobes. They can grow as ivy-like vines, or scrub oak-like shrubs. Non-botanists can't easily distinguish the 4 species, and people often call the shrubbier plants with rounded leaves "poison oak" and the vinier plants with pointier leaves "poison ivy". Fortunately, two of the species are fairly uncommon, and the common Toxicodendron in eastern North America (T. radicans) has pointier leaves and is mostly known as "poison ivy" and the common Toxicodendron in western North America (T. diversilobum) has more rounded leaves and is mostly known as "poison oak" (though again, any species can grow as an ivy-like vine or an oak-like shrub). I don't see a good reason to pick T. radicans as vital over T. diversilobum (and I think it might be best to discuss all four Toxicodendrons in a single article titled poison ivy, with poison oak as a redirect, which is what I'd started in my sandbox).

However even if there's an article for all four species, there's some North American bias to listing it as vital. There are other Toxicodendron species in Asia, and there are plants in other genera in the Anacardiaceae family occurring throughout the world that also produce urushiol (e.g. Metopium brownei). If there's a globally vital concept here, it's probably urushiol-induced contact dermatitis, not one urushiol producing species. Plantdrew (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That would work. As you said, it is hard to choose one plant as the vital one. I also did not mention Poison Sumac and the other plants around the world. My only question for that article is where we put it. It could go in plants or in health. I would put it in health. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Ivy[edit]

This is one of the main classifications of plants. It is prevalent around the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Weed[edit]

Another major classification of plants. It is not a biological classification, but it is important as a common language classification. These annoying plants are dealt with by gardeners around the world.

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Fungi[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Fungi for the list of topics in this category.

Health and fitness[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Health and fitness for the list of topics in this category.


Medicine[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Medicine for the list of topics in this category.

Add Human heart[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 such a lot of veterinary information. We do list heart in that section. Human heart I think is at least as vital or even more vital. I would even consider placing it on level 3. Human anatomy articles are typical encyclopedia articles and readers need to have good information on these topics. Currently medicine articles on Wikipedia leave a lot to be desired, recently a study was done on this. VA should identify articles that need to be watched over and improved and I think this article fits that description. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems reasonable to have a section devoted specifically to human anatomy and physiology. I can support the addition of any such articles, although in two cases we actually have the human equivalent (human tooth, human GI tract) and it's the animal equivalent (tooth, digestion) that needs to be added. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support There should be a human anatomy section too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Human skeleton[edit]

Human anatomy articles are vital and we have almost no articles on the human body. Skeleton, an article on animal skeletons, was considered vital enough for level three. So Human skeleton should at least be on level 4. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
PASSED:

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 18:40, 19 July 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 Autoimmune disease[edit]

9th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Thanks for finding these discrepancies! Neljack (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Thank you. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Add Antipsychotic[edit]

