Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

FA FA GA GA A – Total December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022 February 1, 2008 85 47 84 145 25 669 1003 April 1, 2008 87 46 79 139 24 673 999 June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999 August 1, 2008 88 48 75 144 25 671 1000 October 1, 2008 88 49 73 143 25 684 1014 December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014 FA A GA B C – Total December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999 January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986 January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991 June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000 October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999

Swap: Add Martin Scorsese, Remove Steven Spielberg

Support !votes

1. Support Randomuser112 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I would contemplate removing Eisenstein, I Would at a stretch maybe contemplate swapping in Alfred Hitchcock, not Scorsese. In general I think we need to reduce people here full stop, there are more important topics than people. Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, remove both at this level, and Hitchcock if either. '--(AfadsBad (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

As User:Elekhh has pointed out, there's an imbalance in the way the arts are represented on this list, and the five filmmakers we have are perhaps the most glaring example. If Hitchcock isn't on the list, removing Spielberg is a no-brainer. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The arts

Why doesn't "(the) arts" sit above (or at least very close to) "art"? It's the top of the art category hierarchy and would appear to directly subsume the other. I didn't even see it in level four, so I thought it may have been an oversight. Perhaps this is more of an issue of the art article's purview and how the two topics may need merging, but I wanted to start my inquiry here. Forgive me if I am missing something elementary, but I didn't find any previous discussion on this subject in the archives. (And tangentially, I didn't find anything on the inclusion of "humanities" either.) czar · · 04:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure (and this is a very old (relatively speaking) project), but I would guess it's to do with (1) an attempt to avoid collective-term topics like "humanities" and "physical sciences", in order to (2) increase the diversity of topics we can squeeze into the artificial limit of "1000" items; but also because (3) by it's very nature it's likely to remain a WP:Summary style article for a long time. Possibly none of those factors, and possibly more. Just thinking out loud. –Quiddity (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else? Is this worth pursuing? czar · · 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you make a good point and we should replace art with the arts, since we also have visual art on the list. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Art, Add The arts

I (Cobblet) am going to flesh out the reasoning behind this swap a bit more, since this is a change that should apply equally to the level 1 and 2 lists. It appears that art seeks to answer the philosophical question "What is art?", while the arts answers the question "What do artists do?" I think the latter is the more important article to have on all three lists, particularly when we also include aesthetics on this list. In a way it's similar to the reasoning behind having History of the world rather than History on the Level 1 list.

Support

1. As nom czar ♔ 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Questions

• "Since then WP:VITAL has undergone numerous revisions by multiple editors, creating a collection of no more than 1000 essential articles that represents the consensus of the Wikipedia community."

Could you identify the current editors in charge and how "the consensus of the Wikipedia community" is determined? Because in one sense, it sounds like an editor(s) decides what is added or taken off the list but on the other hand, it states that these decision are made by the "Wikipedia community" which is composed of tens of thousands of editors.
Thank you. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Updating talk pages

Is anyone making sure all VAs have {{Vital article}} applied to their talk pages? -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure the answer is no, since none of the articles I've removed so far have the tag. I've been adding it to the articles I've added to the list, but haven't checked the others. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Oil, Add Petroleum

Whoever listed the former was probably thinking of the latter.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Scientists

Swap John Dalton for James Clerk Maxwell, Benjamin Franklin for Richard Feynman. Still retains balance areas - physicists for physicists. James^x12345

Discussion

I think Maxwell and Franklin are the two most significant people out of those four. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be of the opinion that Feynman was more significant than Franklin. I'd like to see at least one physicist in the latter half of the 20th century - perhaps Edward Witten?

Tough decisions have to be made when we can only pick 20 scientists—Louis Pasteur probably has a better case than Franklin or Feynman. Cobblet (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Franklin may not earn his keep as a scientist, but as a diplomat, printer, polymath? He needs to be on here somewhere. Dalton for Feynman? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Maxwell comes top for me out of all of them, and Dalton bottom. James^x12345 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As physicists alone I would rank Maxwell and Feynman highest, but considering Benjamin Franklin's achievements in other non-scientific areas I would say Franklin and Maxwell. Very suprised Maxwell wasn't on the list already. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove John Dalton, Add James Clerk Maxwell

Based on the discussion above, it seems like more people are a little more willing to remove Dalton and add Maxwell, so I have taken the liberty of separating the two proposals. Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom James^x12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Dalton perhaps doesn't get enough attention, but I would have to agree that Maxwell is more vital. Neljack (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Benjamin Franklin, Add Richard Feynman

Support

1. Support as nom James^x12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Franklin is not famous as a scientist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for Franklin's significant non-scientific accomplishments czar ♔ 05:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose surely you're joking? --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
3. Oppose Really ridiculous nomination. Someone deserves being struck by lightning on this one. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose: Important in a number of other fields in addition to science. The question isn't if he belongs, but where pbp 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really pay attention to his being in scientists, and I also have been confused by the importance of a topic due to its category. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

Discussion

Swap: Remove nth root, Add 0 (number)

Nth roots are a special case of exponentiation (already on the list) and therefore aren't vital. As the additive identity, and the digit that made the decimal system possible, zero is perhaps the most important number in mathematics.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC

Oppose

1. Oppose remove. See my comment below. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Being a subcategory of something else doesn't make it not vital. We have number, real number, rational number, integer, natural number, and prime number, each of which is a special case of the one before it. More calculators have √ than ^, so roots are clearly very important to math.

I'm also not convinced zero is so vital. Decimal system, yes, but why does the additive identity beat the multiplicative identity?

If you really want to remove something, I'll suggest percentage (a special case of fraction), or numerical digit. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More calculators have 0 than √ :-) But seriously, while the concept of natural numbers is virtually universal across human civilization, the idea that "nothing" could be a number revolutionized the way we understood mathematics: it's why Arabic numerals have displaced every other numeral system. And while I don't really want to imply that the additive identity "beats" the multiplicative identity (I'd support replacing percentage with 1 (number), even though the calculator sitting on my desk has a % button!), there's no question that addition is a more fundamental mathematical operation than multiplication, since the latter is simply repeated addition. I'll also point out that the list includes logarithm, which is a more logical complement to exponentiation than nth root is. And I just noticed that my calculator has dedicated buttons for exponentiation, squares and reciprocals, but not square roots and nth roots (which require the shift key): and indeed it could be argued that inverse element is a more vital mathematical topic than nth roots. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you (and the article) convinced me that zero is vital. But I still think roots deserve to be here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine or Cooking on the Level 2 and 3 lists

I have compared the Level 2 and Level 3 lists, and added three articles on the shorter list to the longer one. There is one remaining article on the Level 2 list that I haven't added, which is cuisine, because the Level 3 list already has cooking. I believe the latter topic is more general, as it refers to the fundamental human activity separate from cultural influences. I propose keeping cooking on the Level 3 list and having it replace cuisine on the Level 2 list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't quite follow; are you saying that cooking should be on both the Level 2 and Level 3 lists? I would like Cooking on the Level 2 list and Cuisine on the Level 3 list. They are different things. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

I'm saying we should have Cooking but not Cuisine on both lists. That would preserve the status quo on Level 3 but change it on Level 2. The principle behind the lists is that each level should contain the articles of the level above it, so it would not be possible to have Cooking but not Cuisine on Level 2, and Cuisine but not Cooking on Level 3, if that's what you were suggesting. I wouldn't necessarily oppose adding Cuisine to Level 3, but I'd have to take a closer look at the entire list first—there are likely more serious omissions. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is Food? I suspect cuisine should be rather high. At least level 3. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

Remove Latin America

Within the "Continents and regions" section, I understand the argument for including Mesoamerica and the Middle East as cradles of civilization, but I don't see the argument for including Latin America when other modern groupings of countries by culture (e.g. Arab world, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Western and Eastern Europe) aren't listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
4. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Molecular Biology remove blood

Support

1. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
2. Support A fundamental field of scientific research. We don't need both circulatory system and blood at this level. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Almost all biology today is actually molecular biology; this is how biology has been done since the mid 80s with the advent of PCR, and, now with new fluorescent imaging techniques that have been around for the past 20 years, even more biology is being done onthe molecular level. This article should not be down there in the 10,000 with Developmental biology, it is far more critical. The blood article can be carried with the circulatory system article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

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

---

Swap: Remove History of China and History of Japan, Add History of Asia and History of East Asia

I suggest removing articles on the history of specific countries (although History of India is actually about the history of the Indian subcontinent), since there is no reason to introduce nationalistic bias into the list. Besides, the history of China, Korea and Japan are intimately linked, and since one of the world's first civilizations also arose in East Asia, it seems appropriate to include an article that specifically describes the history of this region. (I take it this is why History of the Middle East and History of India are on the list.) There's likely no room for histories of the other parts of Asia, so I think we should also include one article for the entire continent.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support if they are moved own a level. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC))
3. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

If so, we'll have one article (History of Asia) and most of its components (Middle East, India, East Asia). Maybe include History of Southeast Asia or History of Central Asia instead? -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather include History of Asia than have to choose between those two. I considered adding both, but then I realized adding History of Oceania should probably be a higher priority for us. Cobblet (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove History of the United States and History of the Americas, Add History of North America and History of South America

Again, let's remove articles on the history of specific countries. Besides, United States is already on the list and covers that country's history. The history of North and South America can't really be said to be any more intertwined than the histories of Africa, Europe and the Middle East, and we have separate articles for the last three, so it seems reasonable to have separate articles for both Americas as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as reasonable cleanup of the systemic bias that tends to creep into this list. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The US is a superpower and its history is unique from Canada and Mexico with some limited overlap, although I would have US, North America, and South America. This is on place where I don't see ethnocentricity beibg. Problem, History of US is viral at high level. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

Discussion

Keep in mind that thirty years ago, the Soviet Union was also a superpower, and a hundred years ago, the British Empire was one too. As history unfolds, the relative importance of specific events may change over time, but I believe the importance of higher-level overview articles should remain generally immune to the flow and ebb of geopolitics. Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are completely wrong here, human culture is not immune to the ebb and flow of geopolitics, just go back 300 years instead of 30. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

OK fair enough, "immune" was way too strong. "More immune". Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot write an encyclopedia for the future, and you lose the advantage of the medium. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

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

Swap: Remove Email, Add Mail

No doubt the former is important, but it's subsumed to an extent by Internet; while the latter has been in existence for much of human civilization and is to my mind the more significant topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support – mail is weak, but email is weaker. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Mail is a historical item whereas email is currently vital to global economics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with nom comment, and I had same kind of idea a while back. Mail, While not tip top vital, probably makes the 1000 list and is definitely a big improvement to email. Email probably covered enough by internet at the 1000 level. Without examining the list the only included topics in the 1000 that cover mail I can remember would be writing and communication and at a stretch possibly infrastructure or transport? which are too broad to be expected to cover mail in any depth. Carlwev (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc, George Washington was a historical person while Barack Obama is vital to global politics. But you wouldn't suggest making that swap, would you? Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't, but I still think that email is more vital than mail. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Ocean, Add Land

With the recent expansion of Sea to cover the subject of "the sea" in general and its successful promotion to FA (congrats to User:Chiswick Chap and User:Cwmhiraeth), Ocean no longer seems vital at this level, since most of the content one might expect to be in it is already in the former article. It also begs the question of why a similar overview article couldn't or shouldn't be written for the other 30% of the planet, Land.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Should we add land to the level 2 list?

If this proposal passes I'll take this as a sign that we agree Sea adequately represents Earth's oceans, and replace Ocean with Sea on the level 2 list. How do people feel about replacing River with Land on that list? I realize rivers are vital to physical geography and civilization, but in theory an article on land would cover all significant terrestrial features, including rivers, lakes, coasts and forests. And unless somebody notices an article that's glaringly out of place on Level 2, I don't want to make a swap of land for an article unrelated to geography. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Caribbean Sea

A good case can be made for including Mediterranean Sea on this list, since not only is it hydrologically distinct from the Atlantic (it is saltier) and formed through different geological processes, it is historically significant in that several important civilizations sprang up on its shores and for them it was a vitally important avenue of trade and commerce. I'd argue that the Caribbean doesn't really stand out in terms of geological, hydrological, or historical significance (why include it instead of the Gulf of Mexico, to name one comparable?), and I would rather remove it so that space on the list could be made for more vital geography articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add more countries

One place on the list where bias is inevitable is the list of countries, but maybe the best way to mitigate this problem is to add some more. I'm going to suggest adding the three remaining G-20 major economies not on the list, because apart from their economic might I think they're notable in other ways as well:

• I've thought for a long time we should have more nations, seems odd to have only 24 countries but over 130 people, I know the list should be varied but I myself I can't consider musicians like Hendrix and Duke Ellington to be more vital than Argentina and many other nations. I support the 3 nations below Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. I was also thinking about Ethiopia, Thailand and Vietnam as well, count me for support if they appear too. Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to add those too, but then we need to nominate more articles to remove. We're at 999 and I nominated two more for deletion, so adding three countries poses no problem. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Add Argentina

The largest country in the world (8th) not currently listed—it's even larger than the Caribbean Sea. Brazil is the only South American country currently listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. 21st in GDP PPP, 26th in nominal GDP, 32nd in population, and ≈60th in English-speaking population. I don't think area is that important (or we'd be adding Algeria, Libya, Congo, Mongolia, etc) -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - The list is currently at 999, so there is not room to add without going over. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose list is already full. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

User:GabeMc, I've suggested two removals as well, which would put us at exactly 1000 articles. And there are obvious candidates for removal in the People section, which I haven't addressed. (Frida Kahlo? Seriously?) @User:Ypnypn: Sure, the DRC is more populous, and we could add it if we decide Sub-Saharan Africa needs more representation, but Argentina's probably more significant in every other aspect. And English-speaking population is clearly not a criterion previous users took into consideration if neither Ireland nor New Zealand is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with stuffing this list full of cites and countries like an atlas. This is an encyclopedia and I don't see the need for listing countries based on GDP. Cobblet, besides its GDP, why is Argentina vital to an English speaking Wikipedia? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Because South America is currently under-represented compared to other continents. We have three African countries and three North American countries; surely South America deserves more than one if we want to achieve NPOV. And besides, Argentina is a one of the most highly developed countries in the Southern Hemisphere, a middle power, has a history of conflict with the UK, is larger than 2/3 of the countries on the list right now, and gave us Jorge Luis Borges, Diego Maradona and the tango. If my intention was to "stuff" this list with countries I'd nominate Kazakhstan; it isn't and I never intend to. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Africa and North America are both much larger than South America, so they get more countries on the list. I don't think Australia (continent) needs three as well. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. Nobody is suggesting we add two more countries from Oceania, or even a third country from South America. And I'm in agreement with Carlwev's comment above: we should consider adding Ethiopia from Africa, as well as Vietnam and Thailand. None of this has anything to do with the sizes of continents. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You just said "We have three African countries and three North American countries; surely South America deserves more than one" -- 50.74.2.12 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Add Saudi Arabia

The Arab world is currently only represented by Egypt. Saudi Arabia is also home to the two holiest places in Islam.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Islam already represented by Islam, Islamic philosophy, Five Pillars of Islam, Islamic schools and branches, Islamic Golden Age, Islamism. Arab world is already represented by Arabic language and Arabic alphabet. For nation states there have been previous discussions on this talk page about which countries to include based on more complex criteria (population, geographic area, etc.) --ELEKHH^T 13:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - The list is currently at 999, so there is not room to add without going over. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose list is already full. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think I'd prefer including Saudi Arabia over Islamic philosophy and possibly even Islamism—for the purposes of this list, aren't those topics that would be sufficiently covered by Islam? The number of page views Saudi Arabia gets is an order of magnitude greater than either of those articles. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Most VA editors have rejected the notion that page views can be used as a basis for vitality. Maybe try swapping out Egypt for Saudi Arabia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The !votes at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 18#How much of a role should hit count play in this list were 3 to 4. Not exactly a resounding rejection, and amusingly enough our positions were reversed during that discussion. (It's good we're keeping an open mind about these things, I guess.) Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Add South Korea

A major economic power (ranked 12th in the world, and the next 4-5 countries are on our list already) with its own distinct language and culture to boot.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose GDP is not a comprehensive measure of economy, and economy is not the only relevant aspect of nation states. There have been previous discussions about which countries to include based on more complex criteria (population, geographic area, etc.) --ELEKHH^T 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose list is already full. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd rather Korea – the southern country has only been separate for about seventy years; the peninsula goes back thousands. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• The point you bring up makes sense, it has been mentioned before and part of me agrees. I would like to point out also, that "Korea" is not in the 10,000 at the moment. I suggested to add it there previously for the reasons you gave among others. I argued my case and it almost got success but not quite. Some users said it was redundant to N and S Korea and the Korean Peninsula. If Korea is added here to the 1000, logic says it has to be in the 10'000 too. Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I don't think this discussion really needs to worry about the 10,000 list but swapping Korean Peninsula for Korea probably wouldn't be controversial. With respect to the comment about more complex criteria: obviously that's true, but I don't want to bore people with arguments and prefer to let the article speak for itself. Suffice it to say that there are smaller, less populous and less developed countries on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Shahnameh

While undoubtedly important, this seems a step down in global significance when compared to the other works of literature on the list (Don Quixote, Epic of Gilgamesh, Iliad, Mahabharata) as well as several not currently listed (Aeneid, Divine Comedy, Analects), so I propose removing it.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

See below for a proposal to add Hamlet. If we're going to list five works of literature, at least one of them ought to be in English. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Orchestra, Add Musical ensemble

Not sure why Western classical music deserves preferential treatment on this subject.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Angkor Wat, Add Mecca

There are several temple complexes in Southeast Asia of comparable significance to Angkor Wat (Bagan, Borobudur). I suggest that besides Jerusalem, which is already on the list, no other religious site in the world compares in significance to Mecca.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support An improvement, Although I'm not 100% sure about Mecca, it deserves a place much more than Angkor Wat, Which I also suggested to remove way back. Carlwev (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose swap. Angkor Wat is included for architectural and broader cultural significance, swapping it based on religious significance makes no sense. --ELEKHH^T 13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per ELEKHH. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per Elekhh. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

With respect to architectural significance, you'll have to explain why we're including Angkor and not either Southeast Asian temple I mentioned, or other works of religious architecture such as St. Peter's Basilica. With respect to cultural significance, there's no contest—mecca's even entered the English language as a common noun. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a stalled discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 5#The Fallingwater problem. My main concern is that architecture is being constantly reduced and increasingly under-represented in this list. I think a discussion as to which articles best represent architecture in this list should be separate from this proposal. --ELEKHH^T 21:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that architecture is even close to being under-represented when we currently have eight articles listed vs. one work of art and no works of music. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not looking to the complete picture. There are 10 artists (mostly painters) and 13 musicians, (plus 15 writers and 5 filmmakers) but no architects. There are 6 artistic movements and 6 musical genres, plus 5 literary genres. but no architectural movements or styles. --ELEKHH^T 22:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you believe that works of architecture are the best way to represent the subject (which I disagree with), you're welcome to propose swapping in topics on architecture for less vital topics. I agree that the list in its current state is far from perfect. Cobblet (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As in the previous discussion I linked to, I am arguing for shifting architecture from single works to broader topics (architects, historic/geographic styles/movements). But I am against this proposal as it shifts away from architecture to religion. The issue with architecture is that the problems are similar at the Level 4 list, with an even lower representation of ca. 0.6% and similar undue weight on specific buildings/structures (7 basic terms, 22 architects, 28 structures). --ELEKHH^T 00:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Machu Picchu, Add Andean civilizations

It's photogenic, yes, but it's hard to see why Machu Picchu deserves to be on such a select list over other New World historic sites like Chichen Itza; besides, we could use an article on the cradle of civilization that produced it.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Parthenon, Add Athens

I still think works of architecture are over-represented on the list (even after my suggested swaps, we'd still have five, compared to five works of literature, one painting and no works of music) and would like to replace them with more deserving articles. Athens wouldn't look out of place on our list of cities; there are only a handful of cities in the world older than it, and none of those can claim to be the birthplace of Western civilization. True, we do have Ancient Greece on the list, but I think Athens is important enough by itself to be listed separately.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps there are too many single works of architecture for a top 1,000, but architecture is not over-represented. I would suggest Ancient Greek architecture instead, but is not yet in the L4 list. Otherwise Athens has merits, probably more relevant than HK historically. --ELEKHH^T 00:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Chess, Go (game) and Cricket, Add Dog, Cat Rat and Horse

It's a bit strange that humans are the only animal species listed. I don't think it's disputable that dogs, cats and horses have had a bigger impact on human culture than most sports or games (Association football and Track and field remain on the list), and I say this as a member of Wikiproject Chess. I'd propose adding cattle and sheep as well, but dogs, cats and horses have been valued not only for the services they provide but also for the companionship they offer, so I think it's appropriate to start with these three. Edit: Replaced cat with rat, since the latter has had an even larger impact on humans. We wouldn't need cats as much if it weren't for rats, and some people keep rats as pets too.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. However, I'd like to drop Association football and Track and field as well and add another two animals. We have 6+ plants (depending on how you count), so we can have quite a few animals. There are about 700 (!) animals on the Expanded list, we can include a few here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --ELEKHH^T 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Agree with adding Horse and dog, not sure about cat, would agree to add cattle as well. Not completely sure about removing chess, maybe? don't really mind losing cricket though; all of these have come up before I believe and some nearly made it. I think some of these will end up going through. Carlwev (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that we already have Animal husbandry and Domestication. Tend to agree with Horse. But if this is about species close to humans, for NPOV would rather favour Rat. --ELEKHH^T 20:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. Replace cat with rat, perhaps? Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, replace c with r. --ELEKHH^T 00:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Other possible removals in exchange for more animals are Dinosaur (how is this one of seven most important animal groups?); Botany (we have Plant, we don't need "Study of Plants") -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume the animals you want to add are ones significant to humans. If that's the case, I feel that the best things to remove would be things of less significance to humans. There are several things in the Technology section, for example, that aren't truly vital: Nanotechnology and Tower strike me as being particularly egregious examples.

The danger of making swaps within the Biology section is that most of the articles listed there are listed because of their significance to biology, not humans, so you risk disturbing the balance of the current list if you swap them for human-centric topics. For example, Dinosaur and Algae might not seem like the most important topics nowadays, but they were tremendously significant in the evolution of animal and plant life. I agree that Plant and Botany are redundant, but it doesn't make sense to remove Botany without also removing Zoology. Personally I think the least deserving topic on that sublist is Abiogenesis, and the kinds of topics I'd consider replacing it with are things like Sense, Developmental biology and Metabolism. (Actually that's a 3-for-3 swap I might propose at some point.) Cobblet (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove History of agriculture, Add Tourism

The former is covered adequately by Agriculture and History of technology, as well as articles on specific topics (Animal husbandry, Domestication; see below for proposals to add Fertilizer and Soil). The latter is probably the most significant industry not on the list (it's a lynchpin in the economy of many countries), and right now the word "tourism" isn't even mentioned once in the Industry article.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I tried to add tourism a long time ago, truly a vital topic that is missing in my view. Not sure if I would've picked history of Agriculture for removal, maybe, as you said covered by agriculture and history of technology. I believe tourism definitely belongs more though. Carlwev (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Agriculture is vastly more important than tourism. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

No doubt agriculture's more important than tourism. But is it so much more vastly important that we need an article on its history in addition to the parent article, the three other articles I pointed out (and Industrial revolution also covers the mechanization of agriculture), plus fourteen agricultural products? And is tourism so insignificant that we should have nothing on it at all? Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Electrocardiography, Add Fertilizer

The latter has undoubtedly had the larger impact on human health and society.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Thinking about this, definitely an improvement and I definitely want Electrocardiography out, it's not a top vital 1000 article; I think I tried to remove it before. Carlwev (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove International Space Station, Add Burj Khalifa

The ISS and the Hubble Space Telescope are the only feats of modern engineering on the list. I think Hubble is the better article to keep (manned space missions are already represented by Moon landing), and propose replacing the ISS with the tallest man-made structure in the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Burj Khalifa. Tallest man made structures are constantly being superseded every couple of years, plus there are competing claims based on how a structure is measured. ISS is more impressive technical achievement. --ELEKHH^T 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - ISS is far more impressive technically. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Salt (chemistry), Add Salt

Table salt is of obvious importance to animal life and human civilization. Given that salts are formed from the reaction between acids and bases and we've already listed both articles (which do cover the formation of salts), I think swapping in a more specific article is justified here.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Add Le Corbusier, Remove Frida Kahlo

Support

1. Support as nom. -ELEKHH^T 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: For one, if we're going to improve the representation of architecture, I'd start with somebody else. For two, we're dropping one of the few women and one of the few Latins on the list pbp 19:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per PbP. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose I think removing Frida Kahlo would lessen the quality of this list. There needs to be more representation of South Americans, not less. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This would be a tiny step towards improving representation of architecture in this list. As Fallingwater has been recently removed, there is no article about the architecture of the last three centuries. Le Corbusier has been globally influential not only in architecture but also urban planning. He is one of 22 architects listed at L4, yet no architect is in this list, while there are 10 painters (6 of 18-20th centuries), 15 writers (8 of 18-20th centuries) and 13 musicians (12 of 18-20th centuries). Frida Kahlo was much less influential in her field. --ELEKHH^T 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want improve the balance further, I'd nominate Hip hop music for removal. The other music genres on the list are significantly more important—hip hop is more comparable in significance to R&B and country music, while electronic music is arguably more important than all of them. Cobblet (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly accurate. According to this site, during the last few years Country has outsold electronic/dance music and R&B has sold approximately as much as electronic/dance music. Hip-hop does not sell significantly less than R&B, Country, and/or electronic/dance music. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the impact electronic music's had on rock and pop (e.g. Moog synthesizers), not sales figures. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Purplebackpack89: Which architect would you choose instead? I agree that we should be aware of gender and ethnic bias, but I object to the notion of choosing not to represent all aspects of art or choosing artists of distinctly less significance for the sole purpose of representing female/ethnic artists. Wasn't Frida's husband or Georgia O'Keeffe more notable? Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Diego is, but I don't think O'Keefee is. In regards to "choosing not to represent all aspects of art", if Kahlo goes, a major piece of art goes with her. With only ten artists, it's impossible to represent all genres, media, or ethnic groups. And if you're talking about significance, isn't Frank Lloyd Wright (Prairie School and more) or Frederick Law Olmsted (essentially most of American land use policy) more significant than Le Corbusier? Half the reason I'm opposing this is I'm uncomfortable with Le Corbusier being the modern architecture guy. pbp 21:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You're possibly right if you have only the US in mind, but I think we should look at significance more globally. I'm not opposed to FLW, and would support a second swap to bring him onto this list. Both the German and French Wikipedias included both LeC and FLW in their vital 1,000. --ELEKHH^T 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FLW for Steven Spielberg, perhaps? Also, for the purposes of this level, we should expect Mexican art to receive coverage under Mexico. I'd prefer to obtain more balanced representation of different cultures by adding topics on countries rather than people. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Giuseppe Verdi, Frédéric Chopin and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky; Add Claude Debussy

Romantic music is probably the most single over-represented art movement on the list with four figures (the three I'm suggesting to remove, plus Wagner) as well as Beethoven, who started it all. I don't think Verdi, Chopin or Tchaikovsky can be said to have made a greater impact on Romantic music than Schumann, Liszt, Brahms or especially Schubert, and I think we should limit this list to figures who've had a revolutionary impact on their field. Debussy is undoubtedly such a person: his treatment of harmony was responsible for the ultimate abandonment of Western tonality in 20th-century classical music and he epitomizes the shift away from Romanticism.

With regards to the cultural balance of the list, apart from people like Picasso and Chopin who spent their adult lives in France, that country's contribution to the arts is represented solely by Claude Monet. Russia (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Eisenstein) and Italy (da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dante) are currently better represented.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - I think the musicians list is currently "right-sized" and not in need of a reduction. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

@Gabe: So you believe musicians deserve more representation over visual artists, explorers, mathematicians or religious figures. I'd beg to differ, but that's a different discussion. Whether you believe the list is "right-sized" or not, why do you think Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky should stay on the list? I'd argue that Michael Jackson has done more to change the course of music history than any of the Romantic-era composers I've named with the exception of Schubert. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Homosexuality, Add Sexual orientation

I think this topic deserves to be covered from a broader perspective—there are four letters in "LGBT", after all.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --ELEKHH^T 05:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Tamil language

As far as I can tell, the list of languages includes:

1. Two languages of historic importance to Western culture: Greek and Latin.
2. The six working languages of the UN: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Mandarin (not the same as Chinese language, but that's an issue for another time), Arabic.
3. Five of the most widely spoken languages (whether you go by native or total speakers) not already listed: Hindi-Urdu, Bengali, Portuguese, Japanese, German.

And then there's Tamil. Why was this selected at the expense of Malay, Javanese, Punjabi, Wu and Telugu, all of which seem likely to have more speakers according to the lists I just cited?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --ELEKHH^T 05:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Hamlet

It seems odd that on a list of 1000 articles vital to the English Wikipedia, none of the four or five works of literature (see above for a proposal to remove Shahnameh) we've chosen are in English. I think adding Hamlet would be an appropriate way to fix this imbalance, particularly when none of the other works are plays.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Are we sure that Hamlet is the best choice if we are going to include only one work written in English? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Anarchism and Dictatorship, Add Libertarianism and Totalitarianism

To me it makes more sense to have articles representing these opposing ends of the political spectrum than to have articles on specific examples of each.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Theocracy, Add Oligarchy

There are other forms of oligarchy that are just as significant as theocracy, e.g. Meritocracy and Aristocracy. I think it makes more sense for us to include the overarching topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Asteroid belt

Not sure we should be listing this when we don't list Kuiper belt and also have Asteroid.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

How about comet as a replacement article within astronomy? Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Nanotechnology, Add Paper

Nanotech is an emerging technology and hardly vital enough at this stage of its development to include on this list. We don't include things like fusion power, the hydrogen economy or the Semantic Web either. Meanwhile paper is surely one of the most important inventions in history.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove X-ray, Add Medical imaging

The former is about the form of electromagnetic radiation rather than its medical application, and we don't include microwave, infrared or ultraviolet, for starters. The latter covers medical X-rays along with other forms of imaging (ultrasound, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, etc.) that as a whole revolutionized the profession in the 20th century.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Series (mathematics), Add Sequence

A series is the sum of the terms in a sequence: the latter is the more general topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Am I the only person who thinks that math is over-represented on the list with 60 articles? Compare the number of articles we have on history (63), the arts (59), physics (41) or chemistry (36). There are a number of items listed that I'd consider obvious candidates for removal (Percentage, Fraction (subsumed by Rational number), Triangle (Trigonometry and Polygon ought to suffice), Golden ratio), and I also question the wisdom of including articles on such specific aspects of geometry such as point, line, plane, area and volume when there are whole areas of math not currently represented (e.g. linear algebra, differential equation, graph theory) and there are concepts in both pure and applied math that are at least as significant (polynomial, Euclidean vector, etc.). Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Acid and Base, Add Acid–base reaction

We don't need separate articles to describe two sides of the same coin: the article on the type of reaction is enough. There are more important chemistry-related articles to have, such as glass (see below).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Glass

Like paper, this was an essential invention for the development of civilization. Without it we'd have no glass windows, which allow houses to be better insulated and illuminated; and optics wouldn't be possible, so we wouldn't have eyeglasses, microscopes, telescopes, or optical fibres.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Physician

This is the only topic on the list about a specific profession. Having both medicine and physician on the list is like having both education and teacher—it seems clearly redundant.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Dental caries, Add Dentistry

Compared to the other diseases on the list, cavities don't seem that vital: I don't see why they should be included over periodontal disease, for instance. It might be better to include the general medical discipline, which is traditionally considered separately from other branches of medicine and is barely mentioned at all in that article.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Agnosticism, Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism

We are including lots of topics related to the nature and existence of God/gods (which Deity already covers to an extent; we also have God and Goddess) at the expense of other philosophical topics, e.g. entire traditions such as Scholasticism or Continental philosophy. Wouldn't it be sufficient to limit our coverage to Theism and Atheism, which admittedly can have more narrow meanings, but can also include the other theistic/non-theistic philosophies (which is currently reflected in both articles)?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

If you do believe all of these topics are worth including, please explain why we picked these topics over others such as freethought or monotheism. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Comics

As a type of drawing, it's a step down in significance from that or the other visual arts. We don't list things like puppetry or animation either.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think I would prefer if this was kept, I think animation should be in too. Carlwev (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Rain, Add Precipitation

This swap would allow us to cover other forms of precipitation such as snow and hail.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Meteorology and Oceanography, Add Soil and Map

Since we've got weather and sea, I don't think we need articles on the scientific study of each. (Otherwise why not include other branches such as climatology, hydrology or geomorphology?) I'd like to remove them so that we can broaden our coverage of the earth sciences. Pedology is the remaining branch of physical geography not currently represented, and soil is obviously a vital topic. So are maps: they predate books and have been integral to our understanding of the world around us.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I've wanted to get map aboard for a long time. Carlwev (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion