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: 10:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 10:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 10:05, 29 June 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]

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

Entertainers[edit]

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

If there's one topic that's overrepresented on VA/E, film definitely has to be the unambiguous choice. We currently list 59 actors, 44 actresses, and 51 directors, producers, and screenwriters for a total of 154 spots on the list, which is too much for a genre of visual arts that's only been around for about 100 years. I think this number should be cut down to at least 100, if not lower, and actors and actresses are a good place to start. I've sorted the actors and actresses currently listed by country and moved the people on AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars to a separate list, which seems to be what this list was initially based on. The following series of proposals are all removals from the list of US and UK actors and actresses, although I have a few additions in mind as well. I'm starting off with 15 removals, but more will come later if most people agree with these. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Before voting, please consider the following samples of influential Americans and Britons not currently on the list. Are all of these actors really more vital than all of these people?


Actors[edit]


Actresses[edit]


I would probably say these lists are the second most overrepresented after comedians. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Harold Lloyd[edit]

Lloyd doesn't make AFI list (his contemporaries Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton do, though), and "one of the most popular and influential film comedians of the silent film era" isn't a very good reason to keep him. I'm not seeing much vitality here. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Thanks for going through the actors - I'd thought that section seemed rather bloated. Neljack (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Would support removing Buster Keaton too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Douglas Fairbanks[edit]

There are too many actors already listed that pass him in importance, and his business career isn't significant enough to make him vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Robert Redford[edit]

Founding the Sundance Film Festival does not make you vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support The Brad Pitt of his day. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Would prefer either adding a more famous director associated with the indie film movement like Tarantino, or more people who represent the flowering of international cinema which happened at about the same time, say Krzysztof Kieślowski or Abbas Kiarostami. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, supporting independent movies does make him vital. He also founded the Sundance film institute and a TV channel to support independent cinema. The comparison to Brad Pitt? Argh. No. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Perhaps it doesn't, but I think hat in combination with two academy awards, and lead roles in some of the 20th centurys most iconic films and a leading role in promoting independent cinema it probably does.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Paul Newman[edit]

Newman doesn't make the AFI list either, and he only won one Academy Award. I'm not sure why he's listed. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Maybe Paul Newman doesn't deserve to be on this list - I'll remain neutral on that one. But I just want to say Oscar wins are a not particularly good indicator of notability. Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock never won any. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I'm tempted to oppose. I don't think AFI-positions make actors vital. Newman was very popular in Europe and he was considered a excellent quality actor - Europeans don't usually agree with the AFI list as far as acting ability is concerned. As opposed to many AFI-actors, he did act on broadway. Paul Newman acted in several films based on literature works: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Tennessee Williams), a TV-version of Thornton Wilder's Our Town; Tennessee Williams' Glass Menagerie and several Pulitzer Prize winning screen plays. He was good at picking scripts and Paul Newman was also a youth icon, a rebel of his era, who almost got James Dean's role in East of Eden. I've just convinced myself while I was writing this text that Newman is vital and will oppose now. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Ian McKellen[edit]

McKellen's only as famous as he is for playing Gandalf, but that does not make him vital. He never won an Oscar. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Prolific stage actor and this list is terribly biased towards Hollywood actors. There may be better stage choices out there, but I'd prefer to see a swap. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, agree with Betty. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose McKellen is most notable as a stage actor and long time member of the royal shakespeare company.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Since McKellan is probably most notable as a stage actor, the fact that he hasn't won an Oscar is not that significant. He has won six Olivier Awards and a Tony Award. Still thinking about this. Neljack (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Morgan Freeman[edit]

I don't see why he's vital. He only won one Academy Award, and I'd say he's less vital than other non-vital actors like Daniel Day-Lewis and Dustin Hoffman. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The list is heavily skewed towards white actors. Are Kirk Douglas and Jack Nicholson really any more vital than Freeman? Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose again, if I remember correctly. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Jack Nicholson starred in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining, Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces, Easy Rider, and The Departed. In my eyes, that makes him clearly more vital than Freeman.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Michael Redgrave[edit]

Redgrave doesn't appear on the AFI list. The article doesn't give much insight as to why he's listed, either. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Suppport --Rsm77 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I am convinced by what Malerisch and Rsm77 say. I also think Richardson has a good case for inclusion. Neljack (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Per above. Gizza (t)(c) 05:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He was a major British star, probably the Anglo equivalent of Henry Fonda or someone like that. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Betty. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Considering that Redgrave was a British actor who disliked Hollywood and was most notable for stage roles, it's not surprising that he doesn't appear on the AFI list. I'm still considering whether he nonetheless should be removed. Neljack (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud already represent British stage actors of his generation. I do not think Redgrave was all that significant as a film actor - most notable roles were probably in The Lady Vanishes and The Innocents. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd also say that Redgrave is less vital than Ralph Richardson, who isn't on the list (should he be?). Malerisch (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Arnold Schwarzenegger[edit]

In a previous nomination that failed, Sylvester Stallone was brought up as someone who is probably more important than Schwarzenegger. He's not an exceptional actor, and I don't think we're calling things vital based on popularity alone (e.g. Harry Potter). Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - frankly astonished he's listed and not such versatile and acclaimed actors as Dustin Hoffman. Alfietucker (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I've seen his Hamlet. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support I think he'll be a better fit in the sports figures section under "Bodybuilding". Even there he still isn't vital. Schwarzenegger won Mr. Olympia seven times while two other bodybuilders had won it eight times each. He's also got a political career. Despite all of this, he's not a polymath. Just a person notable for many reasons and vital for none. Gizza (t)(c) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Edward G. Robinson[edit]

Robinson ranks #24 on the AFI list, but that doesn't mean that we should keep him, as the removal for James Dean shows. He doesn't seem to have much enduring vitality. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Wasn't really a lead; was mostly a supporting heavy. pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Christopher Lee[edit]

Lee's probably on this list for the same reason that Ian McKellen is (The Lord of the Rings), but he's never won (or even been nominated for) an Academy Award. He's not vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support A long and distinguished career, but not vital. Neljack (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support We don't have Lugosi or Karloff or Peter Cushing for that matter. A top genre actor but not a vital topic. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 12:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Doris Day[edit]

Day doesn't make the AFI list, and she's only been nominated for one Oscar. I don't see why she's vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support She has retained a surprising amount of name recognition, but when you look at her record it's very patchy. Her most notable role is in a lesser Hitchcock movie, The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her most famous song is Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) but that is not all that remembered/influential. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Per Neljack and Betty. Gizza (t)(c) 02:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Possibly the combination of her acting and singing careers is what has got her on the list. She certainly had quite a significant cultural impact, all in all. I'm not sure she's out of place on the list, thought I'm still considering. Neljack (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this CBS article she is the number 1 female box-office star of all-time. The Barbra Streisand of her day I guess. I don't think popularity makes you vital, but actually being number 1 may do. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Mary Martin[edit]

Martin doesn't make the AFI list. Her career doesn't seem that exceptional, either. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Unremarkable career by the standards on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Carole Lombard[edit]

Lombard is ranked #23 on the AFI list, but that doesn't mean she's vital. Being "the highest-paid star in Hollywood in the late 1930s" isn't a good reason to be on the list. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support James Dean syndrome. Betty Logan (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support How we list so many actors that did not really contribute anything new to the art form without listing someone like Constantin Stanislavski is beyond me. Cobblet (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Peggy Ashcroft[edit]

I have no idea why she's listed. She's mostly notable for her role in A Passage to India, but a single appearance in a film does not make you vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Again, I'd say she's most notable for her stage roles. I'm finding the stage actors more difficult to evaluate. Neljack (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Glenda Jackson[edit]

Jackson has a few notable awards, but she's not vital. Why is she more important than Cate Blanchett or Jessica Lange? Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Two Best Actress Oscars, but then there are plenty of people who have won two lead acting Oscars who aren't on the list. More recently she's had a distinguished political career, but nothing that makes her vital. Neljack (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Personally I think we should swap her out for Julie Christie, who was the defining British actress of the 60s and 70s. We currently have over 60 actors and just over 40 actresses so the balance needs to be evened out a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer to make these swaps for other female actresses.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the numbers need to be evened out. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Setsuko Hara[edit]

Japan's most notable actress, she is best remembered for appearing in classic films directed by Yasujiro Ozu including Tokyo Story, Late Spring, and Early Summer.

Support
  1. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The actresses list is very dominated by the US/UK and Hara has a very strong case. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rsm77:, is Setsuko Hara considered to be a greater actress than Machiko Kyo, Isuzu Yamada and Hideko Takamine? You know Japanese cinema far better than I do but I'm just looking for confirmation. Gizza (t)(c) 02:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
My impression is certainly yes with Machiko Kyo second. Looking around for something more like evidence I found Hara's page in Japanese Wikipedia notes in the lede that she was voted no.1 actress in the list shown at Kinema Junpo. Some of the names listed are not so well known internationally, but that is not the case for Hara... Incidentally, I have thought before that Shintaro Katsu is not an especially good choice on the expanded actors' list. He is no.7 on the Junpo list. Would not necessarily replace him with a Japanese actor - maybe Chinese or somewhere else. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Visual 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.

Add Erich Maria Remarque[edit]

Most famous for All Quiet on the Western Front, but he had other bestsellers as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not convinced he's as important as some other German writers we don't have, such as Gunter Grass and Heinrich Boll. They have good cases for inclusion, but I'm not sure Remarque is really vital. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Neljack. Remarque is not quite up there in my opinion. If adding a German writer, I would suggest Grass has the strongest case. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Samuel Johnson[edit]

Notable for his criticism, his dictionary, his literary efforts, and being an all-round clever chap. One example of his lasting importance is that the UK's top non-fiction prize is named the Samuel Johnson Prize.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support although it should be pointed out A Dictionary of the English Language is also on the list. When an author is primarily known for one work, when is this overlap appropriate? That might not apply as much to Johnson; but I've long thought Rabelais or Gargantua and Pantagruel ought to be vital but didn't know whether to nominate both or how to choose between them. Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree that Johnson's influence goes beyond his dictionary. He was one of the most influential British literary figures of the 18th century. Neljack (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There is so much more to Samuel Johnson than his dictionary. His Shakespeare criticism was highly influential and he made significant contributions as an essayist. His non-fiction is probably what he's most remembered for, but Rasselas is an important piece of 18th century fiction and The Vanity of Human Wishes an important poem. Having said all that, on the question of an author primarily known for one work (unlike Johnson IMO), I think there's no hard and fast answer. If they're significant enough we can have both author and work(s) like with Homer and the Iliad/Odyssey. If a little less so, maybe not, which is why I think it's reasonable to have Wuthering Heights but not Emily Brontë. If Gargantua and Pantagruel refers to all five books, I don't know what else Rabelais wrote, so better to go with the work I would imagine (if just going for one of the two, which is probably appropriate in this case).--Rsm77 (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Kingsley Amis[edit]

Don't think he is quite notable enough for the list. Remembered chiefly for Lucky Jim and The Old Devils, neither of which is all that central to the canon.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We seem to be rather heavy on English-language writers from the 20th century. The Movement is already represented by Philip Larkin; and I don't know if the angry young men are significant enough a movement to require a specific representative. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per Rsm77 and Cobblet. Rated by the Times as the 9th best British writer since 1945. Considering that the list should include writers from the whole world and throughout history, he is ranked too low. Gizza (t)(c) 06:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Intended as a swap for Samuel Johnson, who is clearly more important. Whether Amis is the least notable person (or British/Irish writer) currently on the list may be a bit more open to question. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What about Enid Blyton? Do we really need a second British children's writer in addition to Roald Dahl, especially when a non-English children's writer of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's stature isn't listed? (Although The Little Prince is on the list – another example of the author vs. magnum opus dilemma I alluded to in the previous thread.) Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Blyton is all that significant, though certainly well-known in Britain. I wouldn't describe Saint-Exupéry as simply a children's writer - as far as I know most of his books were for adults. But I don't think he really needs a place in the list, as most of those books are not so famous (certainly in the English-speaking world). --Rsm77 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep Blyton, and possibly add Saint-Exupéry.  Carlwev  13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Enid Blyton, add Emily Brontë[edit]

While I was a great fan of Blyton's books as a child, I don't think she can be regarded as vital. She was very popular and prolific, but her literary influence and critical reputation were limited at best. Emily Brontë not only wrote what is widely regarded as one of the greatest, most original and most influential English novels, but was also an important poet - she has been described as "one of the great English lyric poets"[1] and as the greatest female English poet. Brontë seems to me to be clearly more vital that Blyton. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm OK with the add but prefer to keep Blyton.  Carlwev  07:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We already list Wuthering Heights. Considering it's her only novel, I see no reason to include her as well as the book. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Blyton is integral to the topic of children's literature. I agree that we don't need Emily Brontë if we already have Wuthering Heights. Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Agree with what Betty and V3 said. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per V3 and Betty. Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We could drop Charlotte and instead add Brontë family since must academic studies regard them collectively. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Journalists[edit]

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

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

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)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:55, 6 August 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)

Swap: Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy and Daniel Barenboim, Add Arturo Toscanini and Herbert von Karajan[edit]

Ashkenazy and Barenboim are very good modern conductors and pianists, but they're nowhere close to the all-time greats in either category. Since they're listed under conductors, I suggest replacing them with two that are truly of legendary stature.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Karajan and Toscanini are two of the most influential classical musicians ever. Ashkenazy and Barenboim, while great musicians, can't compare to them. I recall that in the last few years BBC Music Magazine has conducted surveys of prominent conductors and pianists (100 each, I think) to find out who they regard as the all-time greats in their fields. Ashkenazy and Baremboim both failed make the top 20 list for either conductors or pianists. Karajan and Toscanini were both high up on the conductors list. I don't usually pay much attention to such lists in classical music, but I think the opinions of their peers is entitled to some weight. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom and Neljack. Malerisch (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support agreee with Cobblet and Neljack. Toscanini and Karajan are far more acclaimed conductors than Ashkenazy and Barenboim. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Support add, Oppose removal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Lorenz Hart[edit]