We are currently lacking a human anatomy section and also a pharmaceutical section. This type of medication helps people who have mental disorders, like hearing voices and having halucinations. This is a major technological advance. The first such pills were prescribed in the 1960ies. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support A hugely important class of drugs. Rwessel (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC) -- Comment per my response to Cobblet below, I would also support adding the larger class psychiatric medication instead. Rwessel (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Suggest listing psychiatric medication instead, which also covers antidepressants like Prozac, mood stabilizers like lithium salts, stimulants like caffeine and Ritalin, and benzodiazepines like Valium, among others; all of which are notable types of drugs in their own right, but listing all of these separately is not going to be feasible on such a short list. Among pharmaceutical categories, health drugs only account for the sixth largest share of sales: imagine the mess we'd get ourselves into if we had to list each type of chemotherapy drug or painkiller or antihypertensive drug or antibiotic separately. Adding the general categories and the occasional outstanding example (insulin, Lipitor) would be more than sufficient for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet and discussion below. Would support psychiatric medication. Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for reasons stated best by Cobblet. Lithistman (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Before we dive down this rabbit-hole, how many articles on types of pharmaceuticals do we want exactly? A representative list is here: we currently list analgesic and antibiotics (and specific examples of each, morphine and penicillin, are also listed). Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We probably should create a section for illegal drugs like LSD, methamphetamine, Cocaine, crack cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
While I would not object to listing psychiatric medication instead of Antipsychotic, I'm not sure your analogy is correct - we're not talking about listing the dozens or hundreds of antipsychotics individually, antipsychotics *are* a fairly large class by themselves. Perhaps not as big as antibiotics. At worst we'd be listing the half dozen major classes of psychiatric medications. Rwessel (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
What you say is entirely correct and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But if we consider antipsychotics and each of the other classes of psychiatric drugs to be individually vital there are easily 50-100 pharmacology-related articles that should also make the list (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages, where antipsychotics rank 165th, or Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles which contains 131 articles): that's what I mean by a rabbit hole. Meanwhile, basic chemicals/chemical classes as diverse as heterocyclic compound, aniline, polyethylene, polystyrene, potash, quicklime, acetylene, cyanide, toluene, trinitrotoluene, urea, tartaric acid, steroid, ascorbic acid and adenosine triphosphate are all missing. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
What you're saying is inconsistent. Psychiatric medication is a rarely viewed article and it's not even ranked on the ppp-list of WikiProject Pharmacology. The approach you are suggesting (let's have the overarching article) is suitable for WikiProject Outline, which we are not. We have to strike a balance between giving an overview of a subject, balance out the different sections, giving the reader what they need and considering the impact a topic has on society. The impact aspect was why I suggested Antipsychotic as the first drug, because it strikes me as an amazing innovation to cure or improve symptoms like hallucinations. Can you imagine a (dangerous) psychotic seeing spiders everywhere and then they just take a pill and the symptoms are gone? That's a major technological step, true progress for mankind. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Ooooh, I'm impressed. Can you imagine a world without synthetic dyes, plastics, fertilizers or cement? Can you imagine how the human body could function without hormones or the molecule that serves as its universal energy source? Because we are lacking essential chemicals that correspond to all of these concepts. Tell me what's worse: seeing spiders or dying of scurvy. You want a truly balanced overview of phamaceuticals that have actually had a huge impact on society? How about listing quinine, sulfa drug, paracetamol, ibuprofen, diazepam, insulin, paclitaxel, carbapenem, streptomycin, tetracycline, vancomycin, statin, and zidovudine, for starters? I'm not saying antipsychotics aren't important; just that any medicinal chemist realizes they're only one of many types of lifesaving drugs, and the ones I've just mentioned have probably helped more people.
As for balancing out the different sections, that's exactly why I'm suggesting listing psychiatric medications as a whole. I'm not opposed to listing specific examples but they better be good ones like diazepam or chlorpromazine. Listing antipsychotic raises the question of why we're not listing all the other subtypes of psychiatric medications and creates more difficulties in terms of balance. It's a question of how many articles on pharmaceuticals you want: right now we have four. Do you want ten or twenty or fifty or a hundred or what? Cobblet (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Good that you're impressed. ;) Yes, I think a caveman/cavewoman would be more impressed by antipsychotics than by synthetic dye, plastic or cement. Fertilizers are on the list. Most of the others I would support in some form or another or am about to suggest them for addition. Vitamins are on the VA list, and exchanging that article or adding individual Vitamins like Vitamin C is something I'd consider. NSAIDs, as individual substances or as substance class, yes, I can imagine that, and obviously we'll add benzodiazepines some day. Chemotherapy is on the list already, as are antibiotics - I see no need for adding individual classes or substances there right now. Insulin I think is redundant with Diabetes, which we have. Maybe Metformin? Old, successful pharmaceutical drug against Diabetes. Frequently prescribed.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That is absurd: the average person has far more opportunity to benefit from the inventions of plastics, dyes and cement on a daily basis than from antipsychotic drugs. Add metformin but not insulin? You gotta be kidding me. The Nobel Prize committee also begs to differ. Most of what you just said makes no sense to anyone who's actually studied chemistry. Cobblet (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of what I just said is not supposed to make sense to a chemist. It's supposed to make sense to an editorial team. We aren't writing or outlining a chemistry textbook. We are trying to pick out articles that are vital for an encyclopedia for an average reader who stumbles in here via Google and who needs good information.
It's not absurd. I respect your opinion but I don't think the average person benefits more from plastics than from antipsychotics. They may not know it but the medication reduces their costs (keeping people with schizophrenia out of hospitals is also just plain cheaper) and it helps to keep them out of danger, because untreated schizophrenia puts their lives in danger. Psychotic people (hallmark of schizophrenia) can be dangerous, to themselves and others. I believe that a caveperson would have had that kind of awareness more than we have it now, with our focus on materialistic values. Be that as it may, I agree on listing Insulin, it just did not occurr to me in an argument about medication. Other diabetes meds are more prevalent. Insulin is relevant, well, essential for the human metabolism, so we should include it.
Let me get back to the medication you're listing, quinine, sulfa drug, paracetamol, ibuprofen, diazepam, insulin, paclitaxel, carbapenem, streptomycin, tetracycline, vancomycin, statin, and zidovudine - this is quite an inhomogenous mixture. I have given a rough indication of how I would treat those further up in this discussion, I'll repeat this here and some more comment. Some of those I've never heard of and I had to look them up, and don't know why you listed them:
  • streptomycin, tetracycline, vancomycin and carbapenem - are antibiotics(on list), as far as I know. We do not need to list antibiotics in more detail. We have penicillin, because we usually list the big historic first.
  • chemotherapy is on the list, and so I see no need to include paclitaxel. Methotrexate might however be interesting to evaluate, because of a secondary use in rheumatoid arthritis.
  • quinine: maybe, because of historical importance in Africa
  • statin, a drug against cholesterol, is a recentism. Not even the theory behind the cholesterol scare is fully established
  • zidovudine is the AIDS drug AZT. Also fairly new, and I suggest we wait until there is a cure, because the cure will be of conceivable lasting importance, AZT will them be a historical sidenote
  • "benzoes", Benzodiazepine should be included, not a specific drug Diazepam (which is Valium).
  • chlorpromazine is a specific antipsychotic substance, not sure why you listed that.
  • sulfa drug: no idea, I'm not a chemist, I don't think it's vital even after looking at the article.
  • paracetamol, ibuprofen - Painkillers, we list some, not sure why we'd need more. We could list NSAIDs, which includes Ibu and Aspirin. Many people take those. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As someone who is currently wearing clothes made of plastic fibres, sitting in a chair made of plastic, reading a computer screen made of plastic, typing on a keyboard made of plastic, drinking from a cup made of plastic, I don't know where to begin with a person who doesn't "think the average person benefits more from plastics than from antipsychotics" and who disregards the need for informed opinion in the task of picking vital articles for an encyclopedia. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Cobblet (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the electricity cables. Other than that you should stop twisting what other contributors say. Go ahead and suggest plastics, I might support some of them. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "... I don't think the average person benefits more from plastics than from antipsychotics." Cobblet in no way "twisted" what you wrote. Lithistman (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Quote from Cobblet: ...who disregards the need for informed opinion in the task... --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
...and I'm not going to answer to this thread any longer because this is getting weirder by the hour and it's not my obligation to answer to this thread just because I posted the proposal. Obviously the fact of the matter, that is Cobblet's list of suggestions for pharmaceutical drugs, isn't being discussed by anybody. So. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What is so appalling and off-putting about the statement "Most of what I just said is not supposed to make sense to a chemist. It's supposed to make sense to an editorial team" is the implication that your inability to understand what we're discussing is helping us. It's not. I don't know how somebody reads Quinine#History and thinks that the case for listing quinine is confined to "historical importance in Africa" – are you not aware of the almost-global impact of malaria? I don't see the point of trying to discuss which pharmaceuticals are vital with someone who can't appreciate the impact of the antibiotics revolution (I guarantee you everyone here has taken an antibiotic at some point in their life; I can't say that about psychiatric drugs) and why solving antibiotic resistance might be more important to society than curing hallucinations – and how you read Sulfonamide (medicine)#History and still think penicillin is "the big historic first" is again beyond me.
If you actually want to "balance out the different sections" while including something at the level of detail as psychiatric medication (not even antipsychotics) then a handful of articles on antibiotics is easily justifiable. If we agree to list a dozen or so pharmaceuticals, I'll propose adding an equivalent number of industrial chemicals and biological (macro)molecules, and you can expect a few plastics among the former. Where we're going to find space for all of these when chemistry's over quota to begin with and you're also suggesting we double the size of the anatomy section (which I happen to support), I don't know. It's a lot easier convincing people to add things than to remove them. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The narrowness of our worldview is demonstrated by how suggestions for these drugs come up time and time again while nobody has suggested that War on Drugs or the Mexican Drug War might also be important. Guess those topics are just not as much fun. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Beta blocker[edit]

One of the most widely prescribed drugs to reduce blood pressure. It has several other uses in cardiac diseases, has and anxiolytic effect and is also given to prevent migranes. It's also considered a doping drug. The most ancient substance in this group, Propanolol, dates back to the 1960ies. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This is a better idea than adding antipsychotics. The reason I don't suggest adding Antihypertensive drug here is that beta blockers are much more notable than the other antihypertensives, none of which merit significant coverage on our list. Antipsychotics don't stand out from the other psychiatric medications in the same way.

I'm going to stay neutral on this for now. If people want to see more (say by 10-20 articles) coverage of drugs in general (pharmaceutical or recreational) then this is worth consideration. Propranolol is a Nobel-Prizewinning discovery. But note that not everything for which a Nobel Prize has been awarded is on our list; in fact only a select few are. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Physical sciences[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Basic for the list of topics in this category.

Measurement[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Add Imperial and US customary measurement systems[edit]

11th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that both Imperial units and United States customary units are already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support This article was originally created as a result of one user's initiative to combine the two topics into one. I'm not terribly enthusiastic with the idea, but it does at least provide a useful historical overview of the evolution of these systems. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. pbp 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

#Support I'm not too sure about it at Level 3. The article is too focused on comparing the two measurements with each other. Maybe the more general system of measurement is a better choice higher up (and here of course). Gizza (t)(c) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While the two measurement systems are important, the comparison of the two is rather less so. An expanded History of measurement would probably be a good idea, though, for the historical perspective. System of measurement (although it's not as good an article), would be a better place to have a comparison of different systems (not just these two). Rwessel (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rwessel. I would support System of measurement as a replacement article. And obviously oppose it at Level 3 too. Gizza (t)(c) 01:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Astronomy[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

PASSED:

Swapped 6-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 21 July 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: Remove Declination, Right ascension and Celestial equator, Add Equatorial coordinate system[edit]

In the same way hue/brightness/saturation don't need to be listed individually, I think the article on this particular celestial coordinate system should (and does) cover its elements adequately.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Abscissa and Ordinate aren't listed under Cartesian coordinate system either. Malerisch (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Earth science[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Physics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Question on recent proposals[edit]

User:Malerisch, you're proposing a net add of over 20 articles: Physics is under quota but not by that much. Most of the adds and removals look pretty good to me but I'm not a physics major, so it's hard for me to see whether we're giving each subfield of physics the attention it deserves, or if we're introducing more imbalances into the list. Notable omissions I've noticed in the past include photoluminescence, X-ray crystallography (the most extensively used crystallographic technique), Planck's law (you're nominating black-body radiation) and Network analysis (electrical circuits): I'm curious to hear your opinion on these. How did you come up with your nominations? I do appreciate you taking a stab at this – the physics section has desperately needed an overhaul. Cobblet (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reduced the net add to below 20 now (16, if I counted correctly) with some of your feedback, so hopefully that's better. I don't think luminescence is in the list yet, so that should probably come before photoluminescence. X-ray crystallography is a good add that I would support, although I remember that a previous nomination of it failed. Network analysis is also good, but I think it would fit just as well under Electronics than Physics. I didn't have any real method to my nominations other than just scanning through each section and seeing what was missing or needed to be removed. Thanks for asking! Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've mentioned a few times below that I think the topics you're picking might be too esoteric for our purposes. I know there was (and still is) plenty of even more esoteric stuff on the list than what you're suggesting, but I decided to walk through Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Popular pages just to give myself some perspective on what people generally read. I'm glad my suggestion of X-ray crystallography seems to be completely vindicated (#53, compared to crystal at #252). (BTW I think luminescence is too close to light and photoluminescence is more vital than other forms of it – since we already list fluorescence maybe it's better to just add phosphorescence to complete our coverage.)
Anyway, some of the things I noticed we don't have are thermocouple, piezoelectricity, drag (physics), hysteresis, solenoid, and especially oscillation-related concepts like simple harmonic motion, vibration and damping. Some material properties like Young's modulus, thermal conductivity and thermal expansion surprised me by their popularity. Heat transfer is definitely a good add and we should probably add thermal conduction as well since we've listed convection and radiation. Cobblet (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about thermocouple since we already list thermometer. I don't think we have any electronic measuring instruments though, so multimeter would be a good add. Not too sure about piezoelectricity either, but leaning towards support. Drag and hysteresis are good adds. I was considering solenoid, but it seemed too similar to inductor, which is in Electronics. I added harmonic oscillator for both simple harmonic motion and damping, but I don't think vibration is necessary since we already list oscillation. I think elastic modulus is a better choice than Young's modulus since it covers all 3 primary moduli. Agree on the 3 thermal articles. Malerisch (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I still like thermocouple anyway, but OK. I can support multimeter; we do already list oscilloscope. I just noticed we're missing electromagnet, so forget about solenoid for now. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove all experiments?[edit]

A previous discussion can be found here (it does get a little sidetracked though). I think the experiments should be removed since they should be covered in the appropriate subject articles (e.g. double-slit experiment and wave–particle duality). Here's the list:

  1. Geiger–Marsden experiment (covered in Atomic nucleus)
  2. Oil drop experiment (covered in Electric charge)
  3. Michelson–Morley experiment (covered in Interferometry in Technology)

Two other notable experiments that aren't listed are the Cavendish experiment and the Stern–Gerlach experiment. If you oppose, should we add these experiments, along with the double-slit experiment? Malerisch (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per my comments below. If we list explorers but not their expeditions, we should list experimentalists but not their experiments. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support a complete and balanced coverage of experiments will make the section too large. The most important of them are covered in the theory and physicist articles as stated by Malerisch and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I see no reason for a bulk removal. VA is not Wikiproject Outline. Individual experiments can be more important than the coverage in an article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If anything, we should add a few experiments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Across the sciences, Wikipedia's pretty uneven in choosing which experiments to have specific articles for. There's no dedicated article on Lavoisier's refutation of phlogiston theory or his work on the conservation of mass, or Pasteur's work on vaccination or chirality, or Jean-Henri Fabre's observations of Pine Processionary caterpillars. Mendel's and Pavlov's experiments are covered by the concepts they introduced, while Darwin's work on orchids is covered by his publication of the results. The Miller–Urey experiment gets its own article and so does the voltaic pile. Physics experiments tend to be much better represented than experiments of other disciplines but even here there are gaps – I'd like to see an overview of Faraday's electricity experiments. I tend to agree we should remove the experiments for now, partly for the reason Malerisch gave, partly because the experiments are generally covered in the biographies of the experimentalists, and partly because I don't think we should reinforce Wikipedia's own biases. Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Analytical mechanics, Lagrangian mechanics, and Hamiltonian mechanics[edit]

These serve as the complement to Newtonian mechanics. They're definitely required knowledge for physics majors and used quite extensively both in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support based off off of page views. otherwise I do not understand any of this. I did not take physics ever. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are ubiquitous enough in college-level physics that I think they deserve their own spots on this list. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the relative importance of these 3 articles can be compared to thermodynamic potential vs. internal energy and enthalpy: the overview article is less important than the specific topics themselves. If page views can serve as justification, analytical mechanics had 8200 hits in the last 90 days while Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics had 38000 and 39000 hits, respectively. I would be okay with just adding the last two. The overview article also wouldn't cover Lagrangian, Euler–Lagrange equation, and action (physics) in sufficient detail (all important concepts in these articles). Malerisch (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best I stay neutral on the mathematical physics proposals for now. I know everything you've said is true but I'm simply out of my depth when it comes to this and wave equation – will somebody else with formal training in physics offer an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Harmonic oscillator[edit]

The scope of this article covers simple harmonic motion as well as the more general damped and driven harmonic oscillators, which are essential to mechanics and electrical circuits (RLC circuit). Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Two-body problem[edit]

This is one of those tutorial problems that professors use to teach concepts, but it's not very insightful and definitely not vital. I would compare it to Atwood machine: the standard demonstration for pulley exercises. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Elastic modulus[edit]

Important concept in solid mechanics. The article covers the Young's modulus, Shear modulus, and Bulk modulus. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Symmetry (physics)[edit]

I agree with Cobblet that this is probably the better add. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This might be a good place to mention that symmetry itself isn't a vital article (symmetry in mathematics is the one linked in the mathematics section). Malerisch (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd swap symmetry in mathematics for symmetry (the former even redirects the reader to the latter for a discussion on geometrical symmetry and I think this is the most vital aspect of the topic) and consider adding binary relation to cover the set-theory concept of "symmetric". Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Biot–Savart law, Remove Gauss's law and Ampère's circuital law[edit]

We currently list 2 out of the 4 Maxwell's equations, which are the removals that I'm proposing. The other 2 are Gauss's law for magnetism and Faraday's law of induction, which are not listed, but I don't think that they are any less important than the ones we list. I believe that we should remove these two since we already list the overview article. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think I prefer the straight removal: the Biot–Savart law is important but not quite on the same level of Maxwell's equations or Ohm's law or even something not on the list like Kirchhoff's circuit laws: coverage of it in magnetostatics ought to suffice for our purposes. In optics I'd make a superficially analogous distinction between Snell's law (which I also think might be more vital than the Biot–Savart law, though I don't think we need to list it if we're listing refraction) than the Beer–Lambert law for example. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Dipole[edit]

Dipoles are an essential concept in physics and chemistry. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Magnets, how do they work? Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support A dipole creates magnets and greatly reflects intermolecular bonds.
Oppose
Discussion

Just a side note, the dipole article isn't well written. It starts off almost like a disambiguation page. Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Magnetic moment and Electron magnetic dipole moment[edit]

I believe that the articles on magnetic moment and electron magnetic dipole moment are adequately covered by the dipole nomination above and the spin nomination below. Malerisch (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Magnetomotive force[edit]

We don't even list magnetic circuit, so I don't see how magnetomotive force is vital. It doesn't appear in standard physics textbooks either. Transformer, which is already listed, should cover the majority of magnetic circuits. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Plum pudding model[edit]

Not particularly vital, and only one in a long series of incorrect hypotheses. The only outdated atom model I'd consider vital is the Bohr model, which is still relevant to today's curriculum. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support No more important than many unlisted historic atomic models. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Let alone other historical scientific/pseudoscientific theories (geocentrism, vitalism/spontaneous generation, phlogiston). Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I took a college chemistry course recently. This model was only briefly mentioned in class and had only one multiple choice question on the atom unit test. It did not appear on the final exam. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Add Laws of thermodynamics, Remove Second law of thermodynamics[edit]

There are 4 laws of thermodynamics. Why do we only list the second one? Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Internal energy, Heat transfer, and Heat capacity[edit]

These are all important to thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support the last two, which are definitely topics of general interest. But it's hard to support something like internal energy when the equivalent concept in chemical thermodynamics (chemical potential) isn't listed – indeed our coverage of physical chemistry in general is far, far less detailed than what is already listed and what you're now proposing to add for physics topics of roughly equal significance. Where is Le Chatelier's principle or calorimetry? Cobblet (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Ignore the analogy to chemical potential – the better chemical analogues are enthalpy and free energy which are in fact listed. Support all three Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Well, no one said the chemistry section was close being finished. :) Malerisch (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes (I've been ruminating on some swaps for a long time), but it's over quota; if we don't change it or remove a significant number of elements or compounds (currently comprising 70% of the chemistry list), it will be impossible to approach the same level of coverage physics enjoys. Coverage of biology or the social sciences is similarly less than comprehensive. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Thermodynamic process and Thermodynamic cycle[edit]

Again, both are important to thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support thermodynamic cycle only, which should not only cover the concept of a thermodynamic process (in fact even the article on thermodynamics covers this) but concepts of state and path functions as well, which are no less fundamental but not quite important enough IMO to deserve an article on their own. Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Agreed. Malerisch (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Reflection (physics) and Refraction[edit]

Key concepts in optics. Yes, refractive index is already listed, but refraction is basic enough that both can be included. The scope of refraction also includes Snell's law. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Refraction is more vital than refractive index in any case. Surprised that these two articles are currently missing. Gizza (t)(c) 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd prefer to remove refractive index if we're adding refraction. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That could work. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Transparency and translucency[edit]

Another basic optics concept. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If scattering included a more extensive discussion on light scattering I imagine there would be mention of these concepts there. Perhaps that's stretching it, I'm not sure. Or maybe the quantitative concept of transmittance, which also incorporates discussion of the Beer–Lambert law, is a better addition. Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose dispersion does overlap with refraction/refractive index too much. How about these suggestions instead, in addition to transmittance? Ray (optics), Optical resolution, and Huygens–Fresnel principle. Malerisch (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel ray is the kind of thing that should just be covered by optics, and both superposition and the Huygens–Fresnel principle should be covered by wave. I thought about listing optical resolution once but a discussion of resolving power ought to go under Tech if the stuff on lenses is also listed there. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Kerr effect[edit]

Not any more vital than other topics in nonlinear optics like the Pockels effect or optical rectification. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Second-harmonic generation might be the most important topic in nonlinear optics but I don't think that's vital; in fact I don't think the article on this entire sub-subfield of physics (how many such articles do we have in other disciplines?) is vital either. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Nonlinear optics, Optical physics, Photonics, Physical optics, and X-ray optics[edit]

Optics is better represented with essential concepts, not fields. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support These subfields are either covered in sufficient detail in optics, or by specific concepts related to that field, or are simply not vital. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Move Luminosity to Astronomy[edit]

Why is luminosity categorized in optics? The article is clearly in the scope of astronomy, and I can't even find the word "optics" anywhere on the page. It's also categorized in astrophysics. Luminosity is closely related to Magnitude (astronomy), which is in Astronomy as well, so I don't see a reason why they should be separated. Malerisch (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Add Lorentz transformation, Remove Length contraction[edit]

I think Cobblet has a good point. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Equivalence principle and Principle of relativity[edit]

These are some of the most fundamental concepts in the theory of relativity. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

OK, I can support adding equivalence principle and principle of relativity. Maybe the latter is even better than the Lorentz transform. You're right: I'd completely forgotten that math is the other big exception when it comes to abstract topics. One essential role for an encyclopedia is precisely to provide a comprehensive overview of knowledge, even in areas that are less popular than Pokemon. Reaching this objective for all fields of knowledge within a limit of 10,000 articles is the big challenge: we come much closer to meeting it in physics and math than anywhere else on the list. Proposals to add social science topics of even slightly specialized focus like morphology (linguistics), family law and public policy haven't achieved consensus. Ditto for geography (Darling River, Luoyang, French Polynesia), and history is over quota so good luck trying there. Coverage of abstract topics in chemistry or biology is also sparse to non-existent. How we expect to fix these issues when we're so attached to subway systems and living/dining rooms (I had to kick and scream to get the airplane makers removed too) is beyond me.

On QM vs. relativity: the dominant role that QM plays in atomic and particle physics accounts for much of the bias – the case could be made that we don't need to list QCD or QED if we already have Standard Model and discussions of the fundamental interactions. It's not like we have no examples of the consequences of general relativity, even if they're a bit tangential (physical cosmology, supermassive black hole), but the consequences of QM have found more practical application at this point in time. Gravitational lensing is cool, but I'm not sure it's found enough use in observational astronomy (we don't even list that) to warrant inclusion; quantum tunnelling (not on the list either) is cool and has been used to build diodes and microscopes, and I'd be much more inclined to include it. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Quantum tunnelling is definitely a good add—I thought that it might have some overlap with the uncertainty principle and wave–particle duality, but it is important enough to have a separate article. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Quantum tunnelling[edit]

Quantum tunnelling is a vital concept in quantum mechanics that is responsible for radioactive decay and plays a major role in the development of semiconductor devices. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Not to mention the role in helping us understand the rates of chemical reactions and in the development of the scanning tunneling microscope, which is one of the tools that allows us to see surfaces at the atomic level. Cobblet (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Add Relativistic mechanics, Remove Relativistic quantum chemistry[edit]

Relativistic quantum chemistry isn't all that vital and is based on theories from relativistic mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Quantum chemistry is already listed. Cobblet (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Black-body radiation[edit]

This is a key concept in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The origins of QM can be traced to our inability to solve this problem with classical mechanics in the 19th century. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Antihydrogen, Antiproton, and Antineutron[edit]

These are less important than all the types of quarks that were removed a few months ago. Antimatter, antiparticle, and positron are enough. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support agree with nom, less vital than types of quarks  Carlwev  12:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Hydrogen-like atom[edit]

This concept isn't particularly vital. It doesn't appear in standard textbooks, and the article is classified as low-priority for WikiProject Physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support IIRC (don't really want to, these are dark memories), this is one of the problems you solve in an introductory class on quantum chemistry. Doesn't make it vital though. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  11:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I should note that hydrogen atom isn't on the list, so I don't think hydrogen-like atom should be. Malerisch (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Gauge theory[edit]

Gauge theories are the theoretical basis for much of modern physics, most notably the Standard Model. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Would listing this obviate the need to separately list gauge boson, particularly when we already list the gauge bosons individually? Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would rather keep gauge boson. We list both fermion and lepton, so it makes sense to list both boson and gauge boson. Malerisch (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Quantum gravity[edit]

We list string theory, but we don't list the problem it's trying to solve. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support indeed the coupling of quantum and relativity is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Quantum entanglement[edit]

Quantum entanglement is one of the main areas of research of quantum mechanics. It was first proposed as a paradox by Einstein and others in 1935 and has been widely discussed ever since. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support entanglement is vital. One of its exciting applications is quantum teleportation. Gizza (t)(c) 12:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Our coverage of QM is hardly stingy but such a profound consequence of it probably deserves special mention. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Wave function[edit]

Absolutely vital to quantum mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Hyperfine structure[edit]

We don't even list fine structure, which is surely at least as vital. A better article would be the Zeeman effect. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Even better IMO would be articles like spectral line or emission spectrum. Cobblet (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 03:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Add Energy level, Remove Excited state[edit]

More general and detailed article; covers ground state as well. Also covers the fine structure and hyperfine structure. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Even better than my suggestions above. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Excited state is the article people are going to look up when they try to understand quantum mechanics, not energy level. I'd support a straight add however. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the removal per Melody Lavender. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

As of right now, energy level has had 20,752 page views in the last 60 days compared to 13,118 page views for excited state. The former's tagged by the chemistry, physics and spectroscopy wikiprojects; the latter only by physics. So I don't think what ML's saying is true. Concepts of quantized energy levels and transitions between them are more extensively covered in the former but not the latter: the former article is indeed more general. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw the numbers. They are just raw facts that need interpretation. The reason why the numbers are higher on Excited state is probably that Energy level is of interest to chemistry and other projects as well, as you mentioned. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
And the reason that it's of interest to other wikiprojects besides physics is precisely because it's the more general article... Cobblet (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Quantum number, Remove Principal quantum number[edit]

There are 4 quantum numbers (for electrons). Why do we only list one? This is not the best idea. As I stated below, we already include the concept of quantum number, and adding it would be unnecessary overlap. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose as nom. (This doesn't happen very often...) I prefer the removal below. Malerisch (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Prefer the straight removal for reasons discussed in the following proposal (quantum numbers are already covered by electron configuration and atomic orbital). Cobblet (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per the overlap with electron configuration. Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Principal quantum number and Electron shell[edit]

The concept of quantum numbers is wholly covered in atomic orbital and Pauli exclusion principle. Electron shell is redundant with electron configuration. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Electron shells are an obsolete theory based on the Bohr model (which is also listed); they predate and have been replaced by the current quantum-mechanical concept of atomic orbitals. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. We should have the general quantum number article though and a few of the main principles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I suggest removing Pauli exclusion principle as this has to be included in any discussion of quantum numbers. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

How about a swap of the Pauli exclusion principle for quantum state? Malerisch (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that that's the sort of topic that should just be covered by quantum mechanics... I thought you were worried about overrepresenting QM :) Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'm not too sure how best to distribute or allocate coverage of electron configuration – apart from that, we've also got electron shell, atomic orbital, and now we're proposing to add quantum number... the overlap here is probably more than is desirable. I think we can get rid of electron shell (add valence (chemistry) to replace it) and maybe we don't need to list quantum number as both electron configuration and atomic orbital should cover the concept. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing electron shell is a good idea, but I don't think we should remove both Pauli exclusion principle and quantum number. Since quantum numbers are pretty much covered in atomic orbital, could we keep Pauli exclusion principle then? Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
All right. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Spontaneous symmetry breaking[edit]

This article may seem important due to the Higgs boson, but there are plenty of other equally important concepts in quantum field theory. The topic doesn't stand out as vital. Malerisch (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Spin (physics)[edit]

Spin is one of the most basic concepts in particle physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Electron magnetic dipole moment should be removed as it's just one application of the concept of spin. Cobblet (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. troppuS  Carlwev  11:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Supersymmetry[edit]

A vital field of active research in particle physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No question that the rationale is correct but when AFAIK no experimental evidence has been produced in favour of the theory I'm a little leery of including it. How about adding a broader treatment of physics beyond the Standard Model? Cobblet (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cobblet: I agree that supersymmetry has no experimental evidence, but neither does string theory, which is on the list. I don't think one is more vital than the other, so either they should both stay or both be removed. Malerisch (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

True. If we include either physics beyond the Standard Model or theory of everything I don't think we need to list specific theoretical proposals. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Scattering[edit]

This article should cover all the types of scattering (none of which are on the list). Most importantly, this includes Compton scattering, Raman scattering, Rayleigh scattering (why the sky is blue), Rutherford scattering, and Thomson scattering.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Wavelength[edit]

Seems like a fundamental concept that is missing. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Once again a surprising omission. Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Wave equation[edit]

The Wave section is definitely incomplete without this article. Don't confuse this with wave function! Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Stimulated emission[edit]

Too similar to laser (in Technology) to be included. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Superposition principle[edit]

Superposition is a fundamental concept in waves. This article should also cover standing waves and quantum superposition, which are not on the list. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Boiling point and Melting point[edit]

We already list boiling and melting. There isn't enough distinction between the two to keep them. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The articles on these phase transitions ought to cover the idea that they occur at specific temperatures and the significance of that. Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 04:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The articles on these points also focus on how the boiling points and melting points of substances can be changed by pressure as well as other ways. If anything, these articles are more important than boiling and melting. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I feel common phase transitions are important enough to list separately, but I'm not sure whether phase transition temperatures should also be separately listed... leaning towards no. Critical point (thermodynamics) and triple point could be replaced by phase diagram, could they not? Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To make sure, you're proposing to remove boiling point and melting point instead, right?
A phase diagram certainly contains the locations of the critical point and triple point, but I'm not sure if the article's main purpose is to describe what they actually are. We shouldn't be adding diagrams when we don't list free body diagram, pressure volume diagram, circuit diagram, or Minkowski diagram. (Or Feynman diagram.) Malerisch (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd remove boiling and melting points instead. And that's fine: phase (matter) also covers both concepts in its discussion of phase diagrams (they're usually introduced associated with one another which is why I brought up the swap). I should note that I don't think critical and triple points are vital enough to list on their own. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Technology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

Agriculture[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and Information Technology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

We currently only have a single programming language on the list (C). Over the course of the last year several people have suggested to add more. Vital Article Lists on foreign language Wikipedias usually include ten or twelve, including the list on Meta which should provide a guideline for all Wikipedias. Programming languages are here to stay. They will be as important a revolution as the steam engine was. In my estimate, progamming languages will be taught on an increasing scale and I think they have the potential of becoming equally as important as mathematics. So I'm going to suggest the two most widely used object oriented languages: --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can support adding more programming languages but in general the computing section is the most bloated of all of the sections in technology. Wikipedia's bias towards computer geeks/IT savvy people is probably its strongest bias of all since people who are not comfortable with computers never make an edit here. There are eight operating systems listed, many of which overlap with the IT companies listed. There are also anomalies like blog, computer monitor, mouse (computing)/computer keyboard and floppy disk being listed while article (publishing), television set, remote control and VCR are not. Gizza (t)(c) 05:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the Meta list is awful. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a quick look of the Meda lists Cobblet and I agree with you. I suspect they are copies of an older English Wikipedia version. Despite being a list meant for everyone in the world it is more unbalanced than the current en-wiki version in most areas. Gizza (t)(c) 01:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add C++[edit]

Today's other major programming language. Mostly used for object oriented programming it can in may ways be compared to Java but is less strict than Java. It has the potential of staying a major influence and leaving a historic mark.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support. as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Where is C on the list? Among computer languages, C++ lives as a dialect of C, and I'm curious about what treatment we have of C and other computer languages so far on the vital articles lists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

C is currently listed here. Malerisch (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
C++ is much more than a dialect of C. C++ is a new language with classes and lots of libraries. It is based on C, which has only 32 or so keywords. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What Melody says is true: C++ is a very different beast compared to C. But I'd point out that there are technology topics of a lot more fundamental significance than programming languages that we're missing (adze, bag, airfoil, basket weaving, digital photography, four-stroke engine, composite material, medical radiography, prosthesis, center pivot irrigation). Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree on most of these, except for basket weaving - we have weaving. Four-stroke engine strikes me as the most powerful proposal among these topics. They aren't a replacement though for programming languages. We shouldn't just diversify the list historically. There are recent develpments that are going to be of lasting importance, and it's up to us now to judge which ones those will be, in order to put them on the vitals list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't really up to us to judge when we're not academic historians specializing in recent technological developments; either it has to be self-evident to everyone or we need some evidence that "going to be of lasting importance" is not just a personal opinion. If you also consider Fortran and COBOL vital then how many programming languages do you want to add? Others have pointed out that IT isn't poorly represented on the list and one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it remains a recent blip in the history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Add JavaScript[edit]

As Malerisch said further up, much of the Web is built on it. JavaScript was essential for the advent of web 2.0. Thanks to Ajax it's still around and growing in poularity. So this should be discussed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support From the article on jQuery, it's used by over 80% of the 10,000 most visited websites. Malerisch (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The technology section may or may not be bloated, but these programming languages are certainly more important than, say, provable security, forward error correction, or abstract machine. Malerisch (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Floppy disk[edit]

Floppy disks were popularly used during the 1980's and 1990's so for about 20 years. There are many storage and recording media that were as popular for a similar length of time and are not listed, including VCR/Videotape, Compact cassette, USB Flash Drive, DVD, Gramophone record and Phonograph cylinder. There is nothing distinguishing about floppy disks that warrants their inclusion. The main data storage device article is sufficient.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Electronics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

Add Semiconductor device[edit]

13th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Semiconductor is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think the better choice for this level is the more general electronic component. On level 3, we already list integrated circuit and transistor, so I don't think we need the overview article. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Engineering[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Engineering, 18 for the list of topics in this category.

From the list Wonders of the World#American Society of Civil Engineers, the following four articles have already been listed among the vital articles: Channel Tunnel (in Technology/Infrastructure), Empire State Building (in Arts), Golden Gate Bridge (in Technology/Infrastructure), and Panama Canal (in Geography). The articles CN Tower, Itaipu Dam, Delta Works, and Zuiderzee Works are not included, and should possibly be added. I would like to nominate the last two articles. – Editør (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works[edit]

These two so-called civil engineering 'wonders' in the Netherlands protects many people from flooding (North Sea flood of 1953) and created one of largest artificial islands in the world (Flevopolder). They do not quite fit into the list yet, but this seemed to be the best category to nominate them in. – Editør (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Please tell me more Perhaps one article but not both, but first I have to wrap my mind around what other articles about major civil engineering projects are coming on to the vital articles list. Something about what has kept the Netherlands from being overwhelmed by the sea would indeed be a good article for the 10,000 vital articles list at level 4, as many coastal countries will want to know about preventing encroachment by the oceans. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

There is a similar project in Lagos, Nigeria: Eko Atlantic City. If we include Delta Works, we'll have to consider that, too. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a comparison I can take seriously. Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This topic just came up very recently. I still think adding Flood control in the Netherlands is the best way to cover the Dutch struggle to tame the North Sea. The title does opens it to accusations of geographic bias, but on the off-chance the Aswan Dam gets renamed Flood control, hydroelectricity and water management in Egypt, would we have to remove it from the list because of Egyptian bias? Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us about this recent nomination. I also support the suggestion of Flood control in the Netherlands, since that article includes a summary of both Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works and gives it some extra context. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention of the other article, which I will support (as does the original nominator) as an article about a historically very significant civil engineering project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You can add your support at the nomination below. – Editør (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Flood control in the Netherlands[edit]

Alternative to Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works. – Editør (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support two birds with one stone works well here. Gizza (t)(c) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Per the earlier discussion, this is a landmark project in civil engineering for people all over the world, even people like me who have never been to any part of Europe. And it has historical as well as technological significance, and will be rich with wikilinks to other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Not sure if the general Flood control article is vital but I would say that the even more general emergency management (disaster management) article is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Flood control[edit]

An article specific to the Dutch flood control will give the list more Western bias. Flooding is a problem in many areas of the world, for example in the up-coming economy Nigeria (is predicted to become one of the biggest economies in the world within 20 or so years). Its capital Lagos has that problem, too. The proposed article lacks a good coverage of the Dutch project as of yet, but it should of course be expanded to cover it.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Good idea. Neljack (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

At Level 3, for some reason drought is not listed when flood, tornado and tropical cyclone, earthquake and volcano are. A lack of water is just as dangerous and deadly as too much water. Desertification could fit in on the expanded list if drought goes up one level. Drought relief itself currently redirects to a section in drought. There should be enough reliable sources and coverage to full a complete article on the topic. Ideally it would also be added as the drought equivalent to this article. There are also options like hurricane preparedness (currently earthquake preparedness redirects to emergency management). Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First, our coverage of natural disasters isn't comprehensive: landslide, heat wave, ice storm and wildfire are missing. Second, at least we list levee and dam as aspects of flood control; where are wildfire suppression/prescribed burning, prediction of volcanic activity, earthquake prediction/earthquake engineering, landslide mitigation, etc.? I think flood ought to cover aspects of flood control in general; we could add more specific concepts on this topic like floodgate and seawall if we really need to. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Emergency management[edit]

The overarching article for dealing with the management, mitigation and relief for all types of disasters.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This article or crisis management would belong under government or management as it is one type of policy and decision-making; but when neither public policy nor broad and highly notable subdivisions or concepts within it like international relations or social contract aren't listed (although agricultural policy is surprisingly present) I don't think we're in a position to consider adding something like this. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Industry[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

Add Solar energy[edit]

12th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Solar power is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support We include both hydropower and hydroelectricity; this and solar power are the solar analogues. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Which is more important: the "energy" or the "power" articles? On Level 3, Hydropower, Nuclear power, and Wind power are listed, yet they are joined by Solar energy, not Solar power. (There is no article on Wind energy, nuclear energy or renewable power.) Malerisch (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The naming conventions aren't consistent from article to article, but basically there are articles about harnessing natural phenomena to do mechanical work (hydropower, solar energy); there are articles specifically about electricity generation (hydroelectricity, solar power); and then there are articles that start off like they want to be the former but end up being the latter (wind power). Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Infrastructure[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

PASSED:

Swapped 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:51, 22 July 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: Remove Basement, Add Foundation (engineering)[edit]

The latter is necessary for all buildings and is obviously of more, ahem, foundational importance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support "all buildings"? Post in ground buildings don't really have foundations, but they don't have basements either. Foundations come before basementsPlantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support basements are less common and less essential than the other rooms mentioned above. Not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 06:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the removal of Basement. I'm fine with a straight addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:48, 19 June 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.


Machinery and Tools[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Media and communication[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Medical technology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

Space[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

Textiles[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

Transportation[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

General transport related ideas[edit]

Whilst looking at the transport and tech lists several more articles came to mind, mostly vessels and techs that I think many of them are more significant than some topics already present. Steam locomotive, Electric locomotive, Electric car, diesel engine, diesel fuel, Rudder, Propeller, wing, Cruise ship, Catamaran, Toll road, Interchange (road). All of these ideas came to me, I haven't thought about all of them in depth, I wanted to post them in case I forgot them and to ask if others like them, some I really like the idea of and think they are very good candidates, like the steam and electric locomotive, and others not as much, but I listed them anyway, perhaps not toll road or rudder for example.

I was thinking, if we have sail, wheel, and tire should we have wing, propeller and rudder? Are trains by power more relevant than several underground train networks? are car shapes, and car or aircraft manufacturers more deserving than most of these?...I also think we don't have much to represent rowing, which I think is fairly significant, we have canoe (not the only type of rowing boat) and in sport we have rowing (sport) (significant but only about the "sport" not war, travel, historic, merchant), Rowing and oar are kind of weak, and some, but not myself hate having a sport-transport duplication, like sailing plus sailing (sport), and human swimming plus swimming (sport). I may drop these in gradually in time. Do people like or dislike any of these in particular, or have any other thoughts?  Carlwev  10:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of your suggestions I like diesel engine and cruise ship – I think these might be the topics with the least overlap with the rest of the list. I would suggest not wing (rather close in scope to flight in that it has to cover both human technology and animal anatomy) but airfoil in technology, along with things like bird flight and insect wing in zoology (but that's a separate discussion in itself). Things like propellers and rudders are arguably of secondary importance – to make a parallel with aviation, would you consider flight control surfaces worth adding?
I don't know how many types of watercraft we should have. On the one hand, I feel catamaran and kayak might be worthwhile additions. On the other hand, when it comes to land transport I feel that we don't need any of the subtypes listed under automobile and truck. In any case, we list galley as an example of a rowing ship, so I'm not sure we also need an overall article on rowing. Of human activities that aren't currently double-listed as sports I'd prioritize adding cycle sport and shooting sport. Cobblet (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Add First Transcontinental Railroad[edit]

Nominated per the discussion above. I definitely agree that the First Transcontinental Railroad is vital to American history, although I still believe that a modern highway system deserves to be on the list as well. Malerisch (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support That railroad was a transportation network of worldwide significance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Critical historically to American history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Coverage of the construction and impact of this railroad is pretty extensive in American frontier which is listed in the History section. Compare Oregon Trail, Manifest destiny, California gold rush or Louisiana Purchase, topics just as important in America's westward expansion which are also not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Tokyo subway, Moscow Metro, New York City Subway, Paris Métro[edit]

We don't need to list five rapid transit networks when no road network and only one railway is listed. Surely high-speed rail projects like the TGV and Shinkansen are more notable than the Paris and Tokyo subways; and surely the First Transcontinental Railroad matters more to the history and economy of the US than the New York subway. The Moscow Metro has some architectural significance but St. Basil's Cathedral is much more important and that's not on the list either. I think the London Underground is the only subway system that might be worth keeping since it was the first example of one.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removing Tokyo, Moscow and Paris. Weak support for New York. Rapid transit/Metro is clearly vital. Whether 5 examples of rapid transit are vital is another matter. As mentioned, we don't list any airports or seaports. Agree with Cobblet, Rsm and Malerisch's comments. Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - While it may not seem significant, each subway has played very important parts in the development of their respective cities. They are also very important to many people, who use these systems daily—these four systems have the highest ridership of all metro systems in the world; by contrast, something like Cleveland's RTA isn't vital, as it isn't well-known like the four metro systems described above. (Mostly the NYC Subway, and less so for the other subway systems, but still, TGV and Shinkansen could be added, as well, without removing the metro systems.) Epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pbp 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose bulk removal, I might be inclined to support individual removals or swaps though. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose all the removals. The New York City Subway is the most used in the Americas and it pretty old. The other three are also important because they are in major cities and are highly used. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I suggest we stick to the practice of having articles on the list about things that are important to the Average Joe (is he on the list?). Subways, like highways, are infrastructures most of us use every day (or would like to use every day). The argument that much of the world doesn't have subways, or highways, is not valid in my opinion because they will have them, some of them will have them in the very near future. The subways proposed for removal here, just like the US highway system that has just been proposed, are going to be the examples (good or bad) that countries like Nigeria are going to model their infrastructure on. I don't think architectural sigificance is so important. (Paris Métro, I believe, is architecturally significant, by the way.) --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree on that point; they should not be removed just because they are infrastructure. Epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, feel free to nominate every highway and railway network of every large developed or newly industrializing country, since I'm sure many people also use those on a daily basis. Ports and airports too, for that matter. What's vital to one city or country is not necessarily vital to the rest of the world. Cobblet (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that Tokyo subway may not be the best choice to represent Japan as it does not include Tokyo's most famous line the Yamanote Line, which serves several of the world's busiest stations and is used by 3.68 million passengers per day. Perhaps the world's busiest station, Shinjuku Station, used by 3.64 million passengers a day, might also be an option. Japan certainly should be represented, but not sure the best way to do so. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Technology-wise, we've got three Japanese car makers and the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge. General culture-wise, Mount Fuji isn't on the list. Are we defending these subways because we like subways, or because we think they're the most important aspect of a city or country's culture? Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment: Epicgenius, your comment on riderships isn't entirely true. According to this, the Beijing Subway, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, and the Shanghai Metro are the rapid transit systems with the highest riderships. The Guangzhou Metro also beats the New York City Subway, and the Mexico City Metro and the MTR beat the Paris Métro. The London Underground is actually the rapid transit system with the lowest ridership out of all these, although Cobblet is choosing to keep it based on other reasons. Malerisch (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Cobblet makes a good argument, so have voted in support. Still, if this proposal is not successful, Tokyo subway remains perhaps not the best choice to represent Japanese rail. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I voted against the bulk removal now, but I would support partial removal (maybe Tokio or London) or swaps for Beijing Subway. Yamanote Line might be worth discussing, but it might open the road for adding a train line per country or something. Include Airports and Train Stations? Not sure. The actual transportation lines seem more important to me. Car makers and companies in general should all go, unless they're historic, I still hold that opinion. I wonder how they got on the list initially. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED:

Added 8-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:01, 21 July 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 High-speed rail[edit]

Nowadays a distinct and important mode of passenger transportation in many parts of the world. I think it represents a major technological advance in the history of transportation.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --ELEKHHT 13:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support This was already on my mind, as are steam, diesel and electric locomotives.  Carlwev  20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
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.


Mathematics[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Basics[edit]

Remove Square root[edit]

Covered by nth root which is on the list. So I'm putting this up for discussion. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose At this level I think both are vital: square roots are the most ubiquitous of the fractional exponents. They've played a notable role in mathematical history, being what led ancient mathematicians to realize that irrational numbers exist, or what led to the development of complex numbers, to name some simple examples off the top of my head. Perhaps this sticks out rather oddly because we don't list square number. I think from the perspective of number theory, both might be vital topics in their own right. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think this is the best idea, considering that square roots are quite common in mathematics. I don't think anyone would propose removing Square when Polygon is on the list, or Normal distribution/Probability distribution, Euclidean vector/Vector space, etc. Malerisch (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet and Malerisch. Gizza (t)(c) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Nth root is algrebraic. square root is arithmetic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
PASSED:

Added 7-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 15:07, 21 July 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 Inverse function[edit]

We have function on level 3. Level 4 should have more details on this important concept in Mathematics. It also plays an important role in Computer science, most notably some think it's relevant for the solution of the P/NP problem, one of the Millenium problems. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support not entirely convinced of it's lv3 status, but lv4 it seems to fit in.  Carlwev  12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I remember looking at the mathematics section some time ago and noticed that nearly all of the articles listed had a "Top-Priority" or importance tag from WikiProject Mathematics with the exception of a few articles that were also listed at Level 3. I suspect that during the formative stages of the expanded list, somebody decided to add a bunch of mathematics articles based on its talk page tag, which means that the people who rated these articles have left their mark on the list. It is not a bad approach to use initially and fill up the section. However, it obviously needs refinement as sometimes "Top-priority" articles may not actually be vital according to consensus while "High" or even "Mid" might be vital. This is for every topic of course. Gizza (t)(c) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely and have been thinking the same thing on many occasions. The priority given to an article by a project is just one factor among many. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:12, 8 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 Irrational number[edit]

This was added with no discussion and reverted. I'll open it here to give it a chance, to be fair to the user that tried to add it, and because it seems fairly significant maths topic, many have suggested maths should have a few more topics than it does. Is also listed as high importance maths project article, the 168th most viewed maths topic article, and appears in about 78 languages as well as being a pretty decent article. We list at least one irrational number, Pi.  Carlwev  11:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk)
Oppose
Discussion

If irrational numbers gets included, transcendental numbers should really be added as well. Alternatively rational numbers should be removed, as all three topics are subsets of the (also included) real numbers. As while Pi *is* irrational, it's more importantly transcendental. Rwessel (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Parity (mathematics)[edit]

Fairly well-known concept. Malerisch (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Well known, but pretty minor. Rwessel (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Algebra[edit]

Add Dot product and Cross product[edit]

Dot products and cross products are the two basic methods of multiplying vectors. They are used extensively in mathematics, physics, and engineering. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Critical to vector calculus. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Calculus and analysis[edit]

Add Laplace transform[edit]

The Laplace transform and the Fourier transform (which is already on the list) are the two most widely used integral transforms with many applications. Malerisch (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I know very little about this area of mathematics but would the generic transform article Transformation (function) be vital? Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Vector operator Del[edit]

The gradient, divergence, and curl are the primary operators of vector calculus. Aside from mathematics, they are commonly used in physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations or the Navier–Stokes equations). These are represented by the del operator. The article also includes in its scope the Laplace operator, another key operator in mathematics and physics with many applications. Malerisch (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I never learned any vector calculus so this is just an innocent question: what if we list del instead? Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I think that's the better choice. Malerisch (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Geometry[edit]

Probability and Statistics[edit]

Other[edit]

General discussions[edit]

Resources for editors[edit]

As I've followed various WikiProjects, I've noticed that an editor is running a tool to show article pageviews by project, with results summarized in Popular pages reports for most WikiProjects. For example, you can see the popular pages report for WikiProject India at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Popular pages and in general you can go to most WikiProject main pages and just append the subpage link "/Popular_pages" to the main page URL to see the popular pages report (there are some exceptions, that is projects for which there is no Popular pages summary). The popular pages are shown in strict rank order of pageviews from all sources, including redirects, and thus show a different count of pageviews from that shown by the link to the grok.se tool from the article's history page.

Of course pageviews are far from the only consideration when deciding what to list as a vital article on Wikipedia, but to do our work on trimming the vital article list in disregard of actual pageview behavior by Wikipedia readers seems to miss out on a valuable source of guidance on what to prioritize. Cobblet has already brought up some interesting ideas about reader interest in articles about fish by noting those statistics. Insofar as the vital articles list serves as a checklist of articles to bring up to featured article status, I think considering pageviews (among several other rationales for regarding an article as vital, including treatment by standard reference books and textbooks) will be a good reality check and stimulus to discussion as we continue work on this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pageviews definitely provide a different perspective when evaluating if an article is vital. A previous discussion on this here seems to show that the community is divided on how much impact hit count should have, though. Malerisch (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You have lurked in here for a long time, haven't you... Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Organizational matters[edit]

Renaming Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People?[edit]

User:Dougweller on the Level 3 talk page (see here) has suggested a renaming of Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People. Gizza (t)(c) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Updating article assessments on the list[edit]

There are countless articles that do not have up to date assessment classes. I have been working on doing some of them, but I cannot do 10,000 articles by myself. If some people could help me update the article assessment classes, that would be great. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Assessment classes updated for mathematics articles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for replying so late but thanks for updating the assessment classes PointsofNoReturn. The behind-the-scenes work that you, Malerisch and Cobblet do (as well as everyone else) is much appreciated. Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate entries[edit]

The articles listed below are duplicated in the Expanded list:

  1. Colonialism in History and Society and social sciences
  2. Artillery in Society and social sciences and Technology
  3. Pāli Canon in Arts and Philosophy and religion
  4. Great Plains in Geography (2x)
  5. Publishing in Society and social sciences and Technology
  6. Conscience in Philosophy and religion (2x)
  7. Gamma ray in Physical sciences (2x)
  8. Prussia in History (2x)

Does anyone want to make the calls on which entry to delete? Malerisch (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Where things were listed on two different pages I followed the classification on Level 3. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)