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: Remove Steven Spielberg, Add Alfred Hitchcock

Support

1. Support. - As nom. Spielberg is too recent, and not at all as vital as Hitchcock. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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)

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

• I think User:Purplebackpack89 hits the nail on the head. Franklin is not that vital as a scientist, but he would seem to be vital overall. Maybe we need a Polymath sub-list, or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That just opens up a new can of worms: who one considers to be a polymath. Does Winston Churchill count? In the end, our task is simply to choose 1000 articles. While classifying things by topic might help us with that, reading too much into said classification is naturally going to lead to confusion and misjudgments. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was just making an open-ended suggestion. I don't see any reason why all 1,000 entries can't be accurately categorized. Franklin is not vital as a scientist, and TMK that position has not been questioned. Maybe we should change Politicians and leaders to Politicians and Statesmen, since both statesmen and politicians are types of leaders. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not saying a polymath category is unreasonable (I'm OK with any reasonable classification system) – just pointing out that the issue of how to classify things is endlessly debatable. Personally I'm more interested in figuring out which articles we should include. That being said, we do have a specific quota on the leaders category. Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone is in agreement with those quotas; I'm not, and anyway, the link you provided also says: "There are no "set in stone" guidelines for WP:VITAL.". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you, but I see why we needed such a guideline. It helps set a quota on the number of people to include (but a quota on the entire People section would be more useful, IMO). Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Cobblet, FTR Franklin is currently included in Politicians and leaders: Early modern period, at Level 4. So why would we include him as a vital scientist at level 3, and as a vital politician and/or leader at level 4? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Beats me. Why is Hildegard of Bingen listed as a writer on Level 4 but a musician on Level 3? This is why it doesn't really matter to me how people get classified on this list. Cobblet (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My point is that people shouldn't be listed in two different categories. Hildegard of Bingen was a polymath, and it's not at all inaccurate to call her a composer/writer, but still, we should only have her and Franklin and people like them in one category, IMO. Hence my suggestion that we put polymaths into a sub-list of their own. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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
4. Support From a layperson's perspective (as opposed to mathematician) the number 0 just seems to be far more fundamental than the nth root. Although I also support removing percentage and keeping nth root as an alternative (see discussion below). Gizza^T/C 02:19, 11 November 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

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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 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)
5. Support At least relative to each other, mail is historically more important. Still not sure if either is important to be in a list of 1000 most vital articles though. Gizza^T/C 01:58, 11 November 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)

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 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)
5. Support Gizza^T/C 01:52, 11 November 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)

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

Remove 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

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, particularly when the list of musicians is already tilted towards that area.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Cobblet. Gizza^T/C 02:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discussion

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)

Remove Chess

Games are already well represented by the inclusion of genres (board game, card game, video game). Even though I happen to be a member of Wikiproject Chess, I don't believe this list needs an example of a specific game. Chess would probably be the game with the greatest cultural significance, but in this aspect it is definitely inferior to other forms of human recreation — compare the number of Wikipedias in which articles on Usain Bolt (90), Pelé (91) and Diego Maradona (88) appear, versus Garry Kasparov (70) and Bobby Fischer (74).

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. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --ELEKHH^T 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Rat

Apart from humans, the only mammal with a truly global distribution. As pests, invasive species and model organisms, they impact fields as diverse as agriculture, ecology, public health, medicine and psychology. Universally vilified but occasionally domesticated and even sanctified, few animals match their prominence in human culture.

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. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --ELEKHH^T 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Cattle

Probably the best livestock animal to include. Major uses include meat, milk and leather; and of course there wouldn't be civilization without plows drawn by oxen. It's also sacred in some cultures. We're at 999 articles and I've proposed a number of removals elsewhere on the list (and could easily propose more), so we should have room to add this.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support (as long as we stay under 1000) I think cattle is a very solid case. Carlwev (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - We have enough animals on Level 2. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The main reason for opposition before has been "yeah but we already have animal husbandry". In my view, an example of an animal or two used by humans is good for a 1000 list. We are not removing Everest because we have Mountain, Nile because we have river, or Elvis because we have Rock music, I wouldn't vote down Cattle "only" because of the inclusion of Animal Husbandry. After all we also have several crops, Rice, Wheat, Corn, Soybean, Potato, so why not Cattle. Carlwev (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove History of agriculture, Add Tourism

While obviously important, the former is covered adequately by Agriculture and History of technology, as well as articles on specific historical developments (Animal husbandry, Domestication, Fertilizer; and the mechanization of agriculture is covered in Industrial revolution). I suggest removing it so that we can diversify our coverage of industries beyond those that involve resource extraction. Tourism is probably the most significant industry not on the list, 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 four other articles I pointed out, 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)

History of Agriculture aside, do users think Tourism belongs or not? I think it's a important topic to have, I believe more vital than listing many individual writers, musicians or artists for example. But do other user's think this is a bad article or just a bad swap? Carlwev (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
4. Support pbp 03:11, 30 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)
2. Support I have to agree with Cobblet here, though it pains me to remove Verdi in particular. Debussy did have a more revolutionary impact on music than any of these three. I'd be supportive of adding some others to balance things out - Stravinsky, Mahler and Schubert would be possibilities. Neljack (talk) 22:09, 3 November 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)
2. Oppose I can't support this as it's currently proposed pbp 03:11, 30 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)

To call Michael Jackson a musician is a bit of a stretch, IMO. He was a singer, songwriter and performer, but to my knowledge he did not play any instruments or write any music. With all do respect, I think you are getting a bit carried away with remaking nearly every aspect of the VA lists. Maybe take a step-back and allow others to help shape the direction. If I recall correctly, I think the reasoning behind including Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky had somethnig to do with the fact that at the time they were added, the classical composers were almost entirely, if not entirely German. We added those others in an effort to better represent all of Europe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A singer-songwriter isn't a musician, really? Are you suggesting excluding all musicians who aren't instrumentalists from consideration, and if so, why? I support the idea of diversifying the list, but not at the expense of over-representing a genre or including people of lesser significance; and Debussy isn't German. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said that no singer-songwriters are musicians; many of them can write and play. I said to call MJ a musician is a bit of a stretch when you compare him to people who could write for and play various instruments. I know Debussy isn't German; I never said that he was. I said that when we added Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky the composers were disproportionately German. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Quoth the OED: "musician, n. 1. A person talented in the art of music. 2. A person who performs music, esp. on a musical instrument; a professional performer of music." Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, and for the second time I never said MJ wasn't a musician, but if you are going to compare him with brilliant composers and instrumentalists I don't think that he stands a chance. Also, your definition includes: "A person who performs music, esp. on a musical instrument", which is my point exactly. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support a straight add of Debussy, which would further diversify the nationalities of the classical composers. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if we did want to keep the same number of musicians, I could still name composers more significant than Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky that would also broaden our representation of classical music outside the Romantic era without compromising geographic diversity. From Italy I'd pick Claudio Monteverdi; from Eastern Europe I'd pick Franz Liszt (we don't have a single Hungarian on the list, while Poland at least has Marie Curie); and from Russia I'd pick Igor Stravinsky. That being said, I could comfortably argue that Debussy is more significant than the last two figures (it's harder to make a direct comparison with Monteverdi). Cobblet (talk) 07:23, 29 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)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 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)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I would say that Hamlet is probably the most influential literary work in English. Neljack (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Pending a discussion regarding which work would best represent English literature. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. No need for quotas, and besides, Shakespeare's already on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose see comment Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Do you have a better suggestion? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would take A Christmas Carol, Frankenstein or 1984 over Hamlet. I'm curious what others think. If we are to include only one work of English lit, I think more discussion should occur, versus a straight !vote on Hamlet or not Hamlet. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User: John K and User:Rsm77, you guys have done some excellent work with the expanded literature list. We'd appreciate your comments on this issue. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say that Hamlet is the best choice to represent English literature. FWIW, my picks for literature on this list would be Iliad, Don Quixote, Hamlet, and Divine Comedy. If it was up to me.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Hamlet is the most highly-regarded work by Shakespeare who is central to the canon of literature in English. It has been influential on numerous other writers and is still hugely influential today on both literature and popular culture.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Hamlet is perhaps the best regarded Shakespeare work (although I'd say King Lear is at virtually the same level among critics, just less read in high schools and less produced), but Shakespeare has so many important works that I'm not sure it'd make sense to isolate just one. Classically, the two most highly regarded works of English literature are probably the Canterbury Tales and Paradise Lost, but I'm not sure either makes sense to include, given the extremely limited number of articles that can be devoted to this (an advantage of one of those, though, is that neither Chaucer nor Milton is on the writers list, while Shakespeare is already represented). I'm not sure that, in such a small list as this, it makes sense to have any works of English literature, just because English isn't dominated by a single work in the same way that Spanish is dominated by Don Quixote, or Italian by the Divine Comedy. I'd add the Divine Comedy ahead of any work in English, simply because it is the great work of Italian literature, while there is really no single English work that has the same importance. john k (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your comments. I agree that the Divine Comedy has a very strong case to be included. However, we already have a similar case of overlap between Miguel de Cervantes and Don Quixote, and our list of writers includes both Shakespeare and Dante. So, if I had to pick between Hamlet and the Divine Comedy, I'd prefer adding the work in English unless a case can be made that the Divine Comedy has had the greater influence on world literature. Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that, since we already have Shakespeare, there's no reason for singling out Hamlet—Shakespeare's reputation would be secure even if he hadn't written Hamlet. The idea that A Christmas Carol, Frankenstein or 1984 could replace any of Shakespeare's better-known works made my eyes pop. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, sorry. I hate to disagree, but I want to share my genuine view otherwise there's no point me being here. In a list as short of 1000, do we need Shakespeare "and" a work by him? I have always thought biographies are slightly narrow in scope, even more so when we are leaving of nations, Empires, industries, artforms among other things. No matter how influential one work by one man is even more narrow, when we have the man himself already. Only my view but trying to remove comics, and trying to add Hamlet, and also the disliking tourism and nations such as Vietnam etc seems odd. Also we have several musicians and music genres. Several Writers, but literature genres? we have E A Poe but no...Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror, children's Lit, Romance.... They're not the most important I know and I would like to suggest many things but probably not those, but we seem to have writers to represent genres instead of the actual genres. We have only fiction poetry novel short story. Also several directors including Eisenstein? but not "animation" also bugs me. Maybe someone can change my mind, but there many articles missing from the 1000 that I think probably belong before I vote to add a Shakespeare work. Also although a decent work I wouldn't include a Christmas Carol before Dickens either, he's famous for numerous works, but he himself is not included at present. Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 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)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

I think "Swap, remove asteroid belt, add Comet" is pretty good idea. A bit silly to have asteroid 'and' asteroid belt, but not comet at all. Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd support such a swap. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK someone needs to start it, I've opened it below. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Asteroid belt Add Comet

I'll create the thread; several user's comments in "Remove Asteroid belt" above suggest many like this idea. We currently have Asteroid belt and Asteroid but don't cover comets at all, this swap would cover more ground. Asteroid belt is covered in asteroid, it has a subsection in asteroid. Comets studied in modern astronomy, and also known to ancient cultures and astronomers too. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Made this a straight-up add, so that people who object to the inclusion of either asteroid belt or comet, or support the inclusion of both, can record their opinion. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support As significant to human culture and history as the planets. The study of comets contributed to the discovery of solar wind, the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - I don't think we should include such a specific topic; there are hundreds of Astronomy/Astro Physics topics that could be included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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)
3. Support pbp 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza^T/C 04:26, 2 November 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)
3. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:30, 4 November 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

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
3. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 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)
2. Support pbp 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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)
4. Support Gizza^T/C 04:28, 2 November 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)
3. Support There is no need to list so many articles that cover a one philosophical topic. Gizza^T/C 03:55, 2 November 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)

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

---

Remove 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)
3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza^T/C 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Why remove this artform/narrative form before individual artists, writers and works? If animation is also missing then try to add it don't remove other artforms to make it "fair". I think I'll make no difference though. Carlwev (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose the rationale. If it's to be removed, it needs to have a rationale that is not entirely mistaken. "Animation" is a subset of the "film" medium. Comics is itself a medium. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

I'm not at all opposed to a replacement article in the visual arts. Part of the reason I don't think including comics or animation is such a good idea is because we already have drawing and film, while many other types of visual arts (of varying significance) can only be covered by the parent article. Applied art, Decorative art, Craft, Handicraft, Design, Fashion, Graphic design, Industrial design, Interior design, Conceptual art, Printmaking, and Typography are the kind of topic I was thinking of. Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm neither going to support nor oppose, but tonly correct the mistaken rationale: Comics is not a type of drawing—that's cartooning, a common, but unnecessary, element in comics. Comics is a narrative medium. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a case could be made for adding narrative; but I still don't see why this particular narrative medium needs to be on such a select list. Cobblet (talk) 10:44, 11 November 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 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)
4. Support Seems obvious. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think the specific is better than the wider term in this case, I would to add snow too, as that covers snow on the ground as well as in the sky, that precipitation does not. Carlwev (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• We should also have wind as well really. Carlwev (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: remove Joseph Stalin, add Franklin D. Roosevelt

We already have Lenin, and nowhere else do we include two consecutive leaders from one country. It could be argued that Stalin's policies have largely been overturned since his death, but FDR's legacy continues with the passage of the ACA. Washington started the Union, Lincoln preserved it, but FDR was integral to the defeat of European fascism, thus ensuring Democracy's presence on the continent for another 60+ years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Agree with nominator. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose both the proposed removal and the proposed addition. --Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose the removal of Stalin. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Yair rand and Curly Turkey. I'd support a swap of FDR for Benjamin Franklin. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose I agree with Cobblet's comments about Stalin's impact. I would support adding FDR though. Neljack (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't accept the implication that Stalin's impact on history is less than FDR's because his policies were overturned after his death: so were Hitler's and Mao's. And wasn't Stalin also integral to the defeat of fascism? And the argument that we shouldn't include Stalin because "nowhere else do we include two consecutive leaders from one country" seems a bit arbitrary to me—at best, it's an argument to remove Stalin or Lenin; it's not an argument to add FDR. Since we take such pains to maintain diversity on the People list, why not replace Stalin or Lenin with another Russian, say Peter the Great? And if we want to add FDR to better represent America's contribution to world history, why not have him replace another American, say Benjamin Franklin? Cobblet (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cobblet, 1) The People's Republic of China is still Communist, so no, not all of Mao's policies were overturned. On the other hand, the Soviet Union no longer exists. 2) Yes, Stalin helped defeat fascism, but only because Hitler betrayed him. Further, what Stalin implemented in Europe after the war was arguably just as dictatorial as Hitler; Stalin did absolutely nothing for Democracy in Europe whatsoever. 3) I think it's more than excessive to include two consecutive leaders from one country, let alone the same political party. Call it arbitrary all you want, 99% of all rationales on this page are just that. The Universe has many more than 10,000 vital topics, so by definition this list will not include them all, and many will be excluded based on editorial preferences. 4) Last year I replaced Stalin with Peter the Great and I was reverted. 5) There seems to be a big soft spot for Franklin here, so I seriously doubt he could be removed for FDR. 6) Anyway, this is my proposal, so please just oppose and stop badgering me. You have like 100 proposals currently up, so why not allow others to give their input? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Socialism with Chinese characteristics has nothing to do with Maoism. Tbh, if I had to pick one political figure to represent 20th-century China it would be Sun Yat-sen. Swapping him in for Mao would help reduce the glut of mid-20th-century politicians on the list. 2) Then you might as well say Winston Churchill helped defeat fascism only because Hitler betrayed Chamberlain, and that FDR only helped defeat fascism because of Pearl Harbor. 3) and 5) To me, including two people who represent the American Revolution (it looks like we've established that Franklin's contributions to science are not the primary reason he's on the list) is a more obvious imbalance than including both Lenin and Stalin. 4) I know. 6) I would not be helping build consensus if I simply opposed the motion without discussing why I did so. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Consider that we include Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Churchill. So isn't FDR a glaring omission? I think it is, and if I was going to cut one of those four I would cut Stalin. To simply add FDR is 1930s-40s excess, but to omit him in favour of two Soviets in a row is a mistake, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say remove Churchill first, and perhaps also remove Lenin. --Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Stalin ran the USSR for thirty years, oversaw its industrialization, its becoming the other world superpower, and its defeat of Hitler along the way. It's Stalin who was behind communization of Eastern Europe and the erection of the Iron Curtain. Stalin was behind the Great Purge, as iconic as Hitler for the mass suppression of dissidence. It's Stalin's brand of communism, not Lenin's, that folks like Mao imitated. Stalin's impact on history far outweighs that of FDR. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stalin's impact has been largely erased in Russia, but FDR's influence still going strong in the US (see the PPACA). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

See Neo-Stalinism and google "Stalin nostalgia". Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's impact has been largely erased in Germany. Whether or not there's Neo-Stalinism today (or the PPACA?!?) is incredibly beside the point—Stalin is one of the towering figures of world history. Rome fell aeons ago—I guess that makes Julius Caesar passé as well? Talk about lack of perspective! There's a whole world outside them Unitedstatesian borders, y'know! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

How silly. Julius Caesar still influences philosophy and politics, as do ancient Roman governments in general. Stalin was a hack, IMO; he is not at all in the same league as Hitler, so that's funny. Well, hyperbole aside, my main point is that I find it more than odd that in a group of 25 leaders of all time, we have two back-to-back Soviet leaders. This is an obvious overrepresentation of Soviet Russia. Can you argue that Soviet Russia deserves two consecutive leaders when no other civilization in the history of Humankind does? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Can you argue that blah blah blah": I didn't—this discussion is Stalin vs FDR. Please stay on topic.

"Stalin was a hack, IMO": We're not interested in your opinion, only the facts—especially when it's your opinion that the PPACA has had a greater impact on the history of humanity than the Iron Curtain, the Holodomor, the Battle of Stalingrad ... instead of having me list every wide-impact policy or event he was behind, why not go read the article? We're talking about the man behind the construction of the 20th century's Only Other Superpower here, not that that should be taken into consideration, eh? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We get it; you're a big Stalin fan, but the Iron Curtain is long gone, Jack! On the other hand, the type of socialism that FDR propagated is all around billions of people, while Stalin's style is old hat. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's right, I'm a closet Pinko, Gabe! Report me quick for COI! At least do something other than present a cogent argument to what I've actually written! Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories

It seems that there are currently two systems for VA categories: Category:C-Class vital articles and Category:Wikipedia C-Class vital articles. The former seems based off of {{WP1.0}}; the latter off of {{Vital article}}. Do we need both? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Shaktism or Kali or Krishna, Add Shaivism or Shiva

Of the six articles related to Hinduism, two are foundational, general groups of texts (Vedas and Upanishads), two are related to Vaishnavism branch (Bhagavad Gita and Krishna) while two are related to Shaktism branch (Shaktism and Kali). There are no articles related to the third branch of Shaivism of which Shiva is the primary deity. There is a huge overlap between the Gita and Krishna since the latter has a major role in the former (if two articles are kept on Vaishnavism, maybe Vishnu should replace Krishna to reduce the overlap). But the Shaktist branch is the least influential of the three so removing of those article also makes sense.

Support

1. As nominator. Gizza^T/C 03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Another option would be to remove a Hinduism related article and not replace it with anything since it seems to be overrepresented compared to other religions. Gizza^T/C 03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Mahabharata is also on the list elsewhere (an epic connected to the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna). There is far too much overlap for all three of these articles to be on the Vital 1000. Gizza^T/C 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gizza: Thanks for pointing out these issues. I agree that Hinduism is overrepresented compared to other religions and we need to fix this. It does seem that Shaktism, Krishna and Kali look like weaker choices for the list—what do you think about replacing them with Hindu denominations, in order to represent all branches of Hinduism without favouring any one in particular? And would swapping in the Ramayana for the Mahabharata make any sense, in order to maintain representation of Indian literature while removing the overlap with the Bhagavad Gita? Or would that be a bad idea for other reasons? Feel free to criticize and suggest better ideas—I know nothing about Hinduism and am just brainstorming ways we might be able to improve the list. User:John K, do you have any opinion here? Cobblet (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Cobblet. I think that the overall concept of a discussion on Hindu denominations itself is unfortunately not very significant within Hinduism. Though this is not quite the same thing, I checked the HD page views with the current listed and it is nowhere near as popular as any of them (Shaktism is the lowest of the six). I believe the most god/dess neutral thing to do is to do remove the bottom three (Shaktism, Krishna, Kali) and just keep the texts and perhaps also as you said, swap Mahabharata with the Ramayana. Having three articles under the main topic "Hinduism" puts it on par with Buddhism and Islam and one less than Christianity, which I feel is reflective of its influence over the modern world. Gizza^T/C 11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Islamic philosophy and Islamic schools and branches, Add Sunni Islam and Shia Islam

It's strange that we have room for three major branches of Christianity and Buddhism but can't find room for the two major branches of Islam. On the other hand, it's equally strange that we include Islamic philosophy but not philosophies based on other religions. Let's kill two birds with one stone.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Are we going to start adding every sect of every major religion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Just what I was thinking. After Islam itself why have "branches of Islam" instead of an actual branch of Islam. We don't include "branches of Christianity" and leave off Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant etc. We seem to have an unwritten rule against lists, and have removed pretty much all list articles from the 1000 and 10'000 projects. Although well written, Islamic schools and branches is at heart a very fleshed out list, with a summary of each entry. Carlwev (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:GabeMc: I think it's reasonable to include any religious denomination with a large number of adherents, say 100 million people. I think the only denominations on the list that don't meet that arbitrary criterion would be Vajrayana and Shaktism, and the only denominations that do meet it and aren't on the list would be Vaishnavism and Shaivism. I think that would be a logical two-for-two swap (while the overrepresentation of Hinduism can be fixed by removing Shaktism, Krishna and Kali. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, both Oriental Orthodoxy and Anglicanism enjoy close to 100 million adherents, but neither are currently on this list. Also, the list currently includes Jainism with 4.5 million adherents, and Taoism with just 3 million followers. Also, Judaism is included (obviously), but it has less than 20 million followers. So, while I see the basic intent of your "100 million" criteria, sure numbers should not be the only determining factor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously reasonable that we be more inclusive toward actual religions as opposed to branches of religions. Still, if three branches of Christianity and Buddhism are considered vital topics, I can't see how one could argue that Sunni and Shia Islam are any less important. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that, in general, there are already far too many religious topics on this list, and adding some from Islam in an effort to balance them out only exacerbates the problem. In the past I have suggested that we should include only the general topical articles, and not the various sects and branches. Christianity should suffice; we don't really need to list denominations, IMO, and doing so only serves to alienate those that we do not add. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I respect that opinion, and agree that religion overall is a bit over-represented. Nevertheless, since the religious branches do remain on the list, I assume there's a consensus that some are important enough to merit inclusion (some of them are surely more important than Gnosticism, which nobody seems to have suggested to remove), and if that's true, then we have to choose the best ones to include. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Nobel Prize

Support

1. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Too specific. Gizza^T/C 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose unless we add a more significant article to replace it in the social sciences category. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't see how this is vital. If the idea is that it's an annual event which makes headlines, Election would be more logical. It can be considered the pinnacle of academic accomplishment, but we don't have any other academia-related articles (except Education). -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize is not simply an academic award (few of the winners of the Peace or Literature Prizes would consider themselves academics) but a way of recognizing contributions to humanity. The concept of such a prize was revolutionary in its time; that it remains a significant part of human culture is evidenced by the headlines it makes every year and the number of similar awards it's inspired. It might not be notable enough for such a short list, but I'm curious to hear what people would rather see in place of it, particularly since at least this topic doesn't overlap with anything else while there are others in the category that do, e.g. Politics and Political science, or Broadcasting, Journalism, Mass media and News. Should we add social class or investment, for example? Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Social class would be a good add; it's had a huge impact on society throughout human history. Investment is also okay. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Kidney or Lung, Add Eye

In the Anatomy section of Biology, there is currently a bias towards internal organs (Brain, Muscle, Liver, Kidney, Lung, Skeleton, Heart, Human gastrointestinal tract) with only one external organ article present (Skin). To redress this imbalance, I propose including eye in place of either kidney or lung. Also a far great number of animal species have eyes (including arthropods and molluscs) compared to kidneys or lungs (the latter two mainly restricted to vertebrates).

Even if kidney, lung or another internal organ isn't removed, I am strongly in favour of including eye. As subjective and hypothetical as this is, I believe for example that if Eye were to feature on Today's Featured Article on the Main Page, we would see a similar positive reaction to what we saw with Sea. The average reader of Wikipedia probably sees the eye as a fundamental topic, much more than many of the articles mentioned which won't elicit a similar reaction were they to become TFA's.

Support

1. Support As nom. Gizza^T/C 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support either, preference to lose kidney though. Carlwev (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support swap for kidney; oppose removing lung Cobblet (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I believe that Eye has a stronger case than the other sensory organs, but I wouldn't mind debate on Ear, Nose, Mouth, etc. Also as an alternative, we could have Visual perception or Visual system but I personally am biased towards tangible and less technical titles. Gizza^T/C 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We have at present Blindness and deafness but not sight or hearing nor eye or ear. Which I always felt very odd. Eye is a good idea, ear or hearing is not bad either. I would prefer kidney to go before lung, but either is probably an improvement. Carlwev (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we really? I'm not *seeing* them on the list... Cobblet (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ideal number of People/biographies

Currently there are 134 out of 998 articles that are on famous people throughout history (around 13.4%). I've seen some comments above that think this number is too high. What would be the ideal number of biographies on the Vital 1000? On the Expanded Vital 10000, the "target number" of people is 2000 which is 20% of total articles. Gizza^T/C 08:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is stating the obvious, but the different sections of the list don't have to scale proportionately—on a list of 10,000 vital articles it seems reasonable to include a large number of people; but just because we have 2000 people there doesn't mean we should have 200 people here, or 2 people on the Level 1 list! Having somewhere between 100 and 125 people seems reasonable to me. If we're prepared to restrict the list to people who made a revolutionary impact on culture and society, it shouldn't be so difficult to remove some names. But right now there appear to be some people who insist that the list of people represent the entirety of human diversity, even at the cost of adding less significant people on to the list. In my opinion, such an approach renders an already problematic task virtually impossible. (Oh no, we removed Fela Kuti recently: now we have nobody to represent 300 million West Africans...) Cobblet (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)