We have plenty of Broadway lyricists and Hart is markedly less notable than the others we list. It's hard to justify including him when more important American figures in jazz (Count Basie, Nat King Cole or Ella Fitzgerald) or drama (Eugene O'Neill) during the same time period aren't listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom.  Carlwev  14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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)
  4. Support I think it's reasonable to list one biography related to nature documentaries, especially someone who has accomplished so much in the field. Gizza (t)(c) 02:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove George Cukor, Add Georges Méliès[edit]

The former is a respected Hollywood director, and his inclusion on the list puzzles me slightly since he didn't really transcend his peers (most of which are not included) in any way shape or form. The latter is the French pioneer of film as a narrative form who made numerous technical advances and contributions. If you were to write one side of A4 summarizing the motion picture industry you wouldn't mention Cuckor, but you would mention Méliès. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.
  2. Support this is definitely an improvement. Directors and producers who innovated and brought something new to filmmaking are more vital than those who were just commercially successful. Good nomination! Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Was wondering why Méliès wasn't listed. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Businesspeople[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Aaron Sorkin, Add P. T. Barnum[edit]

Creator of The West Wing vs. progenitor of the modern entertainment industry, considered one of the hundred most influential people of the last millennium by two different sources.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Barnum's also on The Atlantic's list, for what it's worth. Malerisch (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support You can sum up the behind-the-camera work in film or television with about 20 people. Sorkin ain't one of them. Regardless, Jkfp2004 will kill me for removing Sorkin. pbp 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Pablo Escobar[edit]

Al Capone is hardly the only example of a culturally significant gangster. The King of Cocaine played a central role in the narcotics trade that has profoundly affected Central American society for half a century. At the height of his power Forbes estimated he was the seventh-richest man in the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Escobar was no doubt an influential drug lord, but I don't know if he's more vital than Joaquín Guzmán Loera, who was called the "biggest drug lord of all time" by Forbes and "the godfather of the drug world" by the DEA. Malerisch (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Escobar's network was less international and the portfolio of drugs he trafficked was less diverse, but he did seem to amass more wealth – pick your favourite definition of "biggest", I guess. Escobar was also a folk hero of sorts, financing civil works and football teams, and he remains frequently referenced in pop culture. Loera doesn't seem to hold a comparable amount of cultural significance. Cobblet (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If we have more in the area of organised crime, why not Yakuza, Mafia/Sicilian Mafia, and similar? or things like Ku Klux Klan, estimated up to 6 million members in 1920s, also we have The Birth of a Nation a film in part about the KKK.  Carlwev  11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for businesspeople, not organizations. I don't know why you'd think the yakuza are more vital than zaibatsu, or why crime syndicates would be more vital than all the companies we've nominated to remove. Cobblet (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Explorers[edit]

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

Add Amelia Earhart[edit]

This failed once but I think it deserves another chance. Earhart's significance in breaking down barriers to women in science and technology can hardly be overstated. She was a worldwide celebrity in her time and remains one of feminism's most potent icons.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I would add Sacagawea as well. Malerisch (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  14:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 17:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Earhart and Sacagawea. I would also move Lewis and Clark Expedition from People to History. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (explorer) have their own biographical articles. Gizza (t)(c) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support and I completely agree with Gizza. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Move Lewis and Clark Expedition to history, add Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (explorer) and Sacagawea in biographies[edit]

Proposed above. Lewis and Clark Expedition is a journey, not a person, and so has no business in the bio section. The two leaders and their female guide/interpreter do, however. pbp 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Support the move, oppose the additions as being redundant to the main article: there are better ways to improve our coverage of American history. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support move but oppose additions per Malerisch and Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support the move, oppose the additions --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

While the Lewis and Clark Expedition is definitely important, I feel that it is excessive to have 4 articles on the list about it. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Swap: Remove Benjamin Spock, Add Anna Freud[edit]

The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care is already listed; I don't see why we need to list Spock separately, particularly when the founder of child psychoanalysis isn't listed to begin with.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Desiderius Erasmus[edit]

Erasmus was an important humanist and theologian. Namesake of multiple institutions and programs, mainly in Europe.

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 18:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support One of the most prominent intellectual figures of late Renaissance Europe. Had a lasting influence. Neljack (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I had assumed he was on the list already. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Hugo Grotius[edit]

Hugo de Groot was one of the founders of international law. Not sure in which subcategory he should be listed.

Support
  1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support A huge influence not only in international law but also in international relations. Neljack (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support definitely vital. Maybe a polymath section should be created for people like Grotius? Gizza (t)(c) 01:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support, I agree with Gizza, creating a polymath section might be a good idea.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd object to the creation of a polymath section – I don't see how grouping Hildegard of Bingen, Grotius, Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī, and possibly even Winston Churchill in the same section would improve the organization of the list. Calling Grotius a social scientist seems reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there more people from the field of law listed as vital article? – Editør (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of people who were both lawyers and politicians but we don't have anyone who's exclusively a lawyer, as far as I can tell. And I think the only judge we have is John Marshall. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove David McCullough, add Charles A. Beard[edit]

In the grand scheme of American historiography, there are two names that stand out: Frederick Jackson Turner (who's been on the list for years) and Beard. McCullough is a popular historian, but doesn't add much in the way of historiography. pbp 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Hard to argue that McCullough is a more influential historian than Beard was. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Barbara W. Tuchman, add Eric Hobsbawm[edit]

Tuchman was another popular historian without much wider influence. Hobsbawm's works were both popular among the general public and enormously influential in the discipline. He's widely regarded as the most important Marxist historian (and we don't have any representatives of Marxist historiography, which - whatever you think of its merits - had been a highly influential historiographical approach). His greatness was recognised even by historians who strongly disagreed with his historiographical approach. Professor Sir Richard Evans, a leading critic of Marxist historiography, wrote:[2]

Many historians have come up with one influential concept or another, but Hobsbawm came up with a whole shedload: the "General Crisis of the 17th Century"; the "dual revolution" (the French and Industrial revolutions, the formative events of modern times); the "invention of tradition"; "primitive rebels"; "social banditry"; the "long 19th century" (1789-1914); the "short 20th century" (1914-1989); these are just a few.

Niall Ferguson, the prominent conservative historian, said: "That Hobsbawm is one of the great historians of his generation is undeniable. ... His quartet of books beginning with The Age of Revolution and ending with The Age of Extremes constitute the best starting point I know for anyone who wishes to begin studying modern history."[3] He was awarded many honours in various countries, including the Balzan Prize, perhaps the most prestigious prize there is for the humanities. Neljack (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add William Blackstone[edit]

Perhaps had a greater influence on the study of law than anyone else in the English-speaking world. His Commentaries on the Laws of England was the most prominent law textbox for centuries after his life. Propose him to be added under social scientists. pbp 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I wonder if adding Commentaries on the Laws of England would be a better idea instead. His influence largely stems from that book, after all. Neljack (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious figures[edit]

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

Add Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Mary Magdalene[edit]

Women of incredible importance to their respective religions. It beats me how Mother Teresa got on the list before they did.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support In comparison to Old Testament figures, we are sorely lacking in New Testament ones. pbp 13:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

What about Aisha? Malerisch (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about Islam and the very last thing I want to do is stir up a Sunni vs. Shia debate on her legacy. Somebody else can open that nomination. Cobblet (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Mulla Sadra[edit]

We have no Islamic thinkers in the 550-year gap between Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Iqbal. In particular the intellectual renaissance in Safavid Iran associated with the rise of Twelver Shi'ism is neglected. Mulla Sadra is popularly regarded by that country as its greatest philosopher, period.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support big omission. Gizza (t)(c) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Báb[edit]

I don't see why a relatively small and new religion like Bahá'í needs two representatives on the list. There are several religious movements of comparable size and newness (Spiritism, Mormonism, Cao Đài, Tenrikyo) that aren't represented at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I also noticed this anomaly a few days ago and was thinking of suggesting a removal. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The current list of religious figures has 128 people. Of these, 56 represent Christianity, there 15 for Islam, 6 for Judaism with a further 12 common to all Abrahamic religions, 18 for Hinduism, 15 for Buddhism, 2 each for Bahai and Sikhism, and 1 each for Zoroastrianism and Jainism. I support an increase to 150 people or maybe more. Christianity and Judaism are well represented comparing them to other religions of similar history and influence. I think most if not all of this increase should go elsewhere.

I'm thinking of proposing to add Meera, whom I believe is definitely vital. Not sure if it should be a straight add or a swap with someone like A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada or Ramana Maharshi.

I wonder if there's also room for some notable atheists, agnostics and the like. They are better suited to go in Philosophers. But I'm not sure if there are any atheists who are vital purely on that basis. The best known ones in the Anglosphere (Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens) are too recent IMO. Schools of atheistic or rationalist thought existed in ancient civilizations too. Lucretius, Xenophanes, Epicurus, Diagoras of Melos, Ajita Kesakambali or Carvaka, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Muhammad al Warraq, Wang Chong and Fan Zhen are all possibilities. The strongest candidates are those that are notable in other things as well though. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the page on Meera as I was reading about Indian culture and I was wondering if it could be a good choice. But would you characterize her as a religious figure or as a poet? Hildegard of Bingen, the closest Christian analogue I can think of, is listed as a writer. I was also considering a swap of Bhaktivedanta for Helena Blavatsky, who seems to have done than anyone else to arouse modern Western interest in Eastern religion. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cobblet: You're right. She is a poet so writers may be the better section. Then again, there are many legends and myths associated with her life so she could fit in either section, especially since the religious figure section is called 'figures" and not "leaders". Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Judas Iscariot[edit]

We have most of the good guys in the New Testament, we need the bad guy, who also is a major figure in some of the texts that didn't make into the Bible, and pops up frequently in art and literature. pbp 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Does anyone else think that Christianity is overrepresented on the list? There's currently 56 figures under Christianity while only 15 under Islam, 18 under Hinduism, and 15 under Buddhism. Malerisch (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that relative to each other, Christianity is overrepresented and Judaism is also adequately represented (taking in account the 12 common figures among the Abrahamic religions). The number of people representing Christianity isn't as overrepresented compared to the entire list of biographies. Religious figures as a whole are underrepresented considering their worldwide influence over the course of history. The total number can easily go to 150. Possibly at high as 200. Still might have to remove some Christian figures but not as many as the additions to other religions. Gizza (t)(c) 10:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is one place where the artificiality of our classifications is obvious – a lot of the Christian figures could've just as easily been listed as notable writers or philosophers, and also the popes are scattered all over the place. I think there are maybe a handful of second-rate figures that could go though, and figures from other religions and cultures are certainly underrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that Christianity's right-sized and Islam is underrepresented. We should probably have 25 Islamic figures. Who they should be I can't tell you. pbp 04:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

Imbalances in the list of political figures[edit]

There's a pronounced European slant in the list of political figures. This is most obvious in the earlier time periods: more than half (36/71) of the figures from ancient history are European, and so are 62% of the post-classical figures, even though this is a period marked by golden ages in Islamic, Indian and Chinese civilization while Europe was mired in the Middle Ages.

At the same time, the dearth of Chinese and South Asian leaders is so striking, it's farcical. We have room for two Tyrants of Syracuse and two Dacian leaders but none for the kings of the Gupta Empire: in fact the entire political history of South Asia before the 16th century is represented by a grand total of two people! How does ancient Egypt get 13 rulers while ancient China gets two over the same time period?

None of this makes any sense to me and I'm going to take a stab at fixing these imbalances. My proposals lead to no net change in the number of people a net addition of one person to the list. Europe would be reduced from a majority to a plurality of political leaders in the ancient and post-classical periods (like in the other periods); and pre-16th-century India and China would get twelve leaders each. Frankly I think these changes are pretty conservative, but we gotta start somewhere and I'm sure these 31 proposals will provide everyone with plenty to think about.

There are other issues I've tried to fix. Africa oddly goes from having seven post-classical figures to just one in the early modern period. On the other hand, Southeast Asia's remarkably well represented at every stage of its history, probably too much so. I've also spotted a couple of notable medieval Europeans we're still missing.

The additions are listed first (in chronological order), followed by swaps and removals (also in chronological order). Many thanks to User:Redtigerxyz for helping me pick Indian rulers to add. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Rome also has 13 rulers, which is a bit high. Although Cicero doesn't really fit in. He should probably be moved out of leaders and go into Writers or Philosophers. Anyway, these proposals will take a long time to get through! Thanks for doing the research Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Rome at 12-13 isn't crazy if the USA has 24. Cobblet (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Great job on these proposals! There's definitely an imbalance in the current list of politicians and leaders, and these suggestions all seem well-researched and thought-out. Since you aimed for zero net additions, I was wondering if you think the current number of leaders (~475) is satisfactory. I would support a moderate increase, mostly at the expense of entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters. Malerisch (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I miscounted (nominated one fewer Indian leader than I intended to) and it's actually a net gain of one since I'll now open the nomination of Rajendra Chola I as well. Increasing the number of political figures to 500 wouldn't be unreasonable IMO. Nevertheless I tried to preserve the status quo because we've never discussed how many of them we should have, and it's generally much easier to suggest additions than removals but an honest effort to fix issues of balance requires that we do both. Cobblet (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • An excellent set of proposals, Cobblet! I'd noted the European bias too. Neljack (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Emperor Gaozu of Han[edit]

Founder of the Han dynasty. His struggle against Xiang Yu for control over China can be likened in historical and cultural significance to Caesar's Civil War, right down to the level of linguistic idiom: alea iacta est, meet 破釜沉舟.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Raja Raja Chola I[edit]

Responsible for the establishment of the Chola Empire as the dominant economic and naval power in South India. His conquests gave the Cholas complete control over the maritime trade routes between the Arabia/Africa and East/Southeast Asia and set the stage for the spectacular military campaigns of his son Rajendra Chola I.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Builder of spectacular temples and a revered figure in important Tamil tradition. Regarded the greatest Chola king. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Rajendra Chola I[edit]

Under his rule, the Chola dynasty became the first great south Indian empire. He expanded its lands in every direction and finished the conquest of Sri Lanka started by his father; launched an expedition north to the Ganges – such a long-distance land campaign had not been witnessed in India since Samudragupta's attack in the reverse direction 700 years prior; and most remarkably, conducted an overseas campaign against the Srivijaya empire of Sumatra, which led to the demise of that empire and secured Tamil trade routes with China. Compare his achievements with any Viking ruler (can any other maritime civilization before the European Renaissance boast of similar naval conquests?); I don't think he comes off worse.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Alauddin Khilji[edit]

The most important ruler of the Delhi Sultanate. His political and economic reforms ushered in a period of prosperity and enabled him to build a sizable army, which he used to expand his empire and defend against Mongol invasions (one of people in history who successfully did so).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support vital Gizza (t)(c) 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Ahmad al-Mansur[edit]

The Saadi dynasty of Morocco reached its zenith under his rule. His military and diplomatic skill preserved Morocco's independence in the face of Christian and Ottoman threats and that laid the foundation for the development of a distinct national identity.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Midas and Croesus, Add Nebuchadnezzar II[edit]

I don't think these two semi-legendary kings are vital – there's a litany of better choices from Greek (Amazons, Dionysus, Icarus, Leonidas I, Minos, Pan, Sisyphus, Theseus, Titan (mythology)) and biblical legend (Job, Samson, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah). Since they're listed as political figures from west Asia, I suggest replacing them with Babylon's greatest king, notable as a builder and a conqueror (Hanging Gardens; the destruction of Jerusalem).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Burebista[edit]

We have Decebalus and do not need a second Dacian king.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  07:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Lothair I and Louis the German[edit]

The Treaty of Verdun (not listed in the History section) is more vital than the three sons of Louis the Pious who inherited his kingdom as a result of that treaty, and I'm not sure why two of them should be singled out over Charles the Bald. Succession wars are a staple of European history and I don't think it's necessary to list every participant in each war: we don't list, say, Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor despite his role in the Spanish, Polish and Austrian successions. Nor do we cover the history of any other region in the world at this level of detail: would people want to see articles on each of the participants in the Tripartite Struggle for post-Harsha India, or all of the Southern and Northern Dynasties of China?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The Carolingians are indeed rather over-represented. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Henry the Fowler[edit]

Henry the Fowler's role in the history of Germany is comparable to Hugh Capet's in France. They may have founded the dynasty that marks the birth of each nation, but they are less vital than their successors who expanded and consolidated the power of that initially weak ruling house – Otto I in the case of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip II in the case of France. If Hugh Capet or Henry VII of England isn't on the list I don't see why Henry the Fowler should be.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 07:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Cosimo de' Medici and Lorenzo de' Medici, Add House of Medici[edit]

Usually I imagine people are more interested in articles on specific figures than on ruling houses. In this case though, House of Medici receives over three times as many page views as the articles on the two Medicis combined. It also seems undue to list two Florentine leaders when we don't list any other leaders of Italian city-states (Enrico Dandolo? Ugolino della Gherardesca?). FWIW, Catherine de' Medici is also on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support addition and neutral on the removals. Malerisch (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose removal, but Strong Support for add (what on omission!)--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support add but oppose removals in light of the combination of cultural, economic and political importance they both have. Neljack (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose removal and Support addition per Melody Lavender. Malerisch (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

The significance for economic history (banking dynasty) and for art history is incomparable. And I think you're playing down their role as political leaders. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

None of which requires that we devote separate articles to Cosimo and Lorenzo instead of treating the family as a collective whole. I wouldn't be opposed to adding the Medici Bank either – now there's a company of historic importance. Cobblet (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Medici Bank is vital, and so is the Fugger Bank, which redirects to the dynasty. Those are the kinds of historical company articles I'm looking for.--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a nomination up for Jakob Fugger soon. Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to remove Cosimo and Lorenzo to add the House of Medici. House of Plantagenet is currently listed (in History), but that doesn't mean Edward I of England, Henry II of England, John, King of England, and Richard I of England should be removed. House of Romanov is also listed along with Alexis of Russia, Elizabeth of Russia, Alexander II of Russia, Nicholas I of Russia, Nicholas II of Russia, and Peter the Great. And there's plenty of folks from the House of Habsburg as well, like Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. While Cosimo and Lorenzo weren't kings, that's not a reason to remove them. (This nomination should probably go in History to be consistent.) Malerisch (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not why I'm suggesting we remove Cosimo and Lorenzo. I'm fully aware that a ruler's significance is not always subsumed by the significance of their family: but in this case I think it's true. If you see better ways to reduce the number of European politicians, I'm all ears. Don't forget a statement like "the significance for economic and art history is incomparable" isn't true unless one is specifically talking about European economic and art history. What about the Barmakids or the Shanxi merchants? Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
All right, I've switched to neutral on the removals—I won't get in the way if people want to remove them. That said, I don't think European politicians need to be cut down that much, although other African and Asian leaders certainly need more representation. I'm going a bit off topic here, but what I meant by "moderate increase" of leaders was more on the order of 100, and I think actors, directors, and businesspeople could be cut dramatically. I mean, is Karl Albrecht really more vital than Willy Brandt or Heinrich Himmler? Why is Michael Redgrave listed but not Edward III of England or Richard III of England? And Samuel Goldwyn but not Earl Warren, James Monroe, and John C. Calhoun? Malerisch (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree totally that we should try to reduce the number of people representing the entertainment business. They, like the athletes, are primarily a 20th-century phenomenon. Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Pope Clement VII[edit]

Commissioned Raphael and Michelangelo and excommunicated Henry VIII, but an ineffectual pope overall: his reign is marked by an inability to stem the tide of the Reformation more than anything else. Nor was he notorious or controversial in the way Pope Alexander VI was; he was just weak. I'd venture that Pope Urban II, who helped carry out the Gregorian Reforms and ordered the First Crusade, is probably a more vital figure in history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Bagyidaw[edit]

Less important to the history of Burma's Konbaung Dynasty than Alaungpaya, Bodawpaya or Mindon Min, all of whom are listed. I count ten Burmese political figures on the list – like I said, Southeast Asia's remarkably well represented.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Not as vital as Anawrahta as well, another Burmese leader listed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Amancio Ortega Gaona, Add El Cid[edit]

Reclusive fashion executive vs. national hero.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support addition, neutral on removal at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Being the third richest person in the world and having a net worth of USD $64 billion doesn't make you automatically vital. However, people who have accumulated such high amounts of wealth especially when they didn't inherit any of it themselves often have made a lasting impact on society. I will need to research Ortega in more detail to see if this is the case. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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 Aryabhata[edit]

The leader proposals above reminded me of a bigger hole to fill. Aryabhata was the first in the line of Indian mathematicians and astronomers during the classical era. His feats include his explanation and accurate measurements of solar and lunar eclipses, the place-value system, discovering the earth's rotation, and various work on trigonometry and algebra.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Associated with the origins of zero and decimal system. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Johann Jakob Balmer, Add Paracelsus[edit]

I have no idea why Balmer's on the list – there must be dozens of physicists with a greater claim to fame. In his place I nominate one of the most significant figures in all of Renaissance science. Paracelsus rejected the medical dogmas taught in medieval universities (which was still based on the theories of Hippocrates and Galen like the four humours) and introduced the concept of using chemical compounds as medicine. In the process he incorporated scientific principles into medical practice for the first time. He's also credited with being one of the first to recognize a relationship between mental problems and physical illness; Carl Jung credits him with opening the door for psychiatry as a discipline. Paracelsus has been compared to Copernicus and Luther in his impact on Renaissance thought.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Charles Hard Townes, Add Robert Hooke[edit]

Hard to see why Townes is singled out over the two other scientists with whom he shared the Nobel Physics Prize for laser-related work. I don't think any of them can really be said to have played a more decisive role than the others. Hooke was a pioneer of microscopy (his book Micrographia introduced the subject to the public), telescopes (built the first Gregorian telescope), the wave theory of light (which he used to explain his discovery of diffraction), and watchmaking (the anchor escapement); he discovered Hooke's law and was an early proponent of evolution. Oh, and he was the assistant of Robert Boyle during his air pump experiments and Christopher Wren during the rebuilding of London.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Couldn't the same reasoning for removing Charles Hard Townes be used to remove Steven Chu? They both shared Nobel Prizes with two others on laser-related work. Malerisch (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

At least Chu has some significance beyond his Nobel work compared to his colleagues or to Townes. I agree the case for him isn't exactly the strongest though. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Alfred V. du Pont, Add Leo Baekeland[edit]

We already list Alfred's grandfather who established the du Pont industrial dynasty; I see no reason to list Alfred as well. In his place I suggest the man who started the plastics industry with his invention of Bakelite.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Add Georges Lemaître, Remove Steven Chu[edit]

Chu's vitality is pretty similar to that of Charles Hard Townes, who's been nominated for removal above: as I mentioned earlier, they both shared Nobel Prizes with two others on laser-related work. I suggest adding Lemaître instead, who proposed the theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe and first derived Hubble's law (not Edwin Hubble). Malerisch (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Georg Cantor[edit]

Cantor invented set theory, a major branch of mathematics. He also developed the theory of transfinite numbers, which are key to a thorough understanding of infinity. Malerisch (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Sports figures[edit]

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

Remove Willie Mays[edit]

In view of comments made above, I'll open this proposal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Support per above comments. Malerisch (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'll just quote (with my emphasis) from the introduction of our article on Mays (which references a host of sources for this statement):

    Willie Mays' career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time.

    Britannica concurs, saying: "He is considered by many to have been the best all-around player in the history of baseball."[4] The rankings I've mentioned before bear this out: he is ranked the second-greatest player of all time by the Sporting News[5], ESPN[6] and the AP[7], and third by the leading sabermetrician Bill James[8]. He also has wider importance as one of the first black players to become a top star - he has been called "baseball's first African-American superstar",[9] though Britannica suggests that because of racism "he probably never received the respect due him based upon his skills". But his status is such that, as NPR notes: "In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama emphasized his biracial appeal by pairing John F. Kennedy with Martin Luther King, Jr.; Abraham Lincoln with Willie Mays."[10] If we're looking for someone to remove (leaving aside the ones I've already proposed), I suggest we'd be better to look at Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb or Lou Gehrig. Neljack (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Neljack. Malerisch (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Player AP Bill James ESPN SABR Sporting News Average
Hank Aaron 3 12 5 4 5 5.8
Roberto Clemente  ? 74 34 20 20 37
Ty Cobb 5 5 6 7 3 5.2
Lou Gehrig 8 14 11 2 6 8.2
Willie Mays 2 3 2 8 2 3.4
Sadaharu Oh  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?
Jackie Robinson 9 32 54 36 44 35
Babe Ruth 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cy Young  ? 23 18 18 14 18.25

I agree with Neljack's analysis and have switched to oppose: Willie Mays isn't the right baseball player to remove. I've compiled the rankings from Neljack's sources into a table (see above) and averaged the rankings, which shows that Willie Mays could be considered the 2nd-best player of all-time, behind Babe Ruth. I don't think anyone's considering removing Jackie Robinson because of his historic importance, so Roberto Clemente and Cy Young are indeed the best candidates to remove. Sadaharu Oh doesn't appear on any rankings at all though, so it's hard for me to judge his importance. Malerisch (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadahuru Oh was the best player in Japanese baseball. In the spirit of keeping an international view of baseball, we should keep him. He is also the world home run record holder in addition. Cy Young should be on the list because he is the only pitcher on the list and most lists of the best baseball players of all time do not consider pitchers to be as important as hitters. Roberto Clemente is borderline, but I am inclined to keep him due to him being the only Latino player on the list. Willie Mays was a great player too, but I am leaning towards removing him over the other players because he does not own many records. I am not sure if the amount of baseball players we have now is fair. We have 9 baseball players vs. 17 association football players. Maybe we should remove one more baseball player to make the baseball list be half of the association football list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we're planning to cut down association football as well, so baseball probably would have to be cut down a bit more. I have another question though: did we overlook Ted Williams? He's ranked 4th by the AP, 7th by Bill James, 4th by ESPN, 3rd by SABR, and 8th by Sporting News, which gives him an average ranking of 5.2, tying him with Ty Cobb. He doesn't seem like a bad candidate either: the article calls him "one of the greatest hitters in baseball history." Malerisch (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but baseball is nowhere close to half as important as football. FIFA claims 3.2 billion people saw at least one minute of the 2010 World Cup. Good luck finding an edition of the MLB playoffs that drew in anything close to 1.6 billion viewers. Cobblet (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
But remember that this is an English Wikipedia. If you look at the offline releases of wikipedia here, [1] you will notice a distinct Anglo-American bias. The fact that one of Wikipedia's most important projects has a bias towards the English world means that we should at least have a small bias towards some American sports. That's not to say that we should have as many baseball players as soccer players, but that does mean that the list of baseball players is close to where it is now. As a rule, I would keep baseball players listed at one half the list of soccer players, rounding down if the number of soccer players is an odd number. I will be proposing this below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
How is Wikipedia 1.0 one of Wikipedia's most important projects? Why is it acceptable for such a project to have a Western bias? (A major rationale for the project is to make Wikipedia available to places with poor Internet access; which Western country fits that criterion?) How does reducing representation of baseball, a sport with a trivial degree of popularity in any English-speaking country except for the US and Canada, even lead to an overall reduction of bias toward English-speaking nations in the first place? Cobblet (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
When 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American (by far the largest number of readers compared to any given country, with the UK at about a third of American readership), it warrants having a large amount of American athletes from America's oldest major sport, Baseball. [2] That is not say that baseball should have as many people as soccer, but it means that Baseball should have about half of the number of articles that soccer does. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful table, Malerisch! Neljack (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
About half as many baseball players as soccer players seems reasonable to me. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove George Best[edit]

I think we could lose a football player and while undoubtedly very talented, Best was only at the top of the game for a relatively short period. He was Manchester United's top scorer for six seasons before entering a decline he never came back from.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Extraordinarily talented, but sadly didn't fulfil his full potential due to his alcohol issues. Neljack (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bobby Charlton should go first. The epithet "fifth Beatle" shows how far Best's legacy goes beyond his sporting achievements – he was, as even the staid Britannica puts it, "a colossal celebrity" on par with any rock star, and "one of the iconic figures of 'Swinging London' during the 1960s." If one British footballer is vital it should be him. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Ronaldo, add Garrincha[edit]

A case of recentism. Garrincha is generally regarded as the second-greatest Brazilian player ever, after Pelé - and a significant number of Brazilians will tell you that he was even better than Pelé. He was probably the greatest winger ever, and perhaps the greatest dribbler. He was the player of the tournament and the highest goalscorer at the 1962 FIFA World Cup, carrying a Brazilian team missing Pelé to the title. He also won the tournament in 1958. He was a huge star in Brazil, being known as the "Joy of the People", and the national stadium in Brasilia is named after him.

Ronaldo was a great player, but - as Brazilians will tell you - not up there with Garrincha. The last couple of decades are already well-represented with the likes of Zidane and Messi, the two greatest players of the period. Unlike them, Ronaldo is not vital. Neljack (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal, support add. Not really a case of recentism: the turn of the century can legitimately be regarded as a second golden age of Brazilian football (Romario, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldinho) and if the Brazilian teams of the sixties deserve to be represented by two players the more recent generation ought to deserve one. And as a three-time FIFA World Player of the Year there is no question Ronaldo belongs in the company of Zidane and Messi. Cobblet (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I support the addition of Garrincha, but I have doubts about the removal of Ronaldo. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccer already has 17 people on the list. That is too much for any sport. Adding Garrincha without a removal will make the number of soccer players on the list be 18. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I would not deny that Ronaldo was a great player, but Zidane and Messi have higher reputations. We have to make tough choices, in my view. Neljack (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Paolo Maldini[edit]

Another case of recentism. A very fine and widely-admired player, but not up there with other recent players on the list such as Zidane and Messi. For example, he was never named FIFA World Footballer of the Year, while Zidane and Messi both won the award (or its successor, the FIFA Ballon d'Or) several times. Neljack (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose First, given the primacy of football in Italian sport, making Fausto Coppi the only Italian athlete on the list would be a travesty. Second, removing the only Italian footballer while keeping English and American players on the list would be pro-English bias at its most baldfaced: entirely unjustifiable when you compare the significance of those countries in this sport. Third, awards of the kind you mentioned are rarely handed out to players who aren't prolific goalscorers, or players who haven't won major hardware at the highest possible level (World Cups and Euro Championships in this case); having neither on your resumé is a surefire way to get yourself perpetually overlooked. Nevertheless, on a list of 15 football players (IIRC that's the number we agreed on) there ought to be room for two defenders; and Beckenbauer and Maldini are arguably the greatest ever to play this position. Maldini in particular is just as well known for his play without the ball as his play with it – an essential characteristic for a defender, no? Nobody represents catenaccio better than this man. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Appreciate it's difficult to find the right balance, but would like more than one defender and think Maldini fits the bill as second-best ever.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not sure Maldini is even the greatest Italian player, though - Giuseppe Meazza, Gianni Rivera and Franco Baresi would all have strong cases. I don't think this would be indicative of bias - leaving aside Hamm, who is hardly comparable, it simply says that Charlton has a higher reputation than Maldini, which is in my view true. It's fair to say that Italy has not produced the sort of superstars that some other nations have. Conversely, I don't think the fact we have three Argentine players on the list is evidence of pro-Argentine bias in this section, merely that Argentina have produced a lot of individual stars. It may be unfair that defenders don't get as much acclaim as more attacking players, but I don't think it is our role to rectify that. Neljack (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Meazza and Rivera don't outshine other contemporary players at the same positions, and I'd pick Maldini over Baresi by a hair simply due to Maldini's longevity and the fact that Baresi's somewhat overshadowed by Beckenbauer and Gaetano Scirea as a sweeper. I'd also keep Maldini over Charlton. I think Charlton's legacy is comparable to Bobby Moore's and both Moore and Maldini are great defenders. Given we have other forwards on the list, I'd prefer a defender, and given the presence of other British athletes on the list, I'd pick Maldini if forced to make a choice. Maldini is the greatest full-back of all time despite being a right-footed left-back: he is absolutely a legend of the first order, trophies or no trophies. Shiny things do not necessarily correlate with vitality. Turning this argument around, you cannot dismiss Ronaldo's trophies so lightly if you're willing to use the lack of trophies as a reason to get rid of Maldini. Cobblet (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's true of Meazza, at least - he was arguably the leading player of the 1930s. Neljack (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Gerd Müller[edit]

A great goalscorer, but as an all-round player not quite at the level of others listed. We already have plenty of strikers, and Müller is more on a par with the likes of Marco van Basten, who has already been removed.[11] Neljack (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, I was going to nominate him. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support although I wouldn't mind seeing van Basten readded – three Ballons d'Or ought to be enough for anyone, abbreviated career or otherwise. Cobblet (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Kick off Soccer Players?[edit]

Guys, there are 17 soccer players on this list. That may well be what gives some people (including me) the impression that we might be cutting too many Americans. Do we seriously need so many soccer players? None of them is American, by the way. How about replacing some of them with their teams? --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mia Hamm, and it somewhat makes sense to have a bunch of soccer players because there are a bunch of countries where soccer is by far the most prevalent sport. pbp 18:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the number of current players/fans really be such an important criterion? I'm not saying we have to cut many. Just a few. One or two. There are too many sports figures, I think. Soccer, like American Football is not historically important according to the WP-article. Both sports were played since the middle of the 19th century, which is not old, given the fact that we should cover the history of mankind. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with you that there are too many sports figures, but I think it's reasonable that ~15% of the sports figures be soccer players. So, for every soccer player we cut, we should probably cut six from other sports. pbp 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that 17 athletes is too many for any sport, even the most popular one in the world. I've been thinking about proposing some removals, and will probably do so before long. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could cut two soccer players to make the list an even 15? That seems like a start, and we can debate about any further removals later on. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Cuts to soccer players can certainly be made, if only to make room to add Garrincha. But this only makes the 14 tennis players look even more ridiculous. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Tennis should drop down to at least 10 based on the removals and proposed removals elsewhere. Maybe even around 7 or 8. We can then add either Grand Slam or The Championships, Wimbledon to compensate. Tennis is probably the world's most popular women's sport but the number of female athletes will still be among the highest (if we're planning to do a 50-50 gender split). Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I would remove some tennis players too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt any single sport should have more than ten entries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
If soccer has only ten entries, baseball should only have two, and the whole list should only be 50-60. pbp 00:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That is pro-soccer bias. Baseball should have five entries if soccer has ten. Cutting the list of baseball players down to two is essentially eliminating the list of baseball players since it is impossible to choose the top two baseball players of all time. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As a European I wouldnt have a problem with 10 association football players, 5 baseball players and five American football players. I think athletes list should be in the neighborhood of 75 and definitely below 100.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
My many European coworkers would wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. As for a list of two baseball players, have Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson. Done! Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And my American friends would want to remove most soccer players and keep the list full of American players. Obviously there needs to be some middle ground. See my proposal below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ratio of Baseball Players to Association Football Players[edit]

According to this link from wikimedia tools, [3], 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American. As such, there needs to be a significant amount of attention to removing American bias while also not going so far as to create anti-American bias. From the discussions above, it is evident that there needs to be a separate thread to discuss the ratio of American Baseball players to soccer players. Since a little over a third of the readers of the English wikipedia are Americans, how about we make the ratio of soccer players to baseball players 2 to 1. This would eliminate most of the American bias because Cricket would have enough players on the list along with non-American hockey players and field hockey players to counteract the number of basketball players and American Football players. If need be, we could remove a couple of basketball players from the list.

In conclusion, here is my proposal: keep a ratio of Non-American athletes to American athletes at 2:1 to represent the readership in the English Wikipedia. This ratio would be a fixed rule that would stay in place if we lower the number of sports figures in total on the list. This seems like a fair compromise so that American bias elimination does not turn into Anti-American bias creation.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose should be more like 20-25% pbp 23:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Malerisch (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

You seem to be proposing two different things – I can't tell whether you're talking about just football vs. baseball or all the athletes in general. Americans currently comprise 44/117 or 38% of the athletes, definitely a better ratio than when we started trimming the list. But trying to justify a ratio of nationalities based on viewership alone makes no sense – first, one can apply this type of argument to every section of the list of people; second, if we can apply it for Americans we can apply it for every other nationality. By the same logic you're using, for every Chinese person on the list we should have one New Zealander, because both countries contribute 0.7% of Wikipedia's viewership. Oh, and we should have 27 times as many Americans as Chinese and New Zealanders combined. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant it for athletes in team sports. Sorry for the confusion. In addition, this argument only applies to sports figures because this is the type of person that only people from an athlete's country really care about. That is why you do not care about baseball players and I do not care about soccer players. This argument can't be made for people in history for example since the US has only been around for 238 years. I set this up as a compromise so that we can balance the list and have a strict list below. Removing all baseball players except for Ruth and Robinson is draconian at best and anti-American at worst. I am using this percentage for Americans only since that is the group everyone seems to care the most about cutting. I am open to using it for every country on the list for sports figures if you want to. Also, remember that only one third on the list would be are Americans, which is less than 38.3%. This is a compromise, and I see this as the best solution. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't personally believe we should have only two baseball players, but wanted to respond to your suggestion of its "impossibility" by pointing out that Ruth and Robinson's impact on American culture is markedly greater than any other player on the list. I continue to reject the notion that Wikipedia's viewership demographics correlate in any way with the vitality of its biographies; in that case you might as well compile the list of people using Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Popular pages. Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The nationality of the athletes only matters because in general people of one nationality only care about athletes of the sports they like. In Europe, it's soccer and cricket. In the US, Its baseball, football, and basketball. With relation to page views, I also think that page views should be considered since an encyclopedia should always have the pages that everyone wants to read. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"An encyclopedia should always have the pages that everyone wants to read." Points, I can't wait for your nominations of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber to the list. :-D There are several problems with tying this list to the traffic stats. One is that the traffic stats are quite fluid from month to month and year to year. Another is there are a lot of people who get a lot of hits despite not doing anything particularly significant, and conversely a lot of people who get few hits despite doing something very significant. pbp 23:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if we give greater weight to page views, I'm not sure if the proposal makes sense. Hypothetically, if 100% of readers were American, or German, or Korean, would the athletes be 100% from their own country? I guess the big sports in the States are games where they are the main country that plays the game. If 100% of readers were American, then maybe yes only American sports should be listed but shouldn't there be non-Americans who excel at these sports?
For example, if 100% of Wikipedia readers were British, maybe all of the sports bios will be British sports but the nationalities will still be diverse. Among the three most popular team sports in Britain (soccer/football, cricket and rugby) they make up 4 out of 26 athletes or about 15.4%. If these were hypothetically expanded, this ratio wouldn't change that much.
Not sure if I'm making this point clearly but even on a "Britipedia" or a sports book targeting a British audience, British athletes will still make up the minority. America is much more dominant in its own sports and will probably have a majority of athletes in an "Ameripedia" but still not 100%. Gizza (t)(c) 00:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
An encyclopedia exists for people to read. An encyclopedia should have the articles that everyone wants to read. Otherwise the reader will go to a different encyclopedia to read the article. Page views are the essence of any encylopedia and should be given high importance in determining an article's vitality. Hence the reason why I made this proposal to reflect the readers of the English Wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that page views should strongly influence who goes on this list. True, an encyclopedia exists for people to read, but it should have articles that everyone should read, not wants to read. And when did page views become the essence of an encyclopedia? Most encyclopedias throughout history have existed in hard copies, not on the Internet, so the concept of page views is not applicable and impossible to measure for those. As a rather extreme example, consider the articles for Jennifer Lawrence and Shen Kuo. Jennifer Lawrence received 1,211,849 page views in the past 90 days while Shen Kuo only received 8,935 page views—a 135x difference. Yet Shen Kuo is a level 3 VA while Jennifer Lawrence isn't even on the level 4 list. If page views are given high importance, should this swap really be carried out? Who would actually support that? Malerisch (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a popular actress to a lesser-known but still vital scientist. That is why we have categories for the different types of people. In addition, who are we to tell people what they should read. We should let them read what they want to read. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As a separate, unrelated question that I want to ask before I make a formal proposal, I would like to ask this: Should we focus less on nominating the articles on the list and more on improving them? This would mean that we as a project would focus on specific articles that need attention that are on our list. I feel like we aren't helping wikipedia as a whole if we aren't improving articles ourselves. Instead, I feel like we are simply having geopolitical arguments about which culture is important such as the argument above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been wanting to know the answer to this question for a while, even though it undermines my own argument: what is the point of the meta list? One of the sentences at Wikipedia:Vital articles states that "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. There is also a list of one thousand articles considered vital to Wikipedias of all languages." If the English Wikipedia VA list doesn't include any English-speaking bias, why does the meta list exist at all? Otherwise, we have two separate lists in English that serve the same purpose. There was some discussion here on that sentence, but no action was taken. Malerisch (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. It's hardly a settled matter that the English list not contain English bias.
  2. This list specifically compiles "10,000 subjects for which Wikipedia should ultimately have high-quality articles", while the Meta list doesn't say that. It's possible to argue that every Wikipedia should have articles on all 118 chemical elements (and add new ones as we discover them), but the transactinides need not necessarily be prioritized in terms of quality. A Wikipedia that's got less than 10,000 articles might want to check that it does have articles on days of the week or months of the year.
  3. We seem to have an unwritten rule that says we don't nominate articles that don't already exist, the assumption being that 4.5 million articles is plenty to choose from. Developers of the Meta list need not feel bound to the conventions of the English Wikipedia and may say that separate articles on pulsating and rotating variable stars are warranted, for example.
  4. The Meta list should take linguistic differences into account: the distinction between green, light blue and dark blue is what immediately came to mind but I'm sure there are others. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Great answer! I've been thinking of removing some of the elements as well. A possible answer would be removing all mid-importance elements, but further discussion should probably be conducted in the Chemistry section. Malerisch (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a link to the 100 most popular articles of 2013. Should we replace the Level 1 and 2 lists with this list? Don't think so.

Notwithstanding the time bias and geographic bias in pageviews, there is a huge shaky assumption made in the view that high pageviews mean vitality. You are assuming that people click on the Wikipedia articles that they want to click on and read. That's probably the case with pop culture phenomena like Breaking Bad and perenially popular articles like human penis size but it's not the case with many of the articles. Do people actually want to read about Facebook, Yahoo!, Google and YouTube or do they type the name of these websites in the search box and accidentally click on the Wikipedia link? We don't have proof and we don't know for how long people view these articles, which is just as important in understanding how readers behave online. Having said that, the accident theory is widely supported (see this Signpost article).

Another assumption is that all of the pageviews come from humans which again is known to not be the case. Wikipedian articles are frequently subject to Denial-of-service attacks by online hackers. Bots can artificially inflate the pageviews of an article by up to a factor of million. Bot views don't make an article vital and even though sometimes it is clear which articles are being attacked, a moderate increase in views can also be the result of bots and we have no way of finding out.

There is also the Google Doodle and Slashdot effect. An article that normally gets 50 views a day can get 200,000 due to being linked via a Google Doodle, Slashdot, Reddit or some other website that overloads the article. Similarly, celebrities do not become more vital when they die at a young age (if anything, it means they will be in less movies, release less songs, etc. and therefore less vital) but an unexpected death is the best way to get a big boost in article pageviews. Again the Signpost article referred to above discusses all of these issues. Gizza (t)(c) 04:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the other major problem with pageviews. If two articles are similar in vitality, the article that is already better written will get more pageviews. If you compare two Turkish village of similar and let's say one of them is a detailed Featured Article and other is a stub. The FA will have more pageviews firstly due to getting exposure during the review process and secondly due to online readers recommending, sharing and linking the better article to others (why would you link the stub if it's devoid of information?) It's kind of obvious that article quality and not just topic affects pageviews but this means that we fall in the trap of adding high quality articles to VA simply because they're well written. The vital stubs get overlooked. As Melody Lavender said, although it is unlikely we should even be open to the possiblity of adding redlinks if the topic is genuinely vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the relationship between pageviews and quality works both ways. If an article gets a lot of views, it tends to get a lot of edits as well. These edits eventually result in those articles being B-Class or better (look at the quality of any Lady Gaga-related article). Articles that get a lot of hits don't need help getting to B-Class; they will get there naturally without our interference. The things that need help from this project are articles that don't get viewed a lot: they need to get viewed so people will fix them and bring them up to B-Class or better. Heck, one would hope that if this was a good, important project, it could influence hits! pbp 18:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I doubt that that many people know that this project exists. Few people who take the time to realize that they can edit wikipedia articles ever notice that there is such thing as talk pages, let alone wikiprojects or anything that is not an article. However, I like your idea of improving articles on the list, and I would like to take it one step further: how about we establish a task force to improve article on the list. We could establish the goals for what class we want an article to have and work on the ones that are not up to those standards. I will be proposing this at the bottom of the talk page. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

History[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

History by continent and region[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by country[edit]

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

Prehistory and ancient history[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Prehistory and ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical history[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Early modern history[edit]

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

Modern history[edit]

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

Historical cities[edit]

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

Add Antioch[edit]

Very important city in the Near/Middle East in the first centuries BCE and AD. Should either be here or in Geography. pbp 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This should go under History: the modern city is Antakya. Cobblet (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this proposal be paired with a removal since History is currently over quota? Malerisch (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of the social sciences[edit]

Is there any interest in adding this? Maybe it seems redundant on level 4, but I could see this being a useful addition at level 3. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding it. Neljack (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

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.

Physical geography[edit]

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

Add Biblical Mount Sinai[edit]

Alternative to the above proposal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for reasons basically stated by Carlwev in the previous thread – we're lacking too much in terms of "big" Biblical topics to make adding a detail like this a reasonable proposition. I'd much prefer adding things like The Exodus or Book of Exodus, Genesis creation narrative or Book of Genesis, Gospel, and Book of Revelation. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose About a place in Bible, story covered in Moses and Ten Commandments, more vital Jewish/Christian topics missing like ones Cobblet and I said; Plus More vital mythical locations missing or removed, like Purgatory, Camelot, Garden of Eden, Armageddon etc  Carlwev  09:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet and Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

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 and country subdivisions[edit]

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

Add East Asia[edit]

I'm not sure why this region is missing. It's one of the few regions to which we devote a "History of" article, and I think it belongs on the level 3 list as well. If you support, what are your thoughts on level 3? History of the Middle East is listed along with Middle East, so why not list History of East Asia and East Asia? Malerisch (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We're also missing the divisions of Europe: Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Western Europe. These are from the United Nations geoscheme. Malerisch (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Those divisions of Europe are pretty fuzzy (the usage of the UN geoscheme is pretty much limited to UN publications) and IMO it's better to list only well-defined concepts like Scandinavia and European Union.
As for the presence of East Asia on level 3, I think it would be better to just add Korea. (Mongolia and Taiwan are not as integral to the concept of East Asia.) I would keep the Middle East on the list unless we decide to add a significant number of modern Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and Syria. It's also been suggested that we remove all the histories of regions and continents from that level, which I think is actually quite reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember exactly which regions where removed when we culled the region list, I think N S E W Europe where in then, can't remember if E Asia was or not or Central Europe. I am pondering between Korea, S Korea, and E Asia for 1000 list, like Cobblet said maybe Korea is good idea. If we are looking at 1000 list geography I keep wondering if we can remove one of those lakes that were up for ages and put back Caribbean/Caribbean Sea.  Carlwev  09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Literature[edit]

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

Add Satire[edit]

Important topic and genre in literature and other arts, I would call this more vital than many books we have.  Carlwev  17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 06:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I was thinking, maybe we should list some genres and topics under main art rather than literature, as sci fi, fantasy, horror, satire can all be genres of literature, film, tv shows, radio shows, theatre, comics, video games etc, not only literature alone, these are wider arts genres, not just literature genres. what do people think?  Carlwev  17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Tyndale Bible[edit]

Least notable of the four(!) translations of the Bible on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Don't think the Luther Bible is that notable either. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Luther Bible[edit]

I didn't even notice this and the Gutenberg Bible were on the list as well. We still have the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the King James Version.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Am thinking of this and Tyndale Bible as a swap for Old and New Testament which I support--Rsm77 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, do we need the other versions as well. I think bible should be enough. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support It's amazing that there are 7 translations/manuscripts of the Bible listed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Music[edit]

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

Sometimes I wonder whether it would be possible to reduce the modern musical works list to around 5 or 10 entries. The problem with proposing individual removals is that there are so many of a similar level of notability, so there is always the argument, "well if X is on the list..." Any opinions on a major reduction? --Rsm77 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel some trimming is warranted, but down to 5-10 seems rather extreme. How do you feel about the current distribution of musicians across different time periods? The distribution of musicians and musical works ought to be similar IMO. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I was a little hasty. Perhaps some trimming and reshaping might be in order though. What does anyone think about the merits of Amazing Grace Silent Night, Summertime (song), In the Mood,My Way, and What a Wonderful World. I think there may be other standards with a case. I also think some particularly notable anthems like The Star-Spangled Banner and La Marseillaise might be considered. Think there was discussion of this before. --Rsm77 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we can reduce, and cut one by one, I don't think we need things like What's Going On by Marvin Gaye, or the sound track to Saturday Night Fever. Also we have Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, without Fleetwood Mac, I'd either swap it, remove the album and add the band, or just remove the album.  Carlwev  13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The Star-Spangled Banner is not more vital than the Flag of the United States, and we currently list no national flags or symbols. Also popular tunes are not necessarily vital: Für Elise is not a vital piece of classical music. I think every piece of art on the list should be something that is recognized as a masterpiece of its genre; ideally, it should either have made an impact on the history of the art form or possess some larger cultural significance. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I would support a major reduction as well, although 5 may be too little. Malerisch (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Performing arts[edit]

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

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.

Add supervillain[edit]

We have an article on superheroes but not an article on supervillains. Without supervillains, there would not be any superheroes, making them almost just as important as a group. I will also be proposing a few supervillains to go along with this proposal below.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think superhero should be on the list, either; it should be replaced with the more general hero. Superheroes are an almost exclusively American concept (apparently "Super Heroes" is trademarked by DC and Marvel?!), and supervillains equally so. I could see adding villain, though. Superheroes are just another type of stock character; why not add funny animal, action hero, damsel in distress, femme fatale, and mad scientist? However, superhero fiction could be added to represent this particular genre, which is more vital and in line with science fiction, fantasy, horror fiction, etc. Malerisch (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Malerisch. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Malerisch. I support adding villain and replacing superhero with hero. Maybe superhero fiction as well. Gizza (t)(c) 01:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Hero and Villain should be on the list in addition to superhero and supervillan. Not so sure about the individual examples. We also don't have Monomyth which is vital IMO.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we list narrative and/or narrative devices like character (arts) (which ought to cover the concept of protagonists/antagonists), plot (narrative), setting (narrative), etc.? Cobblet (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Add The Joker[edit]

Perhaps the most well known supervillain in comic book history. He appeared in the original Batman comic book in the first issue in 1940. Whenever someone thinks of Batman, that person almost always thinks of Batman's archnemesis The Joker. If we are going to add supervillains to the list, he should be on it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for a few reasons:
    • We don't need more than one character from each comic franchise (yes, technically it's one DC Universe, but the splits are pretty clear). In this case, we already list Batman, so the Joker and Catwoman don't need to be listed. We don't list literary works as well as characters within them (except in a few special cases like Odysseus or Faust): Prince Hamlet, Iago, Jay Gatsby, Leopold Bloom, Atticus Finch, Hikaru Genji, and Sun Wukong aren't listed. Comics shouldn't be different.
    • If The Joker and Catwoman were added, we would list 7 Marvel/DC characters. That's quite excessive; we only list 6 ancient Greek leaders, 6 modern Chinese leaders, 6 modern Indian leaders, 6 modern French leaders, 7 modern German leaders, 7 modern UK leaders, etc. Fictional comic characters are not that vital.
    • The comic characters section is already exclusively American; adding these would only exacerbate the problem. Non-US characters need to be swapped in.
    • Are these really the best choices for fictional villains? Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, and Magneto are just as good contenders.
    • Keep in mind what fictional characters/franchises have already been removed: Harry Potter here, Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Luke Skywalker, Spock, and Darth Vader here, and James T. Kirk and Holden Caulfield here. The Joker and Catwoman don't stand out as more vital than these. Malerisch (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Malerisch. Well said. Gizza (t)(c) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Fictional characters is right-sized now. pbp 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, not that notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add catwoman[edit]

One of the most iconic supervillainesses in comic book history. She also appeared in the original batman comic books. She has also been Batman's love interest in many of the comic books. Since we have Wonderwoman, a superheroine, then surely we can have Catwoman, a supervillainess.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose See above. Malerisch (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Malerisch. Gizza (t)(c) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Fictional characters is right-sized now. pbp 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose:, not notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Philosophy and religion[edit]

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

Philosophy[edit]

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

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Add Purgatory[edit]

I just think this is an important topic compared to some religion topics and people we have. I thought it should go with heaven and hell in afterlife, but maybe under Christianity, as it's more specific. Nirvana is to do with after life but is under Buddhism as it's pretty specific to that religion. I was also wandering if Saṃsāra is worth thinking about? as we have nirvana and dharma, they often appear together when studying Hindu/Buddhist afterlife beliefs, thoughts?  Carlwev  15:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Specific religions[edit]

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

Remove Ayyavazhi[edit]

Ayyavazhi is a Hindu new religious movement that began in the late 19th century. It is covered by new religious movement. See also the successful proposal to remove other new religious movements (the Hare Krishnas, Scientology and Falun Gong) Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_25#Swap:_Remove_Scientology.2C_Falun_Gong.2C_International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness.2C_Add_New_religious_movement.

There are plenty of more vital articles related to Hinduism and Eastern religions missing in comparison to Ayyavazhi. The elephant-headed god Ganesha for example, is far more important within the religion and is well known to people outside the religion. There are at least 5 new Hindu movements I can think of off the top of my head that have been more influential than Ayyavazhi as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Old Testament and New Testament[edit]

It seems disingenuous that we have several editions/translations of the Bible, and dozens of people from the Bible, but not the two major divisions of the Bible. pbp 21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support It makes sense to include divisions of the Bible. I did notice that the article Gospel is not a vital article. Should that be proposed too? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support That does seem rather strange. I'd thought gospel would be a good add too. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. As the (canonical Christian) Gospel(s) are just the first four books of the NT, I'm not sure they'd deserve their own VA listing. Rwessel (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
I'd support a swap for one or more of the translations/versions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Several versions are currently proposed for removal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unitarianism and Nontrinitarianism[edit]

I'm not an expert on the area but these articles seem to be covering the same concept. Both articles refer to a belief in God as one united being in contrast to the three of the Trinity which is itself listed. Should one of these be removed? Unitarianism also shouldn't be in the general religious concepts section when it is specific to Christian doctrine. Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a fair point. I'm not sure which one should be removed though. Neljack (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Esoterics, magic and mysticism[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Esoterics, magic and mysticism for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology[edit]

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

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.

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.

Sexuality[edit]

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

Stages of life[edit]

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

Sports and recreation[edit]

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

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.

Society and social sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anthropology[edit]

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

Business and economics[edit]

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

Add Software Industry[edit]

Important industry that isn't on the list yet. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support industries can replace nearly all companies. They have far wider scope. Gizza (t)(c) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Health care industry[edit]

Another vital industry with a wide scope not on the list. There aren't even any related companies on the list at the moment. Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would be the closest to being vital but they ain't.

Support
  1. Support nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We should probably have articles on all the major industries. Perhaps these would replace the articles on specific companies. What does everyone else think? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Apple Inc.[edit]

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I agree with the removals Malerisch suggests too. Our coverage of companies seems to be rather biased towards IT, perhaps not surprisingly. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Mac OS should be removed first, and Apple's impact on the technology industry makes it vital IMO. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube also have less historical importance and so should be removed before Apple. Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

What about the 6 car manufacturers in the Technology section? I think most of those should be removed before these companies. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, they should also be removed + there are some more companies spread out on other subpages.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering how you define historical importance. Didn't you just oppose the removal of eBay? Why are Microsoft and Apple less historically important? Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Many of the IT companies have their own operating systems listed too. There are exceptions but generally a product is less vital than the company that makes it. I don't think Mac OS and Microsoft Windows can be considered more vital than Apple Inc. and Micrsoft respectively. Gizza (t)(c) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Especially when Apple's legacy in consumer electronics is more significant than its operating system. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the only companies that should be on the list are East India Company and Dutch East India Company. I forgot to suggest the removal of Standard Oil which is historic in the sense that it is no more, but not vital IMO. We should list consumer electronics, I thought about this several times before, it's a important omission and should cover consumer electronics by Apple and others. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Melody Lavender:, I think your definition of "historic" is off, particularly since you want to remove Standard Oil. Standard Oil is arguably the most influential company in American history, in the sense that most of the American regulatory apparatus. Furthermore, the prominent multinational oil companies Chevron and ExxonMobil (both some of the biggest corporations in the world) both trace their lineage to Standard Oil. The influence occurred almost a century ago, so I'm more than comfortable with calling them "historic". I'm also comfortable calling GE and IBM historic, because their peak of innovation occurred decades ago. IBM was the first important technology company. GE is a very important electronics company. As such, I think the removal of those three companies is a bad idea. pbp 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: I agree that Standard Oil could be considered more important for Economic history than the others. But we don't have Economic history in the first place. What I am trying to say is that in this case I would prefer the approach of adding the overarching articles (industries) instead of individual ones (the companies). This rationale is hard to illustrate because many of the important articles are red links: Instead of AT&T we should really add History of the telecommunications industry. And Telecommunications industry, which is a redirect to Telecommunications, should be a separate article. Nothing keeps us from adding red links to the list, though. Some articles that do exist and describe industries, sectors, and overarching concepts that should be added are History of the internet, History of computing and History of telecommunication, as well as Primary sector of the economy, Secondary sector of the economy, and Tertiary sector of the economy, Public sector, and Private sector. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Energy industry[edit]

Another vital industry with a wide scope not on the list. The article is not well developed yet but it should cover historical aspects of the industry, such as the importance of Edison's General Electric. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Definitely a vital industry. Malerisch (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove General Electric[edit]

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose GE has historical importance. pbp 16:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per my reasoning below (under Walmart). GE is a major corporation with significant importance, both historically and presently. Furthermore, I don't see why we don't have room for the topics you've mentioned—have they ever been nominated? I could just as easily say that we have no room for many organisms because we don't list wildlife, microorganism, prokaryote, birth, or decomposition, but these can be rectified by adding the topics rather than removing others. Malerisch (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove IBM[edit]

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose IBM has historical importance. pbp 16:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose IBM is even more vital than GE. Malerisch (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Microsoft[edit]

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Microsoft Windows should be removed before the company itself. However, that's arguably the most important operating system, so all the others would have to be removed as well, which I don't think is that good of an idea. Malerisch (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

But one could say that the significance of Microsoft is subsumed by the significance of Bill Gates: his page got more views last month than Microsoft and Microsoft Windows combined. Another viewpoint is that we can list the inventor and his invention without listing the company he built around it (Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone, but not Bell Telephone Company or AT&T). In the end it still comes down to how important you really think Microsoft is though, and I'm no economic historian myself. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Walmart[edit]

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I suggested replacing these with multinational corporation. Gizza (t)(c) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose as long as Amazon.com is on the list—Walmart is definitely the more important retailer. It's not true in every case (e.g. Thomas Edison is more important than General Electric), but I would also remove the founder, Sam Walton, before Walmart: the company he founded is more vital than himself. I'm not saying Walmart is necessarily vital, but it shouldn't be removed while the other articles stay. Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We have smaller articles like amazon mentioned above. I don't seem to hate companies as much as everyone else. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer over 10,000 stores, nearly half a trillion dollar turn over and employs over 2 million people. I know it's fairly recent but I still think it's quite significant, lots of biographies are more recent. I mean we're still talking about sports, we have the worlds top 25 footballers, and top 14 tennis players, many of them more recent, but the worlds biggest retailer is not allowed? Like we have 150+ people important to film but don't have one company no disney, fox, viacom/paramount etc, I did media not acting but those came up when i studied cinema.  Carlwev  12:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So long as the quota for biographies is at 2000, the vitality standards for people will be less than for non-biographies in the sense of having less importance and influence in real life. From what I've read in the archives, supporters of the current quota say that 2000 is reasonable because readers expect biographies or personal, human stories in an encyclopedia, not just abstract topics (I haven't made up my mind on it myself). Putting the biography issue to one side, there are more general articles than can cover those companies. Film industry will be a good addition. Cinema of the United States is already listed. There are other broader articles too such as Major film studio. We can avoid bias, COI and spam issues that can crop up if we had to select one or two of Disney, Fox or Viacom. In the case of Walmart, discount store, department store and supermarket are the more general options. Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see your point, it would be funny if we put companies in biographies, although it would never fly. I would prefer to look up Nintendo than Miyamoto or Mario for example, I Would prefer to look up Sony before its co founder, same with Walmart. Biographies already have some articles that aren't single people, several comedy music or theatre duos, many music bands, which I expect. We also have a few oddities like Rothschild family, although I think that's significant compared to some other bios, even though it's a family, perhaps closer to a company kind of article, almost, than a bio?
I agree with Carlwev. I don't think the general articles can sufficiently cover companies, though. General articles like actor, politician, and writer certainly don't cover the lists of people with those professions, and I think the equivalence between companies and people is closer than one might think. Each person has his or her own background, influences, and legacy that makes him or her vital, and so does each company. I also don't think COI is an issue—just because they're companies doesn't mean we can't fairly judge their importance. We can all agree (I hope), for instance, that Apple Inc. is more vital than Toshiba, that Walmart is more vital than Tesco, and that Microsoft is more vital than Oracle Corporation. Malerisch (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You make a fair point on companies having their own stories like people. If we're keeping companies on that basis, I think the focus should then be on variety of companies representing different areas of the economy and not financial measures like revenue or market cap. Maybe a stronger focus on brand value instead. I could change my Walmart vote then but there will so many other companies to consider: Samsung, McDonalds, Nike Inc., Louis Vuitton, Proctor & Gamble, Marlboro, Mondelēz International, Disney, Nestle, Citi, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Tata and HSBC. Gizza (t)(c) 08:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to judge a company's vitality based on a combination of factors: a high brand value, large size (either market capitalization or revenue), and a significant overall impact on society (for a more holistic viewpoint; this includes an "innovation factor," if you will). If a company satisfies at least two of these criteria, it's vital. Apple Inc. tops the list for brand value and market cap, and I would say it has considerable impact as well, so it's vital. Walmart tops the revenue list and undoubtedly has had a major impact, so it's vital as well. Oil companies are at the top of the size and impact rankings, so they're vital. The majority of companies that you listed, however, don't satisfy two of these, so I don't think they're vital (Samsung and McDonald's might be, however).
Also, I don't see why no one's crowing for the removals of newspapers or universities—aren't they companies/organizations as well? Why do they get a free pass? Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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]

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

Law[edit]

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

Mass media[edit]

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

Museums[edit]

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

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 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 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 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
  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
  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
Should we add museums to the list based off of the amount of people who visit each museum? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
No, this list is incomplete and not about museum quality. It was only meant as background information which can perhaps aid us in our voting process when there are no decisive qualitative arguments. – Editør (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Politics and government[edit]

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

Psychology[edit]

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

Society[edit]

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

Sociology[edit]

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

Add Criminology[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I think adding it here is fine. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support A significant field of study. Neljack (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Tried this once here we were over quota then and the atmosphere was a bit more hostile. I think this stands another chance, genuine topic of study and of interest to general reader and expert. Crime is in the vital 100 so I believe study of it deserves at least vital 10,000 especially when we list over 20 crimes too. The only reason given for not having it was, we already have crime, but I think that's not a good reason myself, I think it's important enough in it's own right for inclusion and if we missed everything covered in some form by a vital 100 article we wouldn't have much left. Not 100% sure were it would fit, somewhere in social science surely.

(Also if you look at the previous add thread attempt, it was 5-2 support on 9 Nov, I nearly closed it as passed on that day, but for some reason I left it open longer, for another oppose to appear and fail it; silly me.)  Carlwev  14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Neutral about this proposal. I don't know if criminology covers anything substantially more than what's covered by crime, criminal law and forensics. And not every study of a Level 2 topic is listed on Level 4. See somnology, sexology, bacteriology, thanatology, horology, popular culture studies, musicology, communication studies, religious studies and pyrology. I can support it as a swap, maybe with forensics. Gizza (t)(c) 05:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Basics[edit]

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

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

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

Biological processes and physiology[edit]

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

Botany[edit]

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

Cell biology[edit]

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

Ecology[edit]

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

Zoology[edit]

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

Organisms[edit]

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

Health, medicine and disease[edit]

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

Add Histamine antagonist[edit]

With the allergy season fast approaching, I'll write up a proposal for allergy medication. Allergies are some of the most wide-spread diseases, ranging from annoying hay fever to deadly anaphylaxis. Allergy and Asthma are, consequently, on level 3, and they explain or at least mention the role of histamines in the pathophysiology of these diseases. Our article on antihistamines is not exhaustive yet, and doesn't really give a good overview of the subject. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not every remedy to every common medical condition is vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

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)
  3. Support 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) 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:45, 11 August 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. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Add L Dopa[edit]

On the market since 1973, L Dopa is another substance that was on the World Health Organization's list of essential medications right from the beginning. It's a substance that is normally produced by the human body; a lack of it manifests in Parkinson's disease, one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases.--Melody Lavender (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It makes no sense to propose this when dopamine itself isn't on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

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#Basics 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.

Swap: Remove Planck units, Add Natural units[edit]

Planck units are one system of units based on fundamental physical quantities, but hardly the only ones. They're all useful in specific contexts and I think a discussion of the concept as a whole is more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose; would support a straight add. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Swap: Remove Altimeter, Add Odometer[edit]

Odometers have a long and rich history compared to most other measuring instruments; their significance far outweighs any single flight instrument.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't actually think there are many measuring instruments with as long of a history as the odometer. (Rulers and water clocks are two basic ones that should be nominated.) Malerisch (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose; would support a straight remove. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose swap, support straight remove of Altimeter. Rwessel (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose add, support straight remove. There are many measuring devices and sensors of comparable importance. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Astronomy[edit]

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

Remove Delta Cephei[edit]

Only notable for being the prototype Cepheid variable, which we already have on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. It should be covered in Cepheus as well, and I don't think it's more notable than Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star, Proxima Centauri, Spica, Regulus, Alnitak, or Epsilon Eridani. Malerisch (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Lagrangian point[edit]

Too specific.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Not sure why this is too specific, especially compared to some of the proposals below. This is the reason why trojans exist and a number of notable space probes are also deployed at Lagrangian points. What other article do we have on the list that would cover this concept? It also seems to me that while our coverage of stars and galaxies is now quite strong, our coverage of planetary science is not nearly as comprehensive. Cobblet (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I may reconsider; it's probably less specific than low Earth orbit, for instance. Malerisch (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's too specific, and not compared to some things we're adding, I'm not sure what would cover this, other than perhaps orbit, but I don't think that makes it redundant.  Carlwev  10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Add protostar and pre-main-sequence star[edit]

We're missing two important stages in the evolution of all stars. Pre-main-sequence star is also a nice catch-all for several variable types (FU Ori, Herbig Ae/Be, and T Tauri stars)

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swag: Remove circumstellar habitable zone, add astrobiology[edit]

Circumstellar habitable zone is too specific. Astrobiology covers this topic and multiple related topics quite well in one article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Agree that CHZ is too specific. You can just as easily add Planetary habitability, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence. Gizza (t)(c) 03:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If we're going to add interdisciplinary topics to astronomy, I would list astrophysics before astrobiology. Malerisch (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

They should both be on the list IMO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure though it's better, I think I would prefer to have astrobiology, and circumstellar habitable zone as well as astrophysics too. I think I would prefer to look up habitable zone before most constellations and stars.  Carlwev  11:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I've proposed some constellation removals below. As for stars, Eta Carinae, Sirius, Vega, and Alpha Centauri should definitely stay on the list due to their notable properties. I would propose removing Algol, but we unfortunately have no general eclipsing binary article to replace it with. As for the others currently on the list not proposed for removal, I think Achernar, Antares, Alpha Crucis, Beta Centauri, Deneb, and Pollux are our best candidates for removal at this time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: remove nova, add cataclysmic variable star[edit]

Remove a subtype, add the overarching classification.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove compact star[edit]

Already adequately covered in white dwarf and neutron star, the only two types of compact stars currently known.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. The general topic is less vital than the specific ones. Malerisch (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: remove Mira, add long-period variable[edit]

Remove the best-known example of a long period variable for the topic itself, which we currently lack.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Mira's also covered in Cetus. Malerisch (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add BL Lac object[edit]

We're missing an important type of active galaxy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already list blazar; why do we need this specific type of blazar? Cobblet (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. I don't think it's any more vital than OVV quasars. Malerisch (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Virgo Cluster and Virgo Supercluster[edit]

A rather glaring omission; we don't even have the most-studied galaxy cluster or the supercluster that we are a part of.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support very vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Crab Nebula[edit]

The most-studied supernova remnant, and one of the newest that can be studied in great detail.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove occultation[edit]

A cool phenomenon, but certainly not of fundamental importance to our understanding of the universe.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Astrophysics[edit]

A huge omission.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Corona Borealis[edit]

Definitely the least-important constellation on the list right now; no need to keep it when we don't have more important constellations like Ara and Lupus.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Lyra and Canis Minor[edit]

Figuring out which constellations after Corona Borealis to remove is hard, because there's none that jump out as being of lesser importance. However, I think these two are probably slightly less important than the other constellations on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We also list the brightest star of each constellation. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Thoughts on removing Capricornus, Cancer (constellation), Libra (constellation), and Aries (constellation)? I know it's a zodiacal constellation, but I don't think being on the zodiac is enough of a reason to include it on the list here, and Capricornus is certainly not vital in any other way. We have the zodiac article itself on the list, which I think is enough coverage of the concept. The other constellations on the list are all more important from an astronomical standpoint. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with these removals if we add astrological sign under astrology. Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Part of me would be sorry, but it makes complete sense though, we are nearly removing all months of the year and days of the week, as redundant to day, week, month, year, calendar etc. Removing them but keeping all the Zodiac signs/constellations just because they are in the zodiac wouldn't seem right, as they seem less vital than days and months. I notice there are separate articles for the constellations and the astrology signs. It appears the constellations may not be top top astronomy articles, if we kept them because they are astrology signs then shouldn't it be the astrology articles we should have then? but that situation would be even worse, as they are less vital individually than missing/removed things like some Greco Roman figures, we don't have Medusa or Minotaur etc.  Carlwev  10:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: remove Polaris, add pole star[edit]

Pole star is the vital concept here, Polaris is just the most recent example of one.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Then you might as well say that the actual vital concept is celestial pole, and we don't need to list that at all because we have celestial sphere. Polaris and Crux are going to remain culturally significant for quite some time; I'd keep both. Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pbp 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove asteroid[edit]

I expect this one to be controversial. However, we already have minor planet on the list, and nowadays the term "asteroid" simply means a minor planet in the inner solar system. I don't think such a concept is vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We can replace asteroid with impact event. Gizza (t)(c) 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose see below.  Carlwev  19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pbp 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose How is this any more arbitrary a classification than, say, long-period variable? Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rwessel (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I would expect this to be looked up, and would look it up myself. I would expect a print encyclopaedia to have this in a smaller than 10,000 article limit, and before minor planet, I'm sure my encyclopaedias have it. Minor planet also includes Dwarf Planet according to the article, would we remove that too? I wouldn't think so. There are other astronomy topics covered by something else, we have several types of stars that could be covered by star. We have terrestrial planet and gas giant, that are covered by planet. If it is considered overlap, it is an acceptable overlap in my opinion. Also Asteroid is in the 1000 list too, so should be removed from there first, or swapped for minor planet there before here, even though I think I may oppose that too. We also previously had Asteroid belt in the 1000, but we removed it as we had asteroid, then we added Comet near the same time, as a semi replacement.  Carlwev  19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, most of the vital list is anthropocentric so the minor planets that are closest to us may be vital on that basis. Then again, asteroid belt is already listed. I support swapping asteroid with asteroid belt on the 1000 list. Can't decide here. Gizza (t)(c) 02:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes impact event has been on my mind for ages we should definitely have that in my opinion, but I wouldn't swap asteroid for it. I remember being happy noticing we missed impact crater and getting that in, whilst removing individual fault lines we had. Impact event I think is important too.  Carlwev  09:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Add supernova remnant[edit]

The only type of emission nebula we are currently missing, and certainly one of the most important types.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Seems like supernova can cover this. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose since we already have Supernova pbp 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add high-velocity cloud[edit]

Essential to our understanding of galaxies.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Why? "Poorly understood" does not necessarily imply "essential to our understanding". And why is this not a topic that could be covered by interstellar medium? Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Chemistry[edit]

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

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.

Add Simple harmonic motion[edit]

Harmonic oscillator is already listed, but it seems like some also want the more basic concept to be added as well. I also think it's worth listing since it's a topic that comes up fairly frequently in physics. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I was thinking of SHM during the earlier set of physics proposals. Good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Fluid statics[edit]

This field is categorized here: Mechanics > Continuum mechanics > Fluid mechanics > Fluid statics. I think this is too specific, and considering that all the subfields of optics were removed, this probably should be as well. We also already list statics separately.

As a separate question, what do people think of removing fluid dynamics? Dynamics (mechanics) is also listed. And what about electrostatics and magnetostatics? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Gotta think about this one. You could call aerodynamics a subfield of fluid dynamics: does that mean it's even less vital? I'd also question whether we really need to include dynamics and statics as subfields of mechanics – can a person really be said to study "dynamics" as an academic subject? Is there such a thing as a "dynamicist"? At least I know for a fact there are journals and academic departments devoted to rheology. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO aerodynamics is a special case: there's a vital field of engineering, aerospace engineering, devoted to it. If people see the need to include hydraulic engineering, that would be a good reason to keep fluid statics, but it's not currently listed. I didn't include fluid dynamics in this nomination, however, because I think it's more vital than fluid statics (we don't list aerostatics either). I also couldn't find any textbooks devoted to fluid statics, just fluid dynamics and fluid mechanics.
I'd regard statics and dynamics to be coherent subjects: by searching for "statics" and "dynamics" on Amazon.com, for instance, a bunch of textbooks on those topics can be found. Apparently "dynamicist" is an actual word, but even if it wasn't, it's not like "electromagnetist" or "opticist" are widely used, either. I don't think the existence of journals or academic departments devoted to a subject is sufficient for inclusion—journals and departments for astrophysics, ornithology, entomology, and bioinformatics exist (see lists of academic journals), but none of those subjects are listed. Malerisch (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to imply that it was, and some of the other topics you just mentioned quite possibly should be considered vital regardless of that, but OK. Given that flood control was added, there are clearly vital aspects of hydraulic engineering even if we haven't specifically added that article (personally I think it would've been the better choice). What do you think of hydraulics? (And when you did the textbook search, did you try looking for "hydrostatics" as well?) Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Rheology[edit]

I don't think this subfield of continuum mechanics is particularly vital. Why is it more important than, say, polymer physics? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Possibly because we list polymer but not flow? Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

Add Printer (computing)[edit]

Someone mentioned printer, and I think they have a point, We have things like computer mouse, monitor, keyboard, Hard disc drive, motherboard, 4 programming languages nearly another one soon, computer printer seems to fit in I believe. We also don't have Image scanner is that worth some thought?. To me a computer printer and scanner seem more vital than having 4 or 5 programming languages.  Carlwev  15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support. as nom.  Carlwev  15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I'm not sure if this should go in this section or Media and communication: printing, photocopier, and printing press are all located there. Malerisch (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Prefer placement with the other printing technologies. Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support and place along similar print technology. Gizza (t)(c) 14:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

You could be right, all printing tech together may be sensible, what do others think?  Carlwev  16:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Berkeley Software Distribution, MS-DOS, Multics, and OpenVMS[edit]

Many people are concerned that computing may be overrepresented, and the operating systems category seems like a good place to rectify that. BSD ought to be covered to some extent in Unix, and MS-DOS is the less vital out of the two Microsoft operating systems. Multics was an influential early operating system, but we don't list things like difference engine and IBM Personal Computer, which were just as influential to the hardware side of computers. And OpenVMS just isn't on the same level as Linux, Unix, Mac OS, or Microsoft Windows. If we're removing Apple Inc. and Microsoft, I don't see how these operating systems are any more vital. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Multics and OpenVMS, not sure about BSD and DOS. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Information technology[edit]

I find it mildly amusing that in spite of the alleged bias toward IT, we don't have IT itself on the list. The section itself is also titled "Computing and information technology". Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Compact disc[edit]

Covered by Optical disc. We don't list DVD or Blu-Ray.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per V3n0M93 and the same reasons for removing floppy disk. Gizza (t)(c) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add File system[edit]

An important computer science topic. It discusses how exactly data is stored on a disk.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Lisp (programming language)[edit]

We don't have any functional languages. This the most vital of that paradigm.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Am failing to see how this is more vital than, say, Fortran. I think I'd prefer to see more programming concepts like recursion or sorting algorithm than more languages. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Does it really have that much penetration outside of academia? The only language that I think is absolutely vital to cover is probably Assembly language. Beyond that programming styles (i.e. imperative/declarative/object-oriented) would be better choices than actual languages. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

A long time ago all programming languages were removed because it was thought programming languages article itself was enough and covered the topic, now we have 4 of them added back, and might soon have a total of 6 programming languages. How many do we want in the end? I would probably disagree removing CD as we have optical disc, over 200 billion CDs have been made, and they're still going. One could say CD is covered by optical disc so we don't need it, but what is the reply to we have programming language, so we don't need 6 examples of programming languages? I admit programming isn't my thing but I am a little confused say water wheel in use for over 2000 years may not get in because we have water mill but 6 programming languages is acceptable. I still appreciate all the hard work and different views, I think it makes the list better in the end, this is only my view.  Carlwev  12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If we keep CD, we should add DVD and Blu-ray too. There is no reason to list only one of them. I personally feel that the optical disc article is enough. About programming languages I don't thing the Programming language article covers them enough. If this was VA1000 then one article would be enough but here we can add a few languages. We still have no coverage of logic programming as well as other fields of computer science. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
See also the recently successful proposal to remove Floppy disk Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_30#Remove_Floppy_disk. There are many storage media which had just as much of an impact on society as CD or Floppy disk did (been popular worldwide for around 20 years). OTOH, photographic film was popular for 100 years and is clearly on a different level. On the point of programming languages, I agree that 6 is excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Computer architecture[edit]

Vital topic. Discusses the relation between software and hardware.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Virtual reality[edit]

Important topic. We do list Computer graphics though.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose VR is mostly hype at this point. Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rwessel. And artificial intelligence is too high at Level 3 when human intelligence and intelligence itself are at Level 4. I'd support a swap of AI with intelligence on the 1,000. Gizza (t)(c) 08:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I think this is not the weakest, I probably would include this before any programming language, I know it's early days with VR, but it's still in use to an extent, nanotech, and AI are also far from being super advanced, where they could be in the future, but they are also significant and included too.  Carlwev  12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

Add Water wheel[edit]

We recently added Archimedes' screw, Water wheel seems slightly more important. If we can have Solar power and solar energy and solar cell, as well as windmill, wind power, wind turbine, I believe we should have water wheel. They were in use from ancient Roman and Greec world in the 3rd century BC to the 20th century.  Carlwev  17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We list watermill though, which covers similar ground – you might as well propose water turbine too even though we have turbine (watermills use one or the other). I'm not sure we need this much overlap on this subject. Incidentally, I've never really liked the overlap between hydropower and hydroelectricity and now we've also got solar power and solar energy. Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Infrastructure[edit]

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

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.

Add Ballistics or Projectile[edit]

As we're removing specific weapons, it might be the time to add more general topics in military technology. The mechanics of ranged weapons is an important concept.

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Ballistics I think ballistics is the best choice here since it's the more general article. Malerisch (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ballistics Cobblet (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ballistics, too. Perhaps ranged weapon has potential but needs improving, mostly a list.  Carlwev  11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support ballistics Rwessel (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

An alternative could be adding ranged weapon since melee weapon is already listed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Assault rifle[edit]

There are only eight medical technology articles on the list, but a stunning 68 military technology articles. That is totally out of balance, even if we consider that much of the revolution in the medical technology sector has taken place in the course of the last century. We do have rifle on the list (not that I think it's necessary) but it should cover assault rifle. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The military technology section is unreasonably large and I think this is sufficiently covered by rifle. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I don't think the military technology section in general is too big but agree that the main rifle article covers assault rifle. As it stands, rifle would definitely look out of place in the 1000 when basic categories of weapons and tech such as bomb and armour are missing. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support "Assault rifle" is a poorly defined subcategory of rifle. Rwessel (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would prefer to keep this, rifle wouldn't look completely out of place in the 1000 list, I think assault rifle is important enough for here, and I don't think weapons is excessive. I was on the fence about removing AK-47. I know rifle should cover it, but everything is covered by something else to a degree, and I think it's important enough on it's own for inclusion too.  Carlwev  20:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This is an important classification of guns. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

AK-47 and M16 rifle were Wikiproject Firearms's first and fourth most frequently viewed articles last month. Just sayin'. (Assault rifle itself was 87th.) Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Navigation and timekeeping[edit]

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

Optical technology[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Optical 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.

Add Lace[edit]

Lace is one of the oldest forms of decoration and is one of the fundamental types of fabric. --Ca2james (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Ca2james (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Transportation[edit]

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

Add Locomotives[edit]

Our coverage of Rail transport is lacking basic articles compared to other transport possibly for a few reasons. First there is no such thing as a military or weapon train, so compared to planes and ships for example trains get less space. Representation of them when the list was compiled years back went the direction of including certain things like rapid transit then 5 examples of it or 5 underground train networks. We also have train station, track, Trans-Siberian Railway. We include high speed rail, just added, one of the newest types of rail transport but we are missing the 3 types of rail transport that have been the most widespread and used for longer amount of time, at the moment we have 13 articles in rail transport. It looks like the rapid transit systems may be staying, to include articles like Moscow Metro and Nissan but not Steam train, seems odd to me. Also rail transport has less than other transport types. 13 rail transport, 27 road transport, 18 aviation (plus more in military tech), 21 naval transport (plus more in military tech). Someone may say we have steam engine, but that's also in the 1000 with things like automobile, internal combustion engine, electric motor, so I think taking that into account I think the 10,000 list is big enough. To play Devil's advocate to my own idea, I am less sure on diesel locomotive as I am also pondering on Diesel fuel and/or Diesel engine. I am also pondering if Railway electrification system may be better than electric locomotive.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What about locomotive? I think that should be listed before individual types. (Also, I believe you nominated electric locomotive twice.) Malerisch (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Altered, one electric was meant to be diesel.  Carlwev  12:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll open locomotive too then, didn't realize that and we have train, I noticed Steam train, redirects to steam locomotive, diesel train to diesel locomotive, and electric train also not an article but a disambiguation that lists electric locomotive, because we list train I thought train types were OK but they redirect to locomotive types, then because we list train I didn't realize locomotive itself was a separate and missing article. I'll open Locomotive too.  Carlwev  12:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Also realizing the train articles redirect to the locomotive articles, we list Steamboat already, and steam train is equal if not higher importance. We don't leave off steamboat as we have boat, but we may leave of steam train, as we have train?  Carlwev  12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
As I've suggested below, if this bothers you then we could swap steamboat for marine propulsion in general. And one of the reasons I nominated electrification is that it should cover the electrification of different economic sectors, including transportation. Cobblet (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Diesel I'd like to point out, we have nothing for diesel anything anywhere. Although diesel locomotive may not get in, to say it's covered by diesel fuel and/or diesel engine, isn't relevant unless we include them, which we do not at the moment, I may suggest one or both of them instead, thoughts? They may be better to have, but we don't have them yet.  Carlwev  18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Diesel engine's more vital than diesel fuel; it's the operating principle of the engine that dictates what kinds of fuels can be used, and diesel fuel is not a specific chemical mixture the way gasoline is. Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Steam locomotive[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, more vital than Locomotive. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think steam locomotives are vital enough to be listed separately. Malerisch (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Electric locomotive[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Diesel locomotive[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Mathematics[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Algebra[edit]

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

Calculus and analysis[edit]

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

Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Geometry[edit]

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

Other[edit]

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

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

General discussions[edit]

Alexander Grin and Korney Chukovsky[edit]

No disrespect to wikipedians (we all have limited knowledge), just a constatation of the fact that the decision was made by people who have absolutely no knownledge of Russian culture, not to say literature. To call "obscure" two cult Russian writers demonstrates this. I strongly suggest in such cases to draw attention of the corresponding national wikiprojects. -No.Altenmann >t 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:LITERATURE would be the right place to ask for help. Not national wikiprojects which will inevitably be biased in judging the vitality of topics related to their nations. It is a simple question about how many Russian authors should be represented in a limited list of the worlds most important authors. Grin and Chukovsky may be important in Russia, but their global importance is limited relative to many other authors from other countries who are also not on the list. The approach you advocate would only work if there were already allotted a fixed number of slots for Russian authors - then it would make sense to let the members of wp:russia and Wp;Literature decide who occupies those places - but that is unfortunately not how we are working currently. If I were in charge it would be, and the only task of WP:VITAL would be to decide how to prioritize slots for different topics and then let the wikiprojects fill them out. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Disagreed, but since it is outside my interests, I will not mess with your work. (After all, nobody forbids me to start Wikipedia:Vital articles about Russia, right?) -No.Altenmann >t 03:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're right Altenmann (talk · contribs), in criticizing that we called them 'obscure'. We should be more careful, especially with what we say about people. The word does have a double meaning though, I'm quite certain the nominator didn't mean this to be derogatory, but just wanted to express that they are less well known than the other Russian authors on the list.

This is the definition of obscure from Merriam Webster:

1 a : dark, dim

b : shrouded in or hidden by darkness
c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>

2 not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious

3 relatively unknown: as

a : remote, secluded <an obscure village>
b : not prominent or famous <an obscure poet>

4 constituting the unstressed vowel \ə\ or having unstressed \ə\ as its value --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your polite but pointless answer gives more validity to my comment, as well as to my answer I decided to revert. I don't find the word offensive; I understand it perfectly describes the cultural level of those who judged the world culture. Your list represents hopeless American POV on the rest of the world. Ignoring national POV only perpetuates cliches about Russia: vodka, Tolstoy, bears, "Russians are coming", Dostoyevsky, this level-4 pedophile Nabokov (thank you for listing him as American) ... (what did I miss?). I don't insist that I am right about relative importance of A.Grin, but 6 random people without a single Russian deciding how Russian culture looks like strikes me as arrogant. Especially amusing was the comment about the number of Russian writers: 20 - how dare they! Never mind 87 Anglo-Saxon. That the rest of the world is represented by less didn't bother you. It just may be that 37 for the whole rest of Western Europe is a fair share, but somehow I am inclined to think that the compilers have problems not only with Russians. -No.Altenmann >t 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, then, another pointless answer: you're free to help us judge, and thank you (I guess??) for thinking we're elite. But as you have already noticed, the task we are taking on is almost impossible, it's ill-defined and we're aware that the list isn't perfect. Seriously, anybody can participate. Currently there are no rules as to when an entry can be relisted. A recent discussion that disappeared (archived by mistake, maybe?) has not shown any consensus on a relisting period, so you can list them again any time, maybe with better arguments. You will find large consensus for your position that the list is overly American. Why do we need to identify the most important articles on the encyclopedia? I don't know. Good question. Because that's what editors do, maybe? And: You're right, Nabokov should go. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I archived that discussion here because there were no comments in over a month. If someone wants to bring it up again, they can unarchive it. Malerisch (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Altenmann:, you're right that the biggest biases in the list are American and British. Any representation of Russia is very small by comparison. Other parts of Europe in some areas and historical periods are okay but the rest of the world is even more poorly represented throughout the list. You are welcome to suggest additions and removals. The contributors to the list in recent times have more diverse nationalities, and areas of expertise than before so the list in general is slowly improving. But we not are not perfect are individual mistakes are made.
FWIW, there is a current proposal to remove all railway networks from the list except for the Trans-Siberian Railway which has received some support. There are clearly people here who respect the great Russian engineering feat. The more people we can get from different cultures and knowledge to contribute, the better. Gizza (t)(c) 03:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
<sigh> I apologize for my harsh tone. The main reason of the post here was to create an anchor thread to refer to from WP Russia. Unfortunately Russians don't care. I thank you for your invitation, but my interests lie elsewhere. My position is that wikipedia is most important as a web of knowledge and don't see much value in striving for "perfect" articles (featured, good, DYK, "10,000 things you should know about it all", etc.). Accordingly, I prefer to create articles about things nobody knows and few care. Surely I will not earn any barnstars, e.g. for my last work, Khalmer-Yu. Neither Rubber soldiers/Girl with an Oar/Regenwurmlager/Nagana szlachectwa/Sink works will hit DYK with my efforts, although sometimes I try to amuse people with things like Swill milk scandal or Animal latrine :-) Good luck; it looks like my idea about Wikipedia:Vital articles about Russia did not fly. -No.Altenmann >t 04:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs more articles about commonly unknown subject matters. I like your idea to create a web of knowledge. To me anyway, the most interesting articles I read are the ones that I had no knowledge of previously. Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Automatic vs. manual nesting of VA lists[edit]

Recently, there has been some discussion about how to handle articles that appear in a higher-tier VA list but not a lower-tier list. I think that this would be best resolved with a formal proposal. There are two obvious ways to solve this problem: automatic nesting and manual nesting.

Supporting automatic nesting would mean a few things:

  • Articles that appear on higher-tier list but not a lower-tier list would be automatically added to the lower-tier list. For example, although solar energy isn't on level 4, it can be added without discussion because it is already present on level 3.
  • Articles that are nominated to a higher-tier list but are not already on a lower-tier list would be automatically added to the lower-tier list. For example, if a nomination of climate change to level 3 passed, it would also be added to level 4 without discussion.
  • Articles that are deleted from a lower-tier list would be deleted from any higher-tier lists. For example, if a nomination to remove point (geometry) from level 4 passed, it would also be removed from level 3 without discussion.

Supporting manual nesting would mean the opposite:

  • Solar energy would still have to be nominated to level 4 even though it is on level 3.
  • Even if climate change passed on level 3, it would still have to be nominated on level 4.
  • Even if point (geometry) were removed on level 4, it would still have to be nominated for removal on level 3.

Please support your preferred choice! Malerisch (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Support automatic nesting
  1. Support I prefer automatic nesting because it ensures that all articles are always appropriately nested and streamlines the process without unnecessary voting. Additionally, it's possible to hit roadblocks with manual nesting. Consider the semiconductor device nomination: it failed to be added on level 4 1-3. What if the removal nomination on level 3 received a final tally of 3-1, which is entirely possible, and so wouldn't be removed? Manual nesting doesn't guarantee that nesting will always be achieved. Malerisch (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I confess I didn't read all of the discussion below but I think it makes sense to have this rule as a matter of procedural convenience, even if it's an arbitrary one, given how slowly discussions take place on Level 1 and 2 (it took years before we got rid of cuisine from Level 2 when it was never on level 3). Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Support manual nesting
  1. Support I see a problem with automatic nesting. Here's an example. Lets say we have Balkan Wars on Level 3 and First Balkan War and Second Balkan War on Level 4. If we have automatic nesting the Balkan wars article will have to be added on level 4 creating an overlap. If after that Balkan wars is removed on level 4 because of the overlap, it will also be removed on level 3 and won't be covered on that list. This way we get in a vicious circle. I think it is better to discuss every change, so we don't have such problems. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose both solutions (I assume this means no nesting at all, so please explain why!)
Discussion
  • Comment: It is my belief that new Level 3 nominations should come from articles already on Level 4. pbp 14:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I would agree to automatic method if there was only one logical choice but there is not. Even if we agree every article should appear at all lower tiers than its highest appearance, which I presume we have by now. An issue I was thinking about, if an article is listed in the 1000 list but not the 10,000 list, the automatic method could have several ways of doing things, all logical. I'll call them Adding, Removing and Switching
  1. Adding One could say The article should automatically be added to the 10,000 as it's already in the 1000, this is what ended up happening to History of North America, with voting and many more.
  2. Removing One could just as easily say the article should be immediately removed from the 1000 list as it's not even in the 10,000, this may happen to Semiconductor device and more in the past with voting.
  3. Switching Some articles were removed from the 1000 and added to the 10,000. This happened to Antônio Carlos Jobim and more by voting.
  4. If an article is found, added or removed from the 10 or 100 lists but is missing from one or more lower tiers, there would be even more combinations of solutions, of where said article should and should not be and all completely logical...I found Oral tradition in the 100 list but no other list. It ended up being listed in the 10,000 list only. But it would have been equally as logical to have it in 100, 1000 and 10,000, or only 1000 and 10,000, or only in 10,000, or remove it completely....When we removed art and added arts to the vital 10, we presumed arts should be added to the 100 and 1000 too, but had to discus whether or not art should be removed also from the 100 and the 1000.
In short why would you pick adding to be the only logical solution, when removing or switching also make sense. When opening a thread that would otherwise not follow logic, we should vote not for simply, "have it/don't have it" at this level, but for the methods Adding Removing Switching above; or ask the question "Which is the highest tier you want this article" and vote on the options, we did threads like this for Antônio Carlos Jobim, and space technology articles and a few more. Some found consensus some didn't, but that's no different to the potential result of any other kind of thread.
When all existing discrepancies are dealt with, any new thread opened for a higher level should either be an article already at lower tiers as PBP says or should just be opened and worded in such a way as to follow our logic. Eg if someone wanted to open a thread for Ableism, which is currently being discussed, and is presently not listed at any level, one could open a thread: "add Ableism to the 10,000" or: "Add Ableism to the 1000 and 10,000" the thread simply named: "Add Ableism to the 1000" shouldn't really be started and should be altered quickly if it is, as opening it now would create the problem all over again. The last one would only be OK to open if Ableism gets added to the 10,000 first in a separate thread, which it isn't yet. I have written more than I hoped I would, but does this make sense?  Carlwev  09:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply! I understand what you're saying. You're correct that there is more than one way in dealing with such a discrepancy, but I believe that adding automatically by default makes the most sense since it's the most common case and most accurately reflects the status quo. Additionally, all other adjustments can be made with only 1 thread.
Let's say that we added all the missing level 4 articles automatically, and I'll explain how this happens:
  • For a complete removal, a "Remove Semiconductor device" on level 4.
  • For a switch, a "Remove Antônio Carlos Jobim" on level 3.
  • In the case of oral tradition, "Remove oral tradition" on level 3.
  • And art would also only need 1: "Remove art" on level 3.
With removing/switching, more threads would need to be posted because those are less common scenarios. I believe that adding is the simplest solution. Hope that's clear! Malerisch (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting statistics[edit]

The issues of nationality and pageviews have been popping up now and again. For everyone's information here are a few links showing which nationalities are editing and reading the English Wikipedia 1 and 2. Also important to note are the countries where the English Wikipedia is the most popular version. Here is a useful map (slightly outdated at Oct 2013 but it wouldn't have changed a lot since then). The archive at Wikistats provides further insights in the viewing and editing habits of Wikipedians as you can observe the trends over the past few years. Generally the gap between the Global North and Global South is decreasing slowly but steadily. Gizza (t)(c) 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WPRV
  2. ^ http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm
  3. ^ http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm