Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

This is the talk-page for: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. Comments made on the various sub pages will not appear here unless placed here manually.

Holidays bifurcated

At present, we have:

• Holiday and the three secular holidays in the Vital articles list (New Years' Day, April Fools' Day and Halloween) in the Everyday life section
• The three Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter and Pentecost) in the Religion section under Christianity
• The two Jewish holidays (Passover and Yom Kippur; interestly NOT Hannakuh) in the Religion section under Judaism
• Ramadan in the Religion section under Islam
• And probably some holidays of other religions that I've forgotten...

Should we move all holidays to the same section, or keep as is? pbp 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It cold go either way, I am not totally sure but I think I would slightly prefer them all in a holiday section of their own including the religious holidays. Some like New Year, Hallowe'en and April Fools' would not go in religion but would have to go in a holiday section as they are now, or be included next to something like ?? year, paganism, and humour ?? which I don't think would seem as right. Also Christmas could be argued although having religious roots is today not only a religious holiday, you could say this about many holidays. If we're going to have a holidays section we may as well put all holidays in it, religious or not. I think Hannakuh probably belongs too. Carlwev (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We could put holidays in the Culture section of every life, where NY, AF and Halloween are pbp 19:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• On the subject, looking a my calendar, should we have Valentines Day? I've always thought it more well known and acknowledged than April Fools. Carlwev (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since I've been spurned for another year, I don't know...jk jk we should put it in regardless pbp 02:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

With Purplebackpack89 having Wikilinked Holiday when using it right at the very start of this thread, a read of the lead of that article might be valuable. It begins "A holiday in many parts of the world is a synonym for a vacation or a specific trip for the purpose of recreation or tourism..." The very different, American definition comes next. This is a global encyclopaedia. Do recognise the fact that in most of the world Halloween, Valentines Day, April Fools, Mothers Day, and many others are NOT called holidays at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I believe festival is also in the holidays section, no? Do we also want something like observance? I believe that the root word of festival is feast, so feast day is an option, but it's probably redundant. What do they call those things in Europe? pbp 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(Whoops. Sorry about forgetting to sign.) Not sure about Europe. I'm in Australia, and there is no single common name for such days. We just don't seem to need one. But many are certainly not holidays. We have public holidays, which are government endorsed days away from work or school. They include Good Friday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day, Labour Day, ANZAC Day, and Australia Day. The rest, such as Mothers Day, Valentines Day and Halloween don't have a special shared name. (Apart maybe for "Hallmark Days", from the more cynical among us.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The bio count...is too damn high!

Proposal to reduce number of biographies in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People from 2238 to 2000 even, with disproportionate cuts coming from actors and athletes. At present, WP:VA/E has 318 more articles than it should pbp 00:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

Support

1. Support as nom: pbp 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Miniapolis 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I agree with PBP in principle. This list obviously needs to lose about 318 articles, and the bloated bio section seems like a good place to start. I'm not sure about the arbitrary number of 238 bios though, nor the poll's presumption that the goal will be achieved via "disproportionate cuts coming from actors and athletes". That discussion has not yet taken place, so the wording of this poll puts the cart before the horse. For that reason, I oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, if we were to do this one article at a time with no parameters, it could take months. Saying that certain areas need to be limited makes cutting in those areas easier. I have made proposals as to how to trim several sports; I'd make more, but those are the only sports I'm familiar with pbp 07:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

1. No need for arbitrary limits. Hey, FIFA 100 has 125 players. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (c)

Right now, we have 2238 Lv 4 Vital biographies against 10,318 articles. I think that biographies are bloated and far too Amero-centric. I propose dropping the bio count to 2,000 even. Here are some cuts I think need to be made:

1. Entertainers and sports figures take up nearly one-quarter of the list, despite the fact that nearly all of the people in either list are Americans from the past 100 years. I propose cutting the number of those bios in HALF
2. There are 27 American political leaders on this list, or about one for every decade of American history. I'd cut that to 20

pbp 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't just set an arbitrary limit without providing any rationale for the hundreds you would remove. Lets discuss each article individually. Perhaps even hold an RfC for each removal and/or addition. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Role reversal? On the level 3 articles, you were in favor of quick-and-dirty removal and replacement; I was in favor of a more bureaucratic approach. Now you appear to be more bureaucratic pbp 00:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not role reversal, but you have made it pretty clear that no removals or additions should be made without prior discussion. I'm just agreeing with you. Let's individually discuss each of the 318 articles that need to be trimmed out of this list that has somehow gotten way out of control of its "handlers". So lets discuss first, as you have repeatedly insisted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We gotta get abstract before we get specific. It'll be a lot easier to say "Let's delete bios X, Y, Z from actors" once we've agreed that "There are too many actors, and some should be deleted" pbp 00:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to trim the bios, I would start with "Mythical, legendary and fictional people and characters", which currently includes 85 "bios". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of them are probably important topics, Mickey Mouse for example. But I agree that there are too many of them, and biography might not be the right page for them pbp 00:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Why would a fictional character have a biography in an encyclopedia, and why would said bio be deemed "vital"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • As a potential archetype that is used commonly in fiction? Romeo and Juliet are two characters that heavily influence a large extant of literature across languages. Other characters are almost independent of the work they originate from, and knowing about them is important in terms of understanding historical periods in a country or understanding popular culture. --LauraHale (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• when you get down to it, a list of 10,000 "vital articles" is utterly ridiculous to begin with. As some of the debate below shows, any article in that 10,000 range has easily 100-1000 other articles of similar importance. Also, as OP hinted at, has resulted in a donwright extreme selection-bias towards American topics. IMO, the list should be scrapped entirely and replaced with topic specific lists. It is a concept I have toyed with at vital Canadian articles. Resolute 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal proposal to cut actors and actresses to 75

Right now, we have over 120 actors and actresses, and most of the people in that category are people from the U.S.A (5% of world population) active in the last 100 years (<5% of recorded history). GabeMc requested a formal proposal, even though my idea was outlined above, here it is. pbp 15:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The movie industry evolved primarily in the US, that's why a disproportionate number of notable actors are American, because Holywood is in California, not Italy. The 5% figure appears to be an attempt to assert that only 5 out of every 100 actors should be American, which is silly. As far as your argumant that too many were "active in the last 100 years". Well, arguably the first Motion Picture Projected for an Audience was Berlin Wintergarten Novelty Program (1895), so that's only 118 years in toto. Do you plan to add more actors from before the age of film? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's Edwin Booth, Edwin Forrest, William Charles Macready... But, more to the point, since it's so centered on such a small slice of the universe for such a short period of time in relation to recorded history, I believe the list doesn't need to be anywhere near as large as it is, especially since we're ~300 over (see WP:Systemic bias, WP:RECENT). And probably most of the people chopped will be American, so we can keep the list globalized. I never said that only 5% of the people on this list should be American; in this case, this list being disproportionately American should be balanced out in other areas. I don't see any reason for you to be critical of that; now you've gotten to the point of being critical just to be critical pbp 07:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RECENT does not apply here, this is not an article. WP:RECENT is a guideline for article space only. No offense, but you seem to be having a massive comprehension issue in that regard, same with WP:BRD. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, good practice in articles is good practice anywhere. The page notes If you don't like the way I think, whine about it to a noticeboard. The discussion will be closed in about 2 seconds, in favor of me keepin' doing what I'm doing and you getting fishy fishy pbp 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal proposal to cut sportspeople to 100

• I think this discussion would benefit from some outside feedback. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: You RfCed a subsection of a section that was already RfCed pbp 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right now, we have 200 sportspeople, and as with actors/actresses, almost all are from since 1900 and a disproportionate number are American; more than a quarter of them are from the U.S.-dominated sports of baseball, basketball and football. pbp 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Further nom comment: Right now, sportspeople is about 10%. By contrast, the core bios list, which I've included below, has 6 sportspeople (all of whom are already on this list and are in no danger of being removed) and 194 non-sportspeople. Knocking it down to 100 would make it about 5% of all bios, more in line with what Core bios has. pbp 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In team sports, I recommend the allocation be culled to the following: 16 soccer, 10 baseball, 6 basketball, 6 ice hockey, 6 cricket, 5 American football, 1 water polo. I recommend that basketball include:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Either Bill Russell or Larry Bird
6. Either a coach (Phil Jackson or John Wooden), a woman (Pat Summitt or Lisa Leslie) or an international player (some names that come to mind are, Dirk Nowitzki, Arvydas Sabonis, Yao Ming, Dražen Petrović and Dino Meneghin)

• Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All other articles would be removed. For baseball:

1. Roberto Clemente
2. Ty Cobb
3. Sandy Koufax
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Willie Mays
6. Sadaharu Oh
7. Jackie Robinson
8. Babe Ruth
9. Ted Williams
10. Cy Young

And cut the rest. For American football:

1. Jim Brown
2. Walter PaytonDick Butkus
3. Vince Lombardi
4. Jerry Rice
5. Johnny Unitas

And cut the rest. pbp 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your basketball list has a few glaring omissions, such as: Bob Cousy (first great ball-handler), Julius Erving (pre-Jordan), Oscar Robertson (only player ever to average a triple double), Dennis Rodman (arguably the best rebounder ever), Shaquille O'Neal (arguably the most dominant player since Jordan), and George Mikan (the game's first dominant player). Also, Bill Russell and Larry Bird should be included, as should Phil Jackson and John Wooden. Same with Pat Summitt and Lisa Leslie. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute at all that all of the people you've named (with the exception of Kim-Jong Rodman) are really great basketball players. They're also all Americans, all did their dirty work within the past 100 years, and with the exception of George Mikan, all are still living. We are at the point where Julius Erving being on this list means that something else can't be on it. And probably to globalize and avoid recency bias, the person dropped will be an American in another important field, unless you can find an non-biographical area that's too bloated. I'm a bit confused by your perspective here: on the one hand, you believe bios are too bloated, but on the other hand, you want to keep all the bios in a fairly non-globalized, recent and insignificant category. pbp 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Basketball is only 120 years old (invented 1891), so yes, your observation that the bulk of players listed are from the last 100 years is quite accurate, but what is your point? Too American? Kinda like the argument that Golda Meir doesn't belong on a list that doesn't have Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. The vast majority of great b-ballers have been Americans. Should we exclude Dr. J so as to add a much less notable and far less influential European, just for the sake of adding a European? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Three things here: 1) It could be an Asian or Southern Hemisphere person; 2) Since we're over 10,000, I doubt we'll be adding much of anybody; 3) To be perfectly honest, I believe that pretty much every European on this list that isn't an athlete or entertainer is more notable and more influential than Julius Erving. More cache? Maybe not. More impact? Yes. 'Tis you who have contradicted yourself; earlier, you were complaining about the lack of globalization; now you're complaining about having globalization in this list. pbp 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your American football list has a few glaring omissions, such as: Joe Montana, Dick Butkus, Lawrence Taylor and/or Reggie White. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm less familiar with Am. football than basketball, so if you think one of those guys is more deserving than one of the guys I have, please say so. But as for the general "five is enough" comment, I stand by that for the globalization, recency and significance reasons I outlined for basketball above. Almost nobody outside the U.S. and Canada plays American football. Nobody played football until ~150 years ago. And I find it a bit weird that the U.S. has more athletes on this list than military and political leaders combined pbp 22:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Montana is arguably the greatest QB ever, and "your" list does not include a single a defensive player, which neglects 50% of the game. As per: "I find it a bit weird that the U.S. has more athletes on this list than military and political leaders", for better or worse, Americans are generally more interested in entertainment and sports then politics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I switched out Payton for Butkus. Now, we have 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 DB and 1 coach. Again, I don't view sports and entertainment figures as being particularly impactful. What effect did Reggie White have on peace in the Middle East? pbp 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet another strawman, pbp. Why would Reggie White compete with political leaders for a spot on the American footballers list? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the hockey keep list

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Gordie Howe
3. Bobby Hull
4. Bobby Orr
5. Georges Vézina
6. Viacheslav Fetisov

pbp 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your hockey list has a few glaring omissions, such as: Mario Lemieux, Mark Messier, Sergei Fedorov, Vladislav Tretiak, and Jean Beliveau. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You were wondering how this list got 318 articles bigger than it should. This is why! Because there are loads of people of equal or near-equal significance to people on the list. I don't consider sports figures to be particularly significant, and even in hockey, there are large portions of the world (Latin America, Africa, Oceania, and large portions of Asia) that are unfamiliar with the game pbp 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Kinda like Go (game) (with an estimated 40 million players worldwide, or just 0.00571428571 of the global population) for almost all non-Asians? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • So we balance that out with Monopoly. Look at the athletes list, you'll see that there's little to no balance between the Eastern and Western world. pbp 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's counter-proposals (Basketball)

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Red Auerbach
3. Larry Bird
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Lauren Jackson
6. Magic Johnson
7. Michael Jordan
8. James Naismith
9. Bill Russell
10. Pat Summitt
11. John Wooden

The current list is at 10, which seems about right to me. I don't know how you could get much less then the 8 I have listed above (6 greatest players, 2 greatest coaches), but we are still lacking a woman and a non-American. At this point, I think we should discuss which of these above 8 don't belong, and why they should be removed in favour of someone else (or just removed for brevity), or agree to allow 10 spots, and simply add a woman and a non-American. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that all eight of those people are worthy basketball players and coaches. However, I do think that we only need one coach on this list. Yes, that means choosing between John Wooden and Phil Jackson. I also think that having basketball players this long will never get the size of the sportspeople section down to a reasonable size (which, IMO, is 100% total). Seems like this list serves the 1980s very well: from the years 1984-89, four of the people on the list were playing NBA ball. Largely, I stand by my recommendation above to have basketball players at 6, or 6% of a list of 100 sportspeople. If we end up with 150 articles rather than 100, then basketball can go up to 9. pbp 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1) If I had to chose between Wooden and Jackson I would likely chose Jackson. 2) I suggest you make a specifc suggestion as to which player who was active in 1984 should be removed and why; Jordan, Bird, or Magic? If pressed, I would likely remove Johnson over Bird as west-coast ball is overrepresented (4 of 8). I'm not sure why you keep citing percentages; weight is not exclusively allocated here by percentages. Should the basketball list be 83% non-black, as most US citizens are? Will you please start compromising? FTR, the greatest non-American born basketball player was Hakeem Olajuwon, but he played during 1984, so I guess by your logic he must then be arbitrarily excluded. Maybe we should hold an RfC so sports fans can weigh-in, as we seem to be beyond compromise on even the smallest of points. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This list is 1) Incredibly USA centric and 2) incredibly male centric. If this is a list for USA men's basketball players, then those would be the vital, but world wide... needs expanded scope. Lauren Jackson is one of the highest paid female basketball players of all time and not there. I believe Lisa Leslie is one of the most influential female basketball players in recent times. James Naismith should be there. --LauraHale (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The only reason they were left off my list was in an attempt to compromise. I support including Lisa Leslie, Lauren Jackson, and James Naismith, of course! Thanks for your input! I've added them above. What about Pat Summitt? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• This list is way too long, and still very post-1900-centric. We don't need 11 people associated with basketball when we're 300 articles over the limit, and could easily tick off 100-200 more very important articles that are missing. A better approach would be my proposal above, with Jackson as the international/female representative pbp 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Crying about recentism is not going to work on a sport prone to recentism. I personally would cut Larry Bird as he can be understood through Magic Johnson and Johnson is more important. I would also take the axe to John Wooden. I would also remove Phil Jackson. Arguably, he did not create the triangle offense and innovate strategy. He did not coach any noteworthy Olympic teams. I would take Sam Barry or Tex Winter for the Triangle offense over him. --LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Why remove Wooden, arguably the greatest coach of amateur b-ballers who ever lived, and the architect of the greatest US amateur sports dynasty ever? Jackson, may not have invented the triangle offense, but he certainly perfected its application at the pro-level, and you can't argue with his rings, IMO (despite the talent he coached). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • (ec)With those suggestions, you're essentially left with the proposal I posited above: Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Russell, and then an international one pbp 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I completely disagree with axing John Wooden for Lauren Jackson, that's absurd! I would support removing Phil Jackson for Red Auerbach. Per Bird vs. Magic, Bird outscored and outrebounded Magic, despite winning two less titles (3 vs 5).GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Johnson's impact on the game was more long term than Bird's in my opinion and there is more historical impact for the game internationally and in the USA domestically for Johnson's situation with HIV. I think Johnson's style of play was also more revolutionary than Bird's. Thus, in terms of historical importance for two players of the same era, Johnson just nips Bird out. There really needs to be at least one or two women on that list (or males who were heavily influential on the women's side of the game) and at least one or two people representing the growth of the game internationally. Can you make a case for Wooden doing that? What is his lasting historically legacy? --LauraHale (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • The Johnson/Bird thing is a matter of opinion, they were equals really. The only stat where Johnson bested Bird was assists; 6.3 per game for Bird, and 11.3 for Johnson, or 1.25 per quarter, (see Kareem). My main arguement against Magic, assuming that it must be either Bird or Johnson, and not both, is that Johnson played with Kareem, so we would have not only two players from a similar era, both are west-coast ballers, and also teamates on the Lakers, which doesn't seem to pass it around. Red Auerbach was more influential in introducing the fast-break than was Magic Johnson. What does his HIV have to do with his weight as a basketball player? That he habitually cheated on his wife and contracted an STD means he is more important to basketball? What is Wooden's lasting legacy you ask? "Sporting News honors Wooden as the greatest coach in American sports history", "John Wooden: Greatest Coach Ever?". Wooden is about the only person consistently rated above Lombardi. You seem to think he is overrated, why? If I was going to add a women I think it should be Pat Summit (all-time winningest college b-ball coach ever), whose contribution to the game was greater then perhaps dozens of her peers combined. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Johnson's HIV status influenced how they dealt with blood injuries on the court and had an impact across different sports. Hence his influence. Still not seeing the international game development here. Lots of USA centric thinking. --LauraHale (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I guess I see your point, but if we bump Bird and retain Johnson, there will be three ex-Lakers on a list that includes only five players, which seems off, and I again reiterate that we should avoid including teamates where possible. Certainly Kareem will stay before Magic. Per your comment: "still not seeing the international game development here", please offer some specific suggestions, not just for additions, but also for who your suggested additions would replace. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
                • First off, Wilt played 5 seasons with the Lakers and 9 seasons with other teams. He won all five of his MVPs when he was with the Warriors and Sixers, he scored his 100-point game with the Warriors and won his first title with the Sixers. A bit misleading to count Wilt as a Laker. Kareem won his first title and first three MVPs with the Milwaukee Bucks. Johnson is the only person in this discussion who's a point guard and the only person in this discussion who had HIV. Also, I think to address omissions or biases with continual adding upon adding is never going to get us to 10,000. There is a working consensus that baseball, basketball and Am. football are overrepresented on these lists; continual adding won't solve our problems. pbp 23:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • So, five seasons does not a Laker make? Alright, I was trying to avoid going here, but Bird is the only white player on the list. That logic has worked for you numerous times during these discussions, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's counter-proposals (American football)

1. Jim Brown
2. Dick Butkis
3. Vince Lombardi
4. Jerry Rice
5. Johnny Unitas

I think we are in near agreement on this one, PBP. I've added one more coach and one more QB. The current list is at 15. FWIW, I could live without Montana, but its seems a bit silly to arbitrarily limit the number of coaches and QBs to one. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not getting much response in the other place I've tried to discuss thsi sport, so I'll stir here. Have you thought about the likely perspective of ANY of the 95% of the world's population who don't live in the USA on including ANY American footballers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To look at this point another way, the US is the world's 3rd most populous country, and American Football is the most popular sport in the US. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo that 7 is too many. India is the world's second most-populous; so by Gabe's logic, 7 polo players? pbp 03:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said several times before. We do not even know what the accurate count of this list of 10,300+ articles is, so how could we make cogent arguments for trimming before we have an accurate count of the total included articles? How do you know which sections are significantly overrepresented if you do not know how many articles there are in each section? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• For the sake of compromise, I've now dropped Coach Brown and Montana, so pbp and I appear to be in agreement here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's counter-proposals (Baseball)

1. Hank Aaron
2. Roberto Clemente
3. Ty Cobb
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Mickey Mantle
6. Willie Mays
7. Sadaharu Oh
8. Satchel Paige
9. Jackie Robinson
10. Babe Ruth
11. Cy Young

The current list is at 30, so this potential compromise will trim 15 articles while maximising the scope of the coverage. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't accept baseball being any more than 10% of total sportspeople. It probably should be even less than that. If we have 15 baseball players, we'd have to have that many cricketeers to balance things out globally. And once you do that, you're going to end up not making much headway in trimming sportspeople, which I see as totally bloated. I think my 10 guys maximizes coverage well enough. There are important people in non-sports fields left out, I see no reason why baseball should be any different pbp 21:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Per: "I can't accept baseball being any more than 10% of total sportspeople": "Sports figures" is currently at 202. 15÷202=7.425%. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I still am saying there shouldn't be more than 100 total sportspeople, and I've delineating why (Having lots and lots of sportspeople violates guidelines and essays left and right). Are you saying we should throw recentism, globalism and whatnot to the wind and have more than that? pbp 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your comment: "Are you saying we should throw recentism, globalism and whatnot to the wind and have more than that?" No, where did I give you that impression. The current baseball list is at 30 articles, my suggestion cuts it in half, so why do you think I want to add to the list? Bottom line: your recentism argument is based on a suggestive non-binding essay, and your misuse of it is a strawman IMO. How could we globalise a sport that is not global? E.g., in computing, one could argue that all the entries are recent, due mostly to the recentism of computing. Baseball is 120 years old, so the vast majority of entries there will be from the last 120 years. What about this particular point is eluding you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What you don't seem to get about baseball 'or Am football is that if they're not a global sport, there shouldn't be that many of them on this list. At present, 20% of all sports biographies are either baseball or Am. football, and there are too many sports bios even if there were less baseball or Am football. HiLo and I have been trying to explain this to you pbp 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the idea that being 120 years old avoids recency problems is a bit ludicrous. Sure, 120 years is a long time compared to the last 6 months, but this list has people on it before the birth of Christ (2000 years ago) pbp 03:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

PBP, you completely misread me. I meant that because baseball is only 120 years old, inclusions of any baseball players will seem recent to some, if, you think recent is anything during the last 100+ years. Anyway, how are you defining recent? You added Neil Armstrong, who's greatest accomplishment is walking on the moon in 1969, less then 44 years ago. Seems like if you are going to throw around a non-binding essay as ammo for your argument, then we should at least discuss what recent means in this context? Mobile phone is included on the list, isn't that recent by your measure, or is there a good reason why some articles are absolutely immune to your anti-recent argument (eg Harry Potter), while others are not. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bottom-line: Nobody knows for certain just how many articles are currently in this list, so how can you possibly lead a discussion on what and where trims are needed. For all we know, the science section might be 400+ articles over its limit. Count them all up, then talk cuts. In other words: You don't even know how many articles are currently on the VA/E list, so how could you possibly know how many should be trimmed? You are putting the cart before horse, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be inclined to remove Alexander Cartwright. Founder of baseball is... interesting but there is a lot of research on the sports origins and the American creation story for baseball is largely myth. A lot of these players can be understood through other players given the intersections involved. I would also remove Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Sandy Koufax. --LauraHale (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I've now removed them, Thanks for the great suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as amended pbp 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Done: There appears to be a working consensus for cutting baseball to these 11 players between me, Gabe and Laura

Chess players

Sorry to add more, In general I don't like adding biographies, But for example there were 20 Tennis players, but Tennis is not in the 1000 list. Same for baseball not in the 1000 but has 30 players in the 10'000. Chess is or was for a long time in the 1000 list but has no players at all here yet, seems very un equal. Also some but some American sports people I've seen flicking through the list only appear in English and not any other language at all, and many more only in 3 or 4 other languages suggesting they don't have a lot of international recognition. Top Chess players Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov appear in over 70 different language Wikipedias, suggesting they are more recognised world wide. I am only adding 2 at this time I can think of 5 more but will not add them as we are shrinking sports and games bios at the moment. Carlwev (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So do I pbp 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Psychics and mystics

Seems like we should lose this entire sub-section as fiction. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There are seven people in this section. The header and five of the people in it can be dispensed with. Rasputin and Nostradamus are probably important enough to be on this list, but Rasputin can be moved to political or religious leaders, and Nostradamus can be moved to authors or philosophers pbp 23:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nostradamus was not a philosopher, he was a charlatan. I tend to agree that room could be made for Rasputin (also a charlatan), but in what way was he a political or religious leader? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Rasputian was a monk and a political advisor to the Romanovs in addition to being a faith-healer. And as for Nostradamus, the fact that he was a charlatan isn't of the greatest relevance. This list has criminals, authors of fiction, and political/military leaders who ordered genocides; it can hardly be said that questions of morality/judgment get them off this list. I don't like Nostradamus; I think he's overrated; but the fact is that people have been reading and believing his End times (which, I hate to say it, probably should be on this list) prophecies for hundreds of years. I believe him to have made a more meaningful contribution to world history than, say, Julius Erving, Joe Namath, or Mario Lemieux pbp 00:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Name one political decision that Rasputian influenced. It was only the Czarina that bought his BS. What meaningful contribution did Nostradamus make? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He wrote a book that thousands of people have been reading for hundreds of years! Seems a lot more significant than having a big 'fro and laying down dunks pbp 04:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. I suggested that a proper list of the greatest and/or most notable basketball players should/would include Dr. J., in fact, your's is the only one I have ever seen that didn't. I would concede that we could add Nostradamous as an author, albeit a terrible addition in light of the great author you will remove to add him. IMO, the whole "Psychics and mystics" section should go before any of the other changes you are proposing are acted on. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's cuz most of the lists you were reading had more than five players; this list does not need more than five NBA players. I usually see Julius Erving as 10-15, never in the top five. And with regard to "great authors", have you seen some of the recent authors on that list? If we drop non-notable, recency-biased articles (like the other five crackpots on this list), we won't have to drop another author to keep Nostradamus pbp 04:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion, Religious figures (or scientific for that matter) could all be thought of as charlatans or liars if you do not hold the same belief as them. To an atheist Moses and Jesus may be charlatans, or to a Christian, Darwin may be thought of as a charlatan. For that reason Rasputin maybe, Nostradamus probably be in here. The argument they were not correct cannot really be used in this instance. For an atheist Moses and Jesus were just talking rubbish, but one probably wouldn't campaign for their removal. What is agreed on more (maybe) is the impact they had on history culture and the world, not whether they may have led people on or not. Carlwev (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Which sub-list and why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We said why several times...because he wrote a book that's widely read, and has been since his lifetime pbp 17:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so authors for Nostradamus? Sure, I would support your actions if you went ahead and added him in there for another author, and nuked the rest of this ridiculous section. I still don't see where Rasputin would belong though, he wasn't a political or religious leader, he was a cult leader. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

An accurate count/Fictional characters

Perhaps we should attempt to get an accurate count before we decide how many of which articles should be removed. For all we know, we might be at 10,500, or 9,999, but until the individual sections are accurately counted, we won't know. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we trim out several of these, including:

1. Easter Bunny
2. Tooth Fairy
3. Gandalf
4. Harry Potter
5. Uncle Scrooge

Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral on #1 and #2. For #3, we have both Frodo and Gandalf, but I think I'd drop Frodo instead. Likewise, we don't need both Scrooge and Donald, so support #5. And I hate to say it, but Oppose #4. Harry Potter is, for good or ill, the most influential fictional character of my lifetime (23 years, 7 months). The other day, I was walking to class, and I passed some kids. They were playing Muggle Quidditch. If we're culling fictional characters, I think we can do to use a few superheroes. The last time I edited that part of the fictional characters section (which was a cull; it was significantly smaller then), it was only Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Wonder Woman. I think that's really all we need. pbp 00:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

These for a start should not be in bios, . Someone like Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, Gandalf should in art with works of literature, Superman, Spider-Man in art under comics. I have expresses before I don't think some works of fiction need mentioning some way or another several times. (I have deleted some of these already). At one point we had Star Trek, United Federation of Planets, Capt Kirk, and Spock, 4 articles for the same franchise, (but we have never had it's creator Gene Roddenberry). We also have/had Lord of the Rings the book and the films, Middle Earth and Frodo and Gandalf along with Tolkien, several articles for one work of fiction. Again, Star Wars and Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. I believe maybe Star Wars is good but maybe not the characters, same for Star Trek and Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter only has one appearance and as much as I dislike him, he is popular and I would remove articles which mention the same franchise/work several times before him. In art, in "fictional worlds" there are many that I believe are already covered and so are redundant also, we have Camelot (plus King Arthur, in another section), Middle Earth (plus LotR), Land of Oz (plus the movie), Narnia (plus the book), Lilliput and Blefuscu (plus Gulliver's Travels). I already removed United Federation of Planets and Metropolis (comics), the ones I mentioned can probably all go. I would remove Gandalf and Frodo as already have the book, probably Scrooge McDuck, maybe Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny. Bt not Harry Potter. Carlwev (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like Harry Potter is immune from recency concerns, which seems a bit odd, considering the first book came out less than 15 years ago, and as such its perhaps the most recent topic we've discussed. Yet somehow pop-culture is giving the topic weight ... hmmmm. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Journalists

The list of journalists is too Western. Nobody from outside of the West? Crtew (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Please offer some suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Criminals, magicians

There was some mention of deleting the criminals and magicians subsections above. While I support the sections being deleted, I believe the following four should be folded into other sections:

1. Osama bin Laden. The unfortunaate fact is that he is the most influential figure of the 21st century thus far. Can be folded into activists.
2. Harry Houdini. We should probably keep a single magician, and Houdini was the most notable entertainer of any stripe a century ago. He's also notable for his association with the occult
3. Guy Fawkes. He's a British folk hero. Can be folded into activists.
4. Al Capone. Can be folded into businessmen

Thoughts? pbp 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Great suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What's happening to this list?

This list is currently 318 articles over 10,000, which means 318 articles need to be trimmed out. How did this get so out of hand with such diligent watchers? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't dilligently watched; and people have been adding a few articles here and there over time (I admit that I am guilty of this), and suddenly, we're 300 over. pbp 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So, its wrong when I add articles to level 3 (which is currently well under the 1000 article limit), but if you want to add them to a list that is 318 article over the limit, then that's fine. I'm confused. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's 3 percent over, and usually I discuss them... Also, a number of the one's I've added recently were ones you added to Lv. 3 pbp 00:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(That 30% was a typo) You sound like a statistician. Yes, its only 3% over, but that translates to 318 articles! I'll ask again, why did you feel the need to stop my additions to a list that was under the limit, while you allowed and contributed to additions to this list that is 318 articles over the limit? We had better start these discussions soon, because this could take a couple of years to hammer out a consensus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question. - Has anyone recently verified that this list is at 10,318? If so, how was this accomplished? A tally of the section totals is not always accurate. I determined the current L3 tally by counting each individual sub-list, not just the section totals. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I updated that the other day, I just added the tally at the top of each page. I didn't go through and verify each individual section. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your effort Nick! FWIW, when I went through each of the L3 sections, I found several sub-tallies that were not accurate, some were off by as many as 5-10. I'm certainly not attempting to task anyone to count the L4s (I wouldn't do it, and there should be a bot for that anyway), but we may not have an accurate count at this time, like we do at L3. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias

If the article in the title was looking for examples, this would be a perfect one. Many of Wikipedia's systemic biases are on glorious display here.

I recommend that everyone proposing additions or deletions here read the article Wikipedia:Systemic bias, thoroughly, right through to where you will see "Read about the perspectives and issues of concern to others. Attempt to represent these in your editing. Invite others to edit. Be respectful of others. Work to understand your own biases and avoid reflecting them in your editing. Avoid topics or discussions where you expect that you are biased, or where you don't wish to make the effort to overcome those biases."

This could mean NOT proposing players of your favourite sport. Find someone from a sport you've never heard of to nominate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100%; this is way too 20th century, global north and Sports/Entertainment oriented: That's why I proposed culling the athletes section (i.e. dropping 20 baseball players and 5 basketball players) above. If you agree with culling in the area, which it sounds like you do, go ahead and participate. pbp 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1) Wikipedia:Systemic bias is an essay. "Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." 2) It relates to articles, not this list, which isn't an article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say in the guidelines, "This doesn't apply to project pages"? pbp 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines". If they are not policies or guidelines, then why would it apply? Per Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy and Wikipedia:Essays are not policy: "It is not a good idea to quote essays—including this one—as though they are Wikipedia approved policy. Essays can be written without much—if any—debate, as opposed to Wikipedia policy that has been thoroughly vetted. Giving a link to an essay without explanation risks misrepresenting it as more than it is—the opinion of one or more editors." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, those themselves are essays, so they could be summarily discounted as well, as your quote reveals. Anyway, two people think there's systemic bias in this; only you don't. I don't understand why you feel obligated to post three or four replies to every single comment I make; this appears to be some brinkmanship game to you rather than actually improving the list. pbp 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF (an actual guideline). Do you really think that I would have manually counted 2243 articles last night if I didn't want to improve the list? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc - Yes, it's clear that you want to make this a great article. It's also obvious that certain cultures are represented far more than others. Even these discussions are distorted. The heading "Formal proposal to cut athletes to 100" is actually talking about sports people, not athletes, if we are to use a global perspective, where athletes are only people who do athletics, not all sports, as in North America. And any reference here to hockey, without adding "ice" in front, is again North American. Given Wikipedia usage, it's positively confusing. I come from Australia, a country obsessed with sport, but there's not a lot of Australians in the list. If I stuck to the guidelines in Wikipedia:Systemic bias I would ignore that fact and propose a player of European handball. When I see all those players of American football, rather than proposing some players of Australian football, I might hunt out someone who played Gaelic football. This is a very difficult project. Don't leave it with its North American bias. And please don't dismiss constructive suggestions made in good faith. I didn't say "take Wikipedia:Systemic bias as an absolute set of rules". I suggested reading it, which it seems you have done, so that's good. HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, according to this website, the top-ten most popular sports in the world are:

1. Association football
2. Cricket
3. Tennis
4. Baseball
5. Basketball
6. Table tennis
7. Hockey
8. Volley ball
9. Rugby
10. Golf

As far as I can tell, we currently have no representatives of Table tennis, Volley ball, or Rugby. Also, I don't see any reps for field hockey, only ice hockey. Perhaps adding a few from these neglected sports and removing a few from others that are overrepresented (baseball, auto racing, and cycling come to mind), would be a good start. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We had an Edit conflict when I made my post two above. That's an interesting list you've just posted. I would note that it excludes American football and boxing, not hugely popular outside North America. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why I've proposed cutting a lot from baseball and Am. football. There's been a little pushback on Am. football, no comment on baseball. I think that athletes in general are overrepresented on this list, and athletes from American sports are way overrepresented. I think that the top four sports, plus track and field, are the only sports that deserve more than five sportsmen on this list, and 100 total is the right number pbp 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, American football is the real problematic one. It's simply not played at a high level outside America. To my knowledge there is no international competition. Yes, I know it's huge inside the US now, but that wasn't always the case. Baseball was the iconic American game until maybe three quarters of the way through the 20th century, hence the game has spread much more than American football. I don't know how we can handle American football. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, there is an international competition for both men and women for American football. On the flipside, no one gives a crap about it with the event receiving very little media coverage. Despite having a world championships, I suspect most players would struggle to pass WP:GNG. And yeah, that list has systematic bias. I think it would be better to fold it into other football codes including Aussie rules, international rules, Canadian football, Gaelic football and touch football. --LauraHale (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought a bit before about adding players from unrepresented team sports, but didn't get around to posting before. For rugby, I think Gareth Edwards is the most obvious player to nominate, and my second pick would be Jonah Lomu. I know something about rugby, while I don't know much about field hockey or volleyball. Still, it seems to me there should be at least one player from each of these sports. From internet research only Dhyan Chand seemed like he might be a good pick for field hockey.--Rsm77 (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Field hockey barely survived getting the cut from the Olympic program. My inclination, with an understanding that I have an Australian perspective, would be to put Nova Peris as a field hockey representative if there was one: She was the first Australian Aboriginal to win a medal at the Olympic Games. (She beat Cathy Freeman by one cycle. Peris's impact is still felt when talking about Aboriginal sport participation in Australia and she remains a figure in Australian culture, namely with the recent political stuff.) I am more convinced of a desire to whack down Gridiron to "All other footy codes other than football/soccer" than I am to add more sports, because at that point, you begin to need rather good sport historians to talk about them and need them from a more internationally focused perspective. (Which gets hard based on sourcing, because most sport books are written from a national perspective based on dominant sporting codes in those countries.) Tom Wills should be on the list for footy stuff for Australian rules, and yes, he should be added at the expense of an American footballer. Heck, Dwight D. Eisenhower should probably be on the list for American football given his large impact on the game, which changed radically because of safety rules implemented. Sports people should not be on there for their accomplishments alone, but for how they shaped the totality of the game. --LauraHale (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's probably correct, in that we should balance out the few people we have from Am. Football with a few people from field hockey and Aus. football. FYI, I believe Ike is in political leaders, as is Teddy Roosevelt, who also had a major effect on the playing and regulation of sports (both those men have entries in the ESPN Sports Almanac) pbp 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any massive need for Australian rules footballers myself, as there is extremely limited interest outside Australia. Surely rugby union is more significant.Rsm77 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wills is not a player persay. There is extensive research that suggests he is the father of the game and akin to James Naismith for Basketball and Ludwig Guttman for the Paralympics. The importance of the Australian rules game is in understanding Australian culture in the same way that understanding rugby union v association football explains some class and social and regional differences in the UK. I do not think I would include more than one person from AFL or Gaelic football. --LauraHale (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• HiLo48, pbp, and Laura, no offense, but you do not seem to understand what Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is attempting to do. 1) the templates relate to articles, i.e. "The examples and perspective in this article". 2) You keep using this project page (is it a guideline, policy or essay?) as a reason to remove American content, however; what the page actually says is: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is 'What haven't we covered yet?', rather than 'how should we change the existing coverage?'" You are misrepresenting what the page actually says, and you keep using it as a reason for removal of American topics, something the page expressly discourages. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, it doesn't encourage deleting or gutting articles because they're American. Taking an article off this list doesn't take away its GNG; I doubt if ever any of the removed articles will be nominated for deletion successfully. But the logical next step once everything is covered is, "what is deserving of being covered in more detail?" The theoretical goal of this project is to get all 10,000 articles to GA or FA. And Wikipedia wouldn't be well-served if GAs and FAs of important topics were disproportionately American (which, actually, they are), and if Start- and Stub-Class articles of important topics were disproportionately Asian and African. pbp 01:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I assume that you are aware of the other Wikipedia projects in other languages? Per Wikipedia:Vital articles: "This list is tailored to the English Wikipedia", and the US is the most populous English speaking nation on Earth. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I have edited the French Vital list. There are Americans on the French one, likewise there should be Frenchmen (and people from many other cultures as well) on this one. Again, to reiterate: if things were proportional, American civilization (which has only existed for 405 years and currently represents 5% of the world's population) should have maybe 50-60 bios. They have several hundred now; even with the cuts I and others propose, it will still be over 200. There's a limit to how disproportionally American this list should be. We have reached that limit and exceed it; it's time to backtrack pbp 02:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Modern", "Early Modern"

People use the terms "Modern" and "Early Modern" to divide large subsections of history and biography. From what I can ascertain, is it:

• Early Modern = Renaissance-1815
• Modern = 1815-Present

Is that about right? pbp 16:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW: Core biographies

Name	Date of birth	Date of death	Age	Country of birth	Country of death	Occupation	I
Aeschylus	525 BC	456 BC	68–69	Greece	Italy	Writer	Y
Akbar	October 24, 1542	October 12, 1605	62	Pakistan	India	Politician	Y
Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī	780	850	69–70	Uzbekistan	Iraq	Scientist	Y
Alexander the Great	July 20, 356 BC	June 10, 323 BC	32	Greece	Iraq	Politician
Muhammad Ali	January 17, 1942	—	82	United States	—	Sportsperson	Y
Dante Alighieri	May 14, 1265	September 13, 1321	56	Italy	Italy	Writer
Thomas Aquinas	January 28, 1225	March 7, 1274	49	Italy	Italy	Theologian
Archimedes	287 BC	212 BC	74–75	Italy	Italy	Scientist
Aristotle	384 BC	322 BC	61–62	Greece	Greece	Philosopher
Attila	406	453	46–47	Hungary	Hungary	Politician
W. H. Auden	February 21, 1907	September 29, 1973	66	United Kingdom	Austria	Writer
Augustine of Hippo	November 13, 354	August 28, 430	75	Algeria	Algeria	Theologian
Augustus	January 16, 63 BC	August 19, 14	77	Italy	Italy	Politician
Jane Austen	December 16, 1775	July 18, 1817	41	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Writer
Charles Babbage	December 26, 1791	October 18, 1871	79	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Johann Sebastian Bach	March 21, 1685	July 28, 1750	65	Germany	Germany	Artist	Y
Francis Bacon	January 22, 1561	April 9, 1626	65	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Philosopher
Mikhail Baryshnikov	January 28, 1948	—	76	Russia	—	Artist	Y
The Beatles	February 25, 1943	December 8, 1980	37	United Kingdom	United States	Artist
Ludwig van Beethoven	December 16, 1770	March 26, 1827	56	Germany	Australia	Artist
Alexander Graham Bell	March 3, 1847	August 2, 1922	75	United Kingdom	Canada	Scientist
Otto von Bismarck	April 1, 1815	July 30, 1898	83	Germany	Germany	Politician
Simón Bolívar	July 24, 1783	December 17, 1830	47	Venezuela	Colombia	Politician
Jorge Luis Borges	August 24, 1899	June 14, 1986	86	Argentina	Switzerland	Writer
Gautama Buddha	563 BC	483 BC	79–80	Nepal	India	Theologian
Edmund Burke	January 12, 1729	July 9, 1797	68	Ireland	United Kingdom	Philosopher
Lord Byron	January 22, 1788	April 19, 1824	36	United Kingdom	Greece	Writer
Julius Caesar	July 12, 100 BC	March 15, 44 BC	55	Italy	Italy	Politician
Cai Lun	50	121	70–71	China	China	Scientist
John Calvin	July 10, 1509	May 27, 1564	54	France	Switzerland	Theologian
Catherine the Great	April 21, 1729	November 17, 1796	67	Poland	Russia	Politician
Miguel de Cervantes	September 29, 1547	April 23, 1616	68	Spain	Spain	Writer
Charlemagne	April 2, 742	January 28, 814	71	Belgium	Germany	Politician
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor	February 24, 1500	September 21, 1558	58	Belgium	Spain	Politician
Charlie Chaplin	April 16, 1889	December 25, 1977	88	United Kingdom	Switzerland	Artist
Christopher Columbus	August 1451	May 20, 1506	54–55	Italy	Spain	Politician
Winston Churchill	November 30, 1874	January 24, 1965	90	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Politician
Cleopatra VII	January 69 BC	August 12, 30 BC	38–39	Egypt	Egypt	Politician
Columba	December 7, 521	June 9, 597	75	Ireland	United Kingdom	Theologian
Confucius	September 28, 551 BC	479 BC	71–72	China	China	Philosopher
Constantine the Great	February 27, 272	May 22, 337	65	Serbia	Turkey	Politician
Nicolaus Copernicus	February 19, 1473	May 24, 1543	70	Poland	Poland	Scientist
Hernán Cortés	1485	December 2, 1547	61–62	Spain	Spain	Politician
Marie Curie	November 7, 1867	July 4, 1934	66	Poland	France	Scientist
Cyrus the Great	590 BC	529 BC	60–61	Iran	Uzbekistan	Politician
Louis Daguerre	November 18, 1787	July 10, 1851	63	France	France	Scientist
Charles Darwin	February 12, 1809	April 19, 1882	73	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
René Descartes	March 31, 1596	February 11, 1650	53	France	Sweden	Philosopher
Charles Dickens	February 7, 1812	June 9, 1870	58	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Writer
Walt Disney	December 5, 1901	December 15, 1966	65	United States	United States	Artist
Fyodor Dostoyevsky	November 11, 1821	February 9, 1881	59	Russia	Russia	Writer
Frederick Douglass	February 1818	February 20, 1895	76–77	United States	United States	Politician
Thomas Edison	February 11, 1847	October 18, 1931	84	United States	United States	Scientist
Albert Einstein	March 14, 1879	April 18, 1955	76	Germany	United States	Scientist
T. S. Eliot	September 26, 1888	January 4, 1965	76	United States	United Kingdom	Writer
Elizabeth I of England	September 7, 1533	March 24, 1603	69	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Politician
Euclid	300 BC	250 BC	49–50	Egypt	Egypt	Scientist
Leonhard Euler	April 15, 1707	September 18, 1783	76	Switzerland	Russia	Scientist
Michael Faraday	September 22, 1791	August 25, 1867	75	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Pierre de Fermat	August 17, 1601	January 12, 1665	63	France	France	Scientist
Henry Ford	July 30, 1863	April 7, 1947	83	United States	United States	Scientist
Francis of Assisi	September 26, 1181	October 3, 1226	45	Italy	Italy	Theologian
Benjamin Franklin	January 17, 1706	April 17, 1790	84	United States	United States	Politician
Frederick the Great	January 24, 1712	August 17, 1786	74	Germany	Germany	Politician
Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor	December 26, 1194	December 13, 1250	55	Italy	Italy	Politician
Sigmund Freud	May 6, 1856	September 23, 1939	83	Czech Republic	United Kingdom	Scientist
Galileo Galilei	February 15, 1564	January 8, 1642	77	Italy	Italy	Scientist
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi	October 2, 1869	January 30, 1948	78	India	India	Politician
Carl Friedrich Gauss	April 30, 1777	February 23, 1855	77	Germany	Germany	Scientist
Genghis Khan	1162	1227	64–65	Mongolia	China	Politician
Edward Gibbon	April 27, 1737	January 16, 1794	56	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Politician
Giotto	1267	January 8, 1337	69–70	Italy	Italy	Artist
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe	August 28, 1749	March 22, 1832	82	Germany	Germany	Writer
Vincent van Gogh	March 30, 1853	July 29, 1890	37	Netherlands	France	Artist
Mikhail Gorbachev	March 2, 1931	—	93	Russia	—	Politician
Brothers Grimm	February 24, 1786	December 16, 1859	73	Germany	Germany	Writer
Che Guevara	May 14, 1928	October 9, 1967	39	Argentina	Bolivia	Politician
Johannes Gutenberg	1400	February 3, 1468	67–68	Germany	Germany	Scientist
Hammurabi	1810 BC	1750 BC	59–60	Iraq	Iraq	Politician	Y
Hannibal	247 BC	183 BC	63–64	Tunisia	Turkey	Politician
Stephen Hawking	January 8, 1942	—	82	United Kingdom	—	Scientist	Y
Ernest Hemingway	July 21, 1899	July 2, 1961	61	United States	United States	Writer
Henry II of England	March 25, 1133	July 6, 1189	56	France	France	Politician
Henry VIII of England	June 28, 1491	January 28, 1547	55	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Politician
Heraclius	575	February 11, 641	65–66	Turkey	Turkey	Politician
Herodotus	484 BC	425 BC	58–59	Turkey	Italy	Writer
Hippocrates	460 BC	370 BC	89–90	Greece	Greece	Scientist
Alfred Hitchcock	August 13, 1899	April 29, 1980	80	United Kingdom	United States	Artist
Adolf Hitler	April 20, 1889	April 30, 1945	56	Austria	Germany	Politician
Ho Chi Minh	May 19, 1890	September 2, 1969	79	Vietnam	Vietnam	Politician
Thomas Hobbes	April 5, 1588	December 4, 1679	91	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Philosopher
Homer	800 BC	750 BC	49–50	Turkey	Greece	Writer
Victor Hugo	February 26, 1802	May 22, 1885	83	France	France	Writer
David Hume	April 26, 1711	August 25, 1776	65	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Philosopher
Henrik Ibsen	March 20, 1828	May 23, 1906	78	Norway	Norway	Writer
Ivan the Terrible	August 25, 1530	March 18, 1584	53	Russia	Russia	Politician
James Joyce	February 2, 1882	January 13, 1941	58	Ireland	Switzerland	Writer
Thomas Jefferson	April 13, 1743	July 4, 1826	83	United States	United States	Politician
Jesus	7 BC	26	32–33	Israel	Israel	Theologian
Joan of Arc	1412	May 30, 1431	18–19	France	France	Theologian
Michael Jordan	February 17, 1963	—	61	United States	—	Sportsperson
Franz Kafka	July 3, 1883	June 3, 1924	40	Austria	Austria	Writer
Immanuel Kant	April 22, 1724	February 12, 1804	79	Germany	Germany	Philosopher
Johannes Kepler	December 27, 1571	November 15, 1630	58	Germany	Germany	Scientist
John Maynard Keynes	June 5, 1883	April 21, 1946	62	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Søren Kierkegaard	May 5, 1813	November 11, 1855	42	Denmark	Denmark	Philosopher
Martin Luther King, Jr.	January 15, 1929	April 4, 1968	39	United States	United States	Theologian
Akira Kurosawa	March 23, 1910	September 6, 1998	88	Japan	Japan	Artist
Laozi	400 BC	350 BC	49–50	China	China	Philosopher
Antoine Lavoisier	August 26, 1743	May 8, 1794	50	France	France	Scientist
Bruce Lee	November 27, 1940	July 20, 1973	32	United States	China	Artist	Y
Gottfried Leibniz	July 1, 1646	November 14, 1716	70	Germany	Germany	Philosopher
Vladimir Lenin	April 10, 1870	January 21, 1924	53	Russia	Russia	Politician
Leonardo da Vinci	April 15, 1452	May 2, 1519	67	Italy	France	Artist
Abraham Lincoln	February 12, 1809	April 15, 1865	56	United States	United States	Politician
Carl Linnaeus	May 13, 1707	January 10, 1778	70	Sweden	Sweden	Scientist
Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister	April 5, 1827	February 10, 1912	84	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
John Locke	August 29, 1632	October 28, 1704	72	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Philosopher
Louis XIV of France	September 5, 1638	September 1, 1715	76	France	France	Politician
Martin Luther	November 10, 1483	February 18, 1546	62	Germany	Germany	Theologian
Niccolò Machiavelli	May 3, 1469	June 21, 1527	58	Italy	Italy	Philosopher
Ferdinand Magellan	1480	April 27, 1521	40–41	Portugal	Philippines	Politician
Thomas Robert Malthus	February 13, 1766	December 23, 1834	68	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Nelson Mandela	June 18, 1918	—	106	South Africa	—	Politician
Mao Zedong	December 26, 1893	September 9, 1976	82	China	China	Politician
Guglielmo Marconi	April 25, 1874	July 20, 1937	63	Italy	Italy	Scientist
Karl Marx	May 5, 1818	March 14, 1883	64	Germany	United Kingdom	Philosopher
James Clerk Maxwell	June 13, 1831	November 5, 1879	48	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Gregor Mendel	July 20, 1822	January 6, 1884	61	Austria	Austria	Scientist
Michelangelo	March 6, 1475	February 18, 1564	88	Italy	Italy	Artist
John Milton	December 9, 1608	November 8, 1674	65	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Artist
Claude Monet	November 14, 1840	December 5, 1926	86	France	France	Artist
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	January 27, 1756	December 5, 1791	35	Austria	Czech Republic	Artist
Muhammad	570	June 8, 632	61–62	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabia	Theologian
Benito Mussolini	July 29, 1883	April 28, 1945	61	Italy	Italy	Politician
Napoleon	August 15, 1769	May 5, 1821	51	France	United Kingdom	Politician
Isaac Newton	January 4, 1643	March 31, 1727	84	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Friedrich Nietzsche	October 15, 1844	August 25, 1900	55	Germany	Germany	Philosopher
J. Robert Oppenheimer	April 22, 1904	February 18, 1967	62	United States	United States	Scientist
Jesse Owens	September 12, 1913	March 31, 1980	66	United States	United States	Sportsperson
Blaise Pascal	June 19, 1623	August 19, 1662	39	France	France	Scientist
Louis Pasteur	December 27, 1822	September 28, 1895	72	France	France	Scientist
Paul the Apostle		64	63–64	Turkey	Italy	Theologian
Linus Pauling	February 28, 1901	August 19, 1994	93	United States	United States	Scientist
Pelé	October 23, 1940	—	83	Brazil	—	Sportsperson
Peter the Great	May 30, 1672	February 8, 1725	52	Russia	Russia	Politician
Philip II of Spain	May 21, 1527	September 13, 1598	71	Spain	Spain	Politician
Pablo Picasso	October 25, 1881	April 8, 1973	91	Spain	France	Artist
Max Planck	April 23, 1858	October 4, 1947	89	Germany	Germany	Scientist
Plato	424 BC	348 BC	75–76	Greece	Greece	Philosopher
Edgar Allan Poe	January 19, 1809	October 7, 1849	40	United States	United States	Writer
Marco Polo	September 15, 1254	January 9, 1324	69	Italy	Italy	Politician
Ezra Pound	October 30, 1885	November 1, 1972	87	United States	Italy	Writer
Elvis Presley	January 8, 1935	August 16, 1977	42	United States	United States	Artist
Marcel Proust	July 10, 1871	November 18, 1922	51	France	France	Writer
Ptolemy	83	161	77–78	Egypt	Egypt	Scientist
Pythagoras	580 BC	500 BC	79–80	Greece	Italy	Scientist
Qin Shi Huang	259 BC	September 10, 210 BC	48–49	China	China	Politician
Raphael	April 6, 1483	April 6, 1520	37	Italy	Italy	Artist
Rembrandt	July 15, 1606	October 4, 1669	63	Netherlands	Netherlands	Artist
Jackie Robinson	January 31, 1919	October 24, 1972	53	United States	United States	Sportsperson
Auguste Rodin	November 12, 1840	November 17, 1917	77	France	France	Artist
Franklin D. Roosevelt	January 30, 1882	April 12, 1945	63	United States	United States	Politician
Jean-Jacques Rousseau	June 28, 1712	July 2, 1778	66	Switzerland	France	Philosopher
Babe Ruth	February 6, 1895	August 16, 1948	53	United States	United States	Sportsperson
Ernest Rutherford	August 30, 1871	October 19, 1937	66	New Zealand	United Kingdom	Scientist
Saladin	1137	March 4, 1193	55–56	Iraq	Syria	Politician
Margaret Sanger	September 14, 1879	September 6, 1966	86	United States	United States	Politician
Walter Scott	August 15, 1771	September 21, 1832	61	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Writer
Shaka	1787	September 22, 1828	40–41	South Africa	South Africa	Politician
William Shakespeare	April 26, 1564	April 23, 1616	51	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Writer
Adam Smith	June 5, 1723	July 17, 1790	67	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Philosopher
Socrates	469 BC	399 BC	69–70	Greece	Greece	Philosopher
Joseph Stalin	December 18, 1878	March 5, 1953	74	Russia	Russia	Politician
Suleiman the Magnificent	November 6, 1494	September 5, 1566	71	Turkey	Hungary	Politician
Sun Tzu	544 BC	496 BC	47–48	China	China	Writer
Emperor Taizong of Tang	January 23, 599	July 10, 649	50	China	China	Politician
Mother Teresa	August 26, 1910	September 5, 1997	87	North Macedonia	India	Theologian
Nikola Tesla	July 10, 1856	January 7, 1943	86	Croatia	United States	Scientist
Henry David Thoreau	July 12, 1817	May 6, 1862	44	United States	United States	Writer
Thucydides	460 BC	395 BC	64–65	Greece	Greece	Writer
Timur	1336	February 19, 1405	68–69	Uzbekistan	Kazakhstan	Politician
Leo Tolstoy	August 28, 1828	November 20, 1910	82	Russia	Russia	Writer
Mark Twain	November 30, 1835	April 21, 1910	74	United States	United States	Writer
Giuseppe Verdi	October 9, 1813	January 27, 1901	87	Italy	Italy	Artist
Virgil	October 15, 70 BC	September 21, 19 BC	50	Italy	Italy	Writer
Voltaire	November 21, 1694	May 30, 1778	83	France	France	Writer
Andy Warhol	August 6, 1928	February 22, 1987	58	United States	United States	Artist
George Washington	February 22, 1732	December 14, 1799	67	United States	United States	Politician
James Watt	January 19, 1736	August 19, 1819	83	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Scientist
Max Weber	April 21, 1864	June 14, 1920	56	Germany	Germany	Writer
Walt Whitman	May 31, 1819	March 26, 1892	72	United States	United States	Writer
William the Conqueror	1027	September 9, 1087	59–60	France	France	Politician
William Wordsworth	April 7, 1770	April 23, 1850	80	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Writer
Mary Wollstonecraft	April 27, 1759	September 10, 1797	38	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Writer
Wright brothers	August 19, 1871	May 30, 1912	40	United States	United States	Scientist
Frank Lloyd Wright	June 8, 1867	April 9, 1959	91	United States	United States	Artist
W. B. Yeats	June 13, 1865	January 28, 1939	73	Ireland	France	Writer
Zheng He	1371	1433	61–62	China	China	Politician
Zoroaster	1000 BC	950 BC	49–50	Uzbekistan	Afghanistan	Theologian	Y

Probably all 200 of this bios should be on this list. Note that out of the 200, there are only 6 (3%) athletes; therefore we should probably consider limiting our athletes to ~3-4% pbp 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so recentism and systemic bias don't apply here, but an argument to avoid in deletion discussions does? pbp 01:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Deep analysis/Missing from this list

Most of the 200 core bios are on this list. This includes:

• 28 writers (20 of which are from after 1800)
• 45 leaders (9 ancient, 8 medieval, 14 early modern, 14 modern)
• 4 activists
• 4 explorers
• 3 military leaders/tacticians
• 36 in the fields of science and math (5 ancients, 11 physicists, 3 chemists, 4 biologists, 7 inventors, 5 mathematicians and a computer scientist)
• 17 philosophers
• 9 historians or social scientists
• 8 religious figures (5 from Christianity)
• 6 sportspeople
• A single man of commerce (Henry Ford)
• 6 people associated with cinematic or dramatic arts
• 11 artists
• 6 musicians

However, the following 13 people were unlisted:

• W.H. Auden (Writer, UK/USA)
• Edmund Burke (Philosopher/Political Leader, IRE/UK)
• Cai Lun (Inventor of Paper, CHN)
• Columba (Religious Leader, UK/IRE)
• Louis Daguerre (Inventor of Photography, FRA)
• Frederick Douglass (Activist, USA)
• Henry II of England (World Leader)
• Joseph Lister (Surgeon, discovered antiseptic, UK)
• Ezra Pound (Poet, US/EUR)
• Ptolemy (Mathematician, GRE/EGY)
• Margaret Sanger (Activist, USA)
• Henry David Thoreau (Author/Philosopher, USA)
• William Wordsworth (Poet, UK)

I am inclined to believe that every single one of these people belong on this list. Thoughts? pbp 03:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, add away! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I support also. Thanks for working to internationalize this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography

Under the sub-list "Continent", we currently have "Americas" along with "North America" and "South America". Also, the list includes: "Eurasia" along with Europe and Asia. So once again, if you take a look at almost any section of the VA/E list you will find some rather obvious redundancies. Perhaps we should go through each section and trim out the most obvious excess before spending anymore time debating whether to include 5 or 7 American footballers. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• For another example of excess, look at "Oceans and seas" (70 articles). There are currently 65 sub-seas listed under 5 oceans. Surely a dozen or so of these could be trimmed out, such as: Irish Sea, Koro Sea, Sulu Sea and many, many others. It would seem the list is attempting to be comprehensive, and not that concerned about how vital an article is to the project. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: North and South America are notable regions, as is Eurasia. These are hardly the least notable of regions; Massachusetts is on this list! Many of those seas on this list are notable independent of the oceans the are arms, they're certainly more notable than some dude who threw a pig bladder around for a few year. I'm also a bit disturbed that each of the seas or regions you've proposed to drop are non-American, which makes the globalization problems worse rather than ameliorating them. pbp 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

More of your personal opinions masquerading as facts. Per your above comment: "they're certainly more notable than some dude who threw a pig bladder around for a few year". Ask any given person who Joe Montana is, then ask them where the Koro Sea is. Anyway, I thought this wasn't about notability, which, according to you, is subject to recentism. Are you using the term "notable" here as a synonym of "vital"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) That's inaccurate, because if you were to ask anybody outside the U.S. or Canada, they probably wouldn't even know what American football even is, let alone who Joe Montana. Sounds like more personal opinion, personal opinion clouded by U.S.-centrism. Its also your own personal opinion that the Koro Sea is redundant to an ocean. Oh, but I forgot, personal opinion is OK, so long as its your personal opinion, not mine. pbp 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Those were just random examples, sorry if they weren't the best. I'm sure there are a few better ones on the list, I was just trying to make a general point that if you absolutely insist on trimming out 250 bios for the primary reason that this list is over 10,000, then lets first take a look around at some other sections to see where a few dozen should be trimmed. Is that really such an unreasonable suggestion? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Cities" currently includes: 9 from Nigeria, 3 from Algeria, 7 from Egypt, 4 from Morocco, 3 from Sudan, 2 from Cameroon, and 2 from Ghana. In total, there are 68 cities listed from Africa (1 billion people, 14% of global population), which seems a bit much when you consider that the list includes 173 cites from the Asia (4,200,000,000 people, 59% of global population), and significantly more vital cites in terms of the global economy. Africa is currently allotted 16.1% of the cities list, and Asia 41%. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide an example of an important Asian city that isn't on this list. I'm not going to support getting rid of a bunch of African cities so we can keep Joe Montana and other American sports figures of marginal notability pbp 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The content of the cities list should not be competing with the content of the sports figures list, nor vice versa. They should stand on their own. We have magicians and criminals on the list, are they more important then sports heros? If so, why? You really need to read-up on logical fallacies in general, particularly the strawman argument. I thought this was about balance, but now its about which African city is less notable then Joe Montana. FTR, Pokémon, Donald Duck, Scrooge McDuck, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Gandalf, Harry Potter and Mickey Mouse are all on the list, yet somehow, they are immune from anti-recentism and anti-pop-culture arguments. Also, I don't think "notable" and "vital" are the same thing at all, but you seem to, I think you are wrong about that. Sure, there would be some overlap in a Venn diagram, but they are not synonymous despite your use of the terms interchangeably during these discussions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In terms of a Venn diagram, it'd be like this: Notable's a big circle. Vital-Level 4 is a smaller circle contained within notable. Vital-Level 3 is a smaller circle contained within Vital-Level 4. Of the pop culture people you've listed, some of them are some of the more notable items of pop culture; had you listed others, you would have found me in agreement with their deletion (and remember, I am for deleting Scrooge). And why can't various of your proposals be taken together, i.e. that you want to keep Joe Montana but delete something else to solve the over-10,000 problem? It's not a strawman, it's you: you want to keep Joe Montana but delete geographical features, indicating you view Joe Montana to be of more importance. I want to keep geographical features, but delete Joe Montana. I'm perfectly fine with all of my suggestions being taken as a whole, so should you pbp 02:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not at all about Joe Montana (is he competing with cereal, rice, or wheat, which are both subsumptive with grains BTW, an article not currently included on the list)? Can we please move on from the "it needs to be more notable then Joe Montana" argument? I was speaking in terms of a Wikipedia based Venn, not a purely logical one, but still, are "letter" and "furniture" more globally notable subjects then pop-culture stars? Or are they not so notable per se, but vital to the encyclopedic content of the project, or both? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As for magicians and criminals, we have nine total. Two of the criminals on this list are Al Capone and Osama bin-Laden, both of whom I'm sure you'd agree were pretty important. Meanwhile, nobody's thrown out a number for sports heroes that's less than 100. Therefore, sport heroes could be seen to be at least 11-12x as important than criminals and magicians pbp 02:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• China, with 19% of the total global population, has 35 cities listed, and India has 38 (17% of global population). However, Europe has 87 cites on the list, despite holding only about 10% of the total global population. China and India combined have 73 cites on the list (36% of global population) versus Europe's 87. In terms of the current weighting of the list, with 422 total cites listed, Chinese cities represent 8.3% of the list, India about 9%, and Europe about 20.6%. So, 36% of the global population is currently represented by 17.3% of the list, while 20.6% of the cites list is devoted to Europe, with only 10% of the world's population. This list lacks balance throughout, not just in the bios section, but not even especially in the bios section; other sections are even more off balance. If I am understanding pbp's logic, I think he would agree that at least 43 European cities should be cut from this list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, if only biographies were anywhere near that balanced! Actually, what is also shoving China and India out isn't just Europe, but is the rest of Asia. Asia and Africa combine for, as you noted above, 57% of the list. In the bios section, it isn't even a quarter. This is considerably more balanced than either biography or history, and I see no need for it to be any more. This is just an attempt to try and trip me up in some way, I won't stand for it. I repeat: "Name an Asian or African city that isn't on this list and should be". pbp 01:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's attempting to "trip you up". Chill-out a bit, you seem to be losing it man! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining recentism

Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "There are no 'set in stone' guidelines for WP:VITAL. Since it encompasses so many topics, a single overarching criterion for inclusion would be irresponsible. Over time, however, certain commonly held notions have become prevalent. This applies especially to the most frequently revised area, the People section."

• "Anti-recentism: of the 135 individuals currently in the People section, only two of the Beatles are still living. While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain."

It seems the only criteria suggested by this "guideline" are 1) that recent implies living, and 2) that living people "are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain". Which would seem to imply that if a living person's place is history is not at all difficult to ascertain, then this anti-recentism notion would not apply to them. I think we need to more clearly define what "recent" means in the context of WP:VITAL before we add/remove articles based on this vaguely defined concept. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, since WP:VA is a parent page of this, there's no need to have discussions both here and there. But to your point, I define recentism as an overemphasis on people and events that occurred after 1900 pbp 02:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is 1900 a number from a guideline or policy, or your own personal opinion? Remember, you've argued for the inclusion of Harry Potter, from a book series that started just 15 years ago (isn't that a pop-culture popularity argument?). I quote: "Harry Potter is ... the most influential fictional character of my lifetime." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, there are some pretty sensible reasons than "before/after 1900" makes more sense than "living". The practical implication of "living" would be to delete all the living people (that's half the actors, most of the athletes and many of the musicians), then fight over adding them back or not each time one of them dies (which would happen several times a year). Also, my suggestion doesn't outright forbid anybody after 1900, it suggests de-emphasizing things after 1900 in favor of things before 1900 (I.e. categories that are almost excusively composed of people and events after 1900 should be smaller; categories composed of both should have a better balance between before and after 1900). As for my lifetime, if there are 50 things in a category, it makes pretty good sense to have 1-2 of them from the last 25-50 years, and then the remaining 48-49 from the rest of history. And I see no reason why whether or not it's my opinion has any bearing on this; most of the things you've posited are nothing more than your opinion pbp 02:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that a person must have been born before 1900, or that they should have made their significant impact before 1900, in order to avoid recentism? Per your commment: "As for my lifetime, if there are 50 things in a category, it makes pretty good sense to have 1-2 of them from the last 25-50 years", the list which includes Harry Potter has 82 total entries. Are you saying that Harry Potter is a character from "literature", because J. K. Rowling (born 1965) is not even listed as a writer? Are you saying lists with 50+ entries are allowed to have 1-2 topics from the last 25-50 years, but no more than 1-2? Because many other "people" from that list with your hero Harry Potter are from the last 50 years, including: Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Mario and Pokémon. Are you suggesting that Harry Potter has been more globally influential during the last 50 years than Star Trek, Star Wars and Nintendo? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, 50 fictional characters seems like about the right number. And if the list spanned all of human history, there shouldn’t be that many from the late 20th and into the 21st century. For example, on the world leaders front, it's total overkill to have each of the last five U.S. presidents; in terms of religion, Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II are fine, but you don't need Jerry Falwell, Angelo Scola and Thomas S. Monson in addition to those two. Since this list really only deals with characters from since 1900, more than 1-2 can be added, meaning there’s room for Potter, Spock, Skywalker and the plumber (and, sorry, but a character from a franchise that sold over a billion books and then made over a billion dollars in its film franchise is in a league with Spock, Skywalker and the plumber). I believe that there really shouldn’t be a particular bias to a particular time period; were you to examine the fictional characters, you’d note that an inordinate number of fictional characters that debuted between 1919 and 1945. As for the “after 1900”, mostly I’m referring to significant work, and like I said, I never said, “cut everybody after 1900”, I said “there shouldn’t be an inordinate number of things after 1900” (and in lists that span all of human history, inordinate is more than ~25-30%). Oh, and in regard to your shot across my prow in the edit summary, “You added Harry Potter, didn’t you?”, I did NOT. TBH, I've made relatively few additions to the bios list, and can support each addition I've made with a logical argument. But asking that rhetorical question was unnecessary and you should not have done it. pbp 21:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain." I would say that Harry Potter's "age" of 15 years would certainly put him in this category. I predict that in ten years (hopefully less), you will look back and feel a bit embarrassed at the amount of praise you have given a fad that will soon pass. I think you like Potter because he came out when you were 8 years old, so you think its not as recent as someone twice your age might. Also, I thought you said record sales were not a "germane" factor in determining the popularity of rock music, why are book sales and box office receipts an important factor for the inclusion of Potter? FWIW, every 3 years more rock albums are sold in the US alone then total Harry Potter books ever sold globally, which is around 250-400 million, not 1 billion as you stated above. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On the Harry Potter fad

• "Ten Years Later, Harry Potter Vanishes From the Best-Seller List".
• "British Sanctuaries swamped by unwanted owls, post Harry Potter fad."
• "For many, of course, Harry Potter is just a passing fad, yet another in a long line of consumer crazes like Pet Rocks, Beanie Babies and, of late, Sudoku."

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Other "recent" topics to avoid from post-1900: Comics, Salvador Dalí, Alan Turing, Ernest Hemingway (1899), Neil Armstrong, Werner Heisenberg, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Soviet Union, Women's suffrage, World War I, World War II, Great Depression, The Holocaust, Cold War, Arab–Israeli conflict, Islamism, Korean War, Civil rights movement, Cultural Revolution, Space exploration, Revolutions of 1989, Modernism, Postmodernism, Popular culture, Folk music, Hip hop music, Jazz, Pop music, Rock music, Analytic philosophy, Video game, Environmentalism, Feminism (1894), Globalization, European Union, International Monetary Fund, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, NATO, Nobel Prize, United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, Pharmaceutical drug, Birth control, Antibiotic, Vaccine, HIV/AIDS, Big Bang, Black hole, Oceanography, Global warming, nuclear physics, quantum physics, Theory of relativity, Artificial intelligence, Biotechnology, Genetic engineering, Nanotechnology, Nuclear technology, Email, Internet, Mobile phone, Radio, Telecommunication, Telephone, Television, Video, World Wide Web, Global Positioning System, Solar energy, Integrated circuit, Semiconductor device, Transistor, Nuclear weapon, Tank, Jet engine, Magnetic resonance imaging, Moon landing, Rocket, Satellite, Hubble Space Telescope, Spaceflight, Space Shuttle, Space station, and International Space Station. All of these articles are currently included at VAL3. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

TLDR that laundry list...what's your point? That doesn't look to be 25-30% of the total entries, I didn't put any of them on the list, and I am not advocating for the removal of most of them. Also, a number of those things, such as vaccines, folk music and Women's suffrage began in the 19th century; the Big Bang began 14 billion years ago pbp 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is that your arbitrary demand that "everything post-1900 is recent" is ridiculous! Yes the Women's suffrage movement began in the late-19th century, but no country on Earth actually allowed women to vote until 1907. I meant modern vaccines, and folk music wasn't defined as such until the 20th century (of course it existed prior). Also, the topic of the Big Bang theory is from the 20th century, it still has not been definitively proven that it actually did occur, its still a theory, but the theory is that it occurred 13.77 billion years ago, not 14 million years ago as you stated above. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wyoming gave women the right to vote in the 19th century. Also, you're missing the forest for the trees. For the third or fourth time, I have NEVER said that EVERYTHING recent should be deleted, just that we shouldn't have half this list devoted to stuff that happened in the last hundred years. 1900 ain't going anywhere. On the other hand, people die every day. Therefore, I believe 1900 to be less arbitrary than living v. dead pbp 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I said no country gave women the vote until 1907, which is true. Anyway, according to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "Chronological diversity: the topics represent the entirety of human history." I assume "the entirety of human history" would include the last 113 years, not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Defining vital

Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "There are no 'set in stone' guidelines for WP:VITAL. Since it encompasses so many topics, a single overarching criterion for inclusion would be irresponsible."

During many of the above threads the terms "notable" and "vital" are being used almost interchangeably. According to Wikipedia:Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article ... Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject.

Per WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables ... There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not."

According to Wikipedia:Vital articles: "Vital articles is a list of basic subjects for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles, and ideally featured articles."

I think we need to more clearly define what notable means in the context of WP:VITAL, before we move forward with arbitrary cuts or adds. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close: There's a thread with the exact same text at WP:VA. Reply to that one instead. pbp 02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone who watches VAL3 also watches VA/E. Further, you are not proposing the removal of 250 articles at VAL3, as you are here, so there is no valid reason why this conversation cannot take place at both talk pages. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm up to 250 yet, and anyway, other people are proposing the removal of 25 articles (25/1000 = 250/10000) at WP:VA. And the answer to your question should be the same at both WP:VA and WP:VA/E, so there shouldn't be two different discussions with two different answers pbp 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Harry Potter a vital article?

Why is Harry Potter (15 years old) not subject to anti-recentism? Is it due to its popularity, sales, notability, influence on literature? Why? Seems like a very simple question that should be easy to answer. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Potter discussion

• Speedy close: This is the third such thread you've started about the removal of Harry Potter. First you proposed removing Harry Potter from this list; two people said "keep" him and nobody else said rmove him (no consensus for removal). Then, you started the "Defining notability" thread yesterday which appears to be aimed more at the inclusion of Harry Potter than at any other topic. Now this thread. Please stop beating a dead whore. pbp 23:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Why do you think you can "order" a "speedy close", how amusing. 2) This is the first thread I have ever started relating specifically to the removal of this quite recent pop-culture fad from this list. I want to know the justification for its inclusion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your below comment (I'm responding here so as to not badger your oppose statement): "I find it deplorable that Gabe is rehashing old ground after he lost the first time." 1) "deplorable" is a bit much wouldn't you say? 2) "after he lost the first time". I assume you are referring here to yours and Carl's !votes, but I think we need more then three people and 5 days to decide this one. Why not allow more editors to comment, what's your hurry? Afterall, the whole point of your attempt to trim the bios by 200+ is that there are too many bios. I think this one might be one too many. I think its safe to assume that you and I won't agree on this, so please, lets wait until others have weigh-in before declaring a consensus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I don't think Harry Potter is rock-solid. He is very recent, and it's difficult to judge his impact. If there was a move to reduce the number of people, I don't think he is completely safe. On the other hand, he probably has a better case than a lot of others on the list. I would agree sports players and entertainers could do with a little trimming. There seem to be a lot of comedians (Martin Short? Really?)--Rsm77 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Support inclusion of Harry Potter in the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded list.

# Per reasons delineated above. We've had this discussion above in the fictional characters thread (and again in the notablility thread), I find it deplorable that Gabe is rehashing old ground after he lost the first time pbp 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) On further consideration, Harry Potter isn't a dealbreaker for me. There are loads of other articles I am more invested in keep. I am changing "Neutral"

1. Not a notability issue but still around and still used in educational curriculum in many places. The series is not Twilight and is more akin to the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings for its longevity. --LauraHale (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support / weak keep, He is not my favourite and he is fairly recent but he is very popular and has a large franchise in books, movies and more. To not include him only because he was recent seems a bit of a weak argument; there are many articles that are from the same time or after Harry Potter appeared. With fiction I said before I wish we focused our attention on things that appear several times, rather than singling out things that appear once. Why is it OK to have LotR movies, and books and Middle Earth and Gandalf and Frodo Baggins, 5 articles about LotR but not a single one Potter at all. If we included Potter books and Movies and Character and Hogwarts and Dumbledore then I would agree to remove some. I have recently added to literature/books Fairy tale, Fantasy, Horror, Sci Fi, Childrens Lit, Romance, Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, quite important topics that were missing, there are more. I know we all want to make the list better but there is a lot of arguing about small niche topics about single articles, I think our attention and effort could be better spent, and we should try to find common ground. Carlwev (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of Harry Potter in the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded list.

1. Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain." Due to the character's extreme recency (15 years), Harry's Potter's place in history is nearly impossible to ascertain, and as such the article should be removed from this list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Harry Potter (character) as one of the most important articles on Wikipedia? Seriously? This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. I'm beginning to understand that old Bismarck quotation about laws and sausages. No, Harry Potter is too recent. Myspace used to be the biggest web site in the entire world, and now it's not even the punchline to jokes any more. Let's focus on the classics -- or, at least, that which is provably influential. Harry Potter hasn't even had enough time to be influential or notable! It's depressing that he even made it to the list, and it speaks to how oriented Wikipedia is toward faddish pop culture from the late 90s and early 2000s. The Harry Potter article itself notes that he's been getting onto "best character" polls lately, which is promising for his longevity, but he's not topping them. The character that's topping them should be on the list, if we're going solely by popularity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's suggested amended list of "actors" to 50 (currently 75)

Actors, 50

1. Fred Astaire
2. Amitabh Bachchan
3. Roberto Benigni
4. Humphrey Bogart
5. Marlon Brando
6. James Cagney
7. Charlie Chaplin
8. Gary Cooper
9. Daniel Day-Lewis (addition proposed by pbp)
10. James Dean
11. Robert De Niro
12. Gerard Depardieu
13. Kirk Douglas
14. Clint Eastwood
15. Douglas Fairbanks
16. Henry Fonda
17. Morgan Freeman
18. Clark Gable
19. David Garrick
20. John Gielgud
21. Cary Grant
22. Alec Guinness
23. Kamal Haasan
24. Charlton Heston
25. William Holden
26. Anthony Hopkins
27. Shintaro Katsu
28. Buster Keaton
29. Gene Kelly
30. Burt Lancaster
31. Charles Laughton
32. Bruce Lee
33. Christopher Lee
34. Harold Lloyd
35. Jean Marais
36. Ian McKellen
37. Toshiro Mifune
38. Robert Mitchum
39. Paul Newman
40. Jack Nicholson
41. Laurence Olivier
42. Gregory Peck
43. Sidney Poitier
44. Robert Redford
45. Paul Robeson (addition proposed by GabeMc)
46. Peter Sellers
47. James Stewart
48. Spencer Tracy
49. John Wayne
50. Orson Welles

Dropped from the list, 25

1. Kenneth Branagh
2. Walter Brennan
3. Richard Burbage
4. Michael Caine
5. Sean Connery
6. Tom Cruise
7. Mel Gibson
8. Johnny Depp
9. Leonardo DiCaprio
10. Philippe Noiret
11. Tom Hanks
12. Gene Hackman
13. Dustin Hoffman
14. Henry Irving
15. Derek Jacobi
16. Edmund Kean
17. Klaus Kinski
18. Marcello Mastroianni
19. Peter O’Toole
20. Al Pacino
21. Sean Penn
22. Michael Redgrave
23. Edward G. Robinson
24. Ralph Richardson
25. Arnold Schwarzenegger
26. Randolph Scott
27. John Travolta

This would trim 25 quick and easy. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Per Carl's logic far below. Lets slow down and allow other to give input. Support as nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As there are so many actors, it would be useful to have a list of the trimmed actors alongside for comparison.Rsm77 (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support in principle: glad somebody did the down-and-dirty on this. Not sure I agree with a couple of the drops (Mel Gibson shouldn't stay while Morgan Freeman goes), but do with most of them pbp 00:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support in principle:Agree with many of these choices, but the list needs some adjustment.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actor discussion

Mel Gibson is arguably the world's greatest living director and perhaps the most successful actor/director of all-time. I'm a big Morgan Freeman fan, but his accomplishments do not top Gibson's. Perhaps someone else should be removed in favour of Freeman. Any suggestions other than Gibson? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"The world's greatest living director"...not while Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee, Woody Allen, Ron Howard and Martin Scorsese are still living! He's a worse actor than Hanks or Freeman, and a worse director than all the men I just listed (and then some) pbp 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that there's no way that Robert De Niro should be cut from the list, with his major roles in The Godfather II, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, Once Upon a Time in America, and Goodfellas, among others.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree Rsm77, I've added De Niro and removed Gibson. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Three more points:

1. This list was and is skewed disproportionately toward film actors, and disproportionately against actors from other media. We should probably have a couple stage actors (Kenneth Branagh, who was dropped? Patrick Stewart? Edwin Booth for chrono diversity?)
2. Gerard Depardieu is widely considered the greatest actor of French cinema. We kept a couple other French actors, perhaps one of them should be dropped for Depardieu.
3. Daniel Day-Lewis probably should be on the list. He has three Best Actor Oscars. The other guys? Eh, not so much! pbp 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• PBP, please, go for it. Add who you you want and remove who you dislike from the list, if that means we can agree on one thing, I'll support whatever you do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On the three points above: 1) Edmund Kean was dropped from the list and he was a 19th century stage actor who has a case for staying. 3)I agree Daniel Day-Lewis has a good case.Rsm77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'll add them both now, if I can avoid an edit conflict. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, now I look again for point 1) David Garrick would probably be a more obvious choice than Kean.Rsm77 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe all the above concerns have now been addressed, except for the inclusion of Gerard Depardieu. Can anyone give some specific examples of who should be removed in his favour? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason for the inclusion of Randolph Scott.--Rsm77 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Great suggestion, I've now removed Scott and added Depardieu. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Full support as amended: pbp 03:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

One more change I'd like to see. I know something about Japanese cinema, and I don't think Shintaro Katsu is significant enough for this list. However, it would be a shame to replace him with an American or European actor. I have come up with some possible replacements:

1. Takashi Shimura is certainly famous - some might argue with including another Kurosawa collaborator alongside Mifune.
2. Chishu Ryu, a regular Ozu collaborator - but before or instead of adding him, I'd prefer to add Setsuko Hara to actresses, and certainly Yasujiro Ozu to directors!
3. Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, known for Hard-Boiled, Chungking Express, In the Mood for Love - but not sure if he is significant enough.
4. Jackie Chan, massively famous and influential - some might argue that with Bruce Lee already on the list, we don't need Jackie Chan as well - also maybe a question mark against his artistic credentials.

Personally my top pick from these would be Jackie Chan, followed by Takashi Shimura. Any thoughts from anyone else?--Rsm77 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I support Chan over Katsu. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we make this change then?--Rsm77 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should include Denzel Washington. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Although he is obviously a good actor, I feel it is difficult to see who he could replace on what is now a strong list. Having said this, I would like to put in Peter Sellers to replace Redgrave. Any reactions?--Rsm77 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I've now swapped out Redgrave for Sellers, great suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I also think the list should include Paul Robeson. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Paul Robeson has a strong case. Who would you like him to replace?--Rsm77 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I added Robeson and dropped Marcello Mastroianni. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I was going to suggest adding him in performers anyway. Support pbp 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done pbp 16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comedians to 25 (currently 41)

Since we're cutting actors by a third, perhaps it's time to cut comedians to a reasonable size as well. I propose them be chopped to 25. Here is my first draft:

1. Abbot and Costello
2. Woody Allen
3. Lucille Ball
4. Jack Benny
5. Mel Brooks
6. Carol Burnett
7. Burns and Allen
8. George Carlin
9. Bill Cosby
10. Billy Crystal
11. Larry David
12. Tina Fey Richard Pryor
13. Jackie Gleason
14. Whoopi Goldberg
15. Bob Hope
16. Laurel & Hardy
17. Jerry Lewis
18. Steve Martin
19. The Marx Brothers
20. Eddie Murphy
21. Monty Python
22. Bob Newhart
23. Will Rogers
24. Betty White
25. Robin Williams

Dropped, 16

1. John Belushi
2. Milton Berle
3. Lenny Bruce
4. Sid Caesar
5. Chevy Chase
6. Peter Cook
7. Benny Hill
8. Tom Lehrer
9. Lorne Michaels
10. Spike Milligan
11. Richard Pryor Tina Fey
12. Carl Reiner
13. Jennifer Saunders
14. Martin Short
15. Jerry Seinfeld
16. Lily Tomlin

pbp 16:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good overall. The only removals that I disagree with are :

• Milton Berle
• Lenny Bruce
• Richard Pryor

I suggest we instead remove:

• Benny Hill (as utter garbage)
• Tina Fey (far too recent)
• Whoopi Goldberg (as a generally weak entry)

• Also, I think we should add Mike Myers, as arguably the most commercially successful of all the SNL alums. I suggest we remove Billy Crystal or Robin Williams in favour of Myers. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine with Hill being dropped in favor of Berle, Bruce or Myers. Not fine with Whoopi being dropped or her being characterized as a "weak entry". She's hosted the Oscars four times, and is in the EGOT club. I'm a bit worried about dropping two women when this list is already mostly 20th century American white men; if I'm not mistaken, Whoopi is the only woman of color on this list. pbp 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so drop Hill, but if we want to get to 25 we will need to drop another to add back Berle. Drop Fey for Bruce? I can agree to leave Whoopi, but to include her, while excluding Richard Pryor, on the basis of gender and race diversity is shoddy logic, however; I agree that the EGOT is enough to keep her. Any thoughts on adding Mike Myers? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Bruce and Pryor should be in there. As it's a very American-centred list at the moment, I'd also like to see Peter Cook or Spike Milligan on the list (probably Milligan, I suppose). Goldberg should stay on the list. No particular opinion either way on Myers. Berle is fine staying off. So who else needs to make way for the previous people? Difficult for me to say, but I'd probably choose from Burnett, Crystal, David, Murphy, and Newhart.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with adding Bruce and Pryor and removing any two of the four you mentioned above except David, unless Seinfeld is first re-added (we don't need them both, but we need one or the other). I also support including Milligan in favour of Crystal or Newhart. For the sake of compromise, I'll strike my support for Berle, and my opposition to Goldberg. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess Newhart is probably out, because Carol Burnett should stay. pbp 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do we all agree that Fey is out? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Agree pbp 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Far too many glaring ommisions. Where's Lenny Bruce, Don Rickles, Gene Wilder, and Rodney Dangerfield? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring ommisions (a)

1. Milton Berle
2. Phyllis Diller
3. Don Rickles
4. Gene Wilder
5. Rodney Dangerfield
6. Roseanne Barr
7. Ellen Degeneres
8. Gilda Radner
9. Carl Reiner
10. Joan Rivers
11. Redd Foxx
12. Andy Kaufman
13. Jeff Foxworthy
14. Mary Tyler Moore
15. Spike Milligan
16. Sid Caesar
17. Lenny Bruce
18. Moms Mabley

This list is missing way too many pillars of comedy while including some that are, ehh, not so much. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, there are glaring omissions in every single category or subcategory on this list. That's what happens when you limit a list to 10,000. It's not like high-priority articles, where there can be as many as need. pbp 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the key point which I think is eluding you. Yes, this list is limited to 10,000 total articles, but not every section is weighted the same. For example, in "Cooking, food and drink", which includes 157 articles, we have: Afternoon tea under Meal, and McDonald's under Restaurant. We have Brewery and Brewing under Fermentation. We have eight types of cheeses listed under, guess what, Cheese. Under Meat, we have: Beef, Steak, and Hamburger. We list 27 specific "Herbs and condiments", 21 "Food types", including: French fries, Noodles and Pasta, Potato chips, and Sandwich. We have 33 "Drinks" listed, including: Coca-Cola, Alcoholic beverage and Distilled beverage. Under Mixed drink we include: Cocktail and Martini. We have both red and white under Wine, etcetera. In sum, while there remain dozens upon dozens of examples of glaring excess at other sub-pages, I don't think you should be so demanding and controlling in terms of setting-up arbitrary and undiscussed limits to sections that others are attempting to improve. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely some things that can be cut under food...Tartar sauce for example. Go ahead and propose some stuff. But I think it perfectly reasonable for 1.5% of this list to be prepared foods and drinks. People eat food every day. Some of the foods you've listed are hundreds of years old; others are eaten daily by millions upon millions of people. The food list is more globalized and less recentist than actors, comedians, or musicians. To put it in some perspective, right now we have more 20th century entertainers than food. As such, I believe the "glaring excesses" to be in entertainment personalities rather than food pbp 01:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, maybe you should stick to sub-lists where you are more familiar with the material. Your removal of Pryor and Bruce, and resistance to add them back reveals that you are perhaps not the best choice for "improving" a list of Comedians. At the very least, you should not be be so demanding of other editors at sub-lists where you seem to be a bit out of your element. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see it's getting heated, so this is just my opinion. I would be fine with a reduction in the number of comedians. From the discussion above, I thought there was agreement that Crystal, Murphy, and Newhart were out, which allowed Bruce, Milligan, and Pryor in. I'm fine with Fey being taken out, which leaves room for one more person (maybe Wilder? or one of the people who've just gone out?). Of course, we can continue to discuss other changes.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring omissions list appears very USA centric. The whole list is missing Spanish, Indian, French, Russian and British influenced actors. Not all of these actors and actresses crossed over to the USA cinema, especially in the early days of television and cinema.--LauraHale (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

1) This list is for Comedians, not actors, which is a separate list. 2) I agree that we could diversify the list, but you have yet to offer any specific suggestions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the list of comedians should be divided by country or region. It is weighted on United States humor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Host and performers

It currently stands at 8, with Houdini being moved from the defunct magicians category to performers. I think that three of these hosts can be dispensed with: Steve Allen, Jay Leno and David Letterman. That would leave us with Houdini, Marcel Marceau (French mime/performer), Johnny Carson (late night TV host), Dick Clark (TV show host/DJ), and Ed Sullivan (variety show host). Thoughts? pbp 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with dropping Leno and Letterman for recency cencerns, but we should leave Allen for chronological diversity, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I can acquiesce to keeping Allen, after reading his bio, but it's worth noting that his career was contemporaneous to Sullivan's pbp 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Sullivan and Allen, though contemporaries, were nothing alike in terms of style and delivery. Allen was more "modern" in his approach, while Sullivan was very much "old-school" by comparison. If you think them too similar, then perhaps swap-out Allen for Dick Cavett. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - There are many other areas of this list that could/should be trimmed to a more sensible size. Dropping just two TV hosts is "not enough". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a start. If we drop 2 articles here, 5 articles there, pretty soon we've gotten back to 10,000 pbp 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular music: Modern to 80 (currently 93)

Modern, 80

1. ABBA
2. AC/DC
3. Aerosmith
4. Charles Aznavour
5. Burt Bacharach
6. Joan Baez
7. Bee Gees
8. Black Sabbath
9. Jacques Brel
10. David Bowie
11. James Brown
12. The Beach Boys (added, Brian Wilson removed)
13. The Beatles
14. Chuck Berry
15. Garth Brooks
16. Johnny Cash
17. Ray Charles
18. Cher
19. Eric Clapton
20. Patsy Cline
21. Leonard Cohen
22. John Coltrane
23. Sam Cooke
24. Celia Cruz
25. Miles Davis
26. The Doors (added, Jim Morrison removed)
27. Bob Dylan
28. The Eagles
29. Aretha Franklin
30. Serge Gainsbourg
31. Marvin Gaye
32. João Gilberto
33. George Harrison
34. Jimi Hendrix
35. Buddy Holly
36. Whitney Houston
37. Julio Iglesias
38. Michael Jackson
39. Alison Krauss
40. Elton John
41. Janis Joplin
42. B.B. King
43. Kraftwerk
44. Fela Kuti
45. Led Zeppelin
46. John Lennon
47. Paul McCartney
48. Metallica
49. Madonna
50. Bob Marley
51. Muddy Waters (addition proposed by Rsm77)
52. Willie Nelson (addition proposed by GabeMc)
53. Nirvana
54. Charlie Parker
55. Dolly Parton
56. Édith Piaf
57. Wilson Pickett (addition proposed by GabeMc)
58. Pink Floyd
59. Elvis Presley
60. Prince
61. Public Enemy (addition proposed by Rsm77)
62. Queen
63. Ramones (addition proposed by Rsm77)
64. Otis Redding
65. The Rolling Stones
66. Diana Ross
67. Sex Pistols (addition proposed by Rsm77)
68. Tupac Shakur
69. Simon & Garfunkel (addition proposed by Rsm77)
70. Frank Sinatra
71. Sly and the Family Stone (addition proposed by Rsm77)
72. Bruce Springsteen
73. Barbra Streisand
74. The Who
75. U2
76. Vangelis
77. The Velvet Underground
78. Stevie Wonder
79. Neil Young
80. Frank Zappa

Dropped,

1. Mariah Carey (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
2. Jimmy Cliff (a relatively minor figure when you consider who isn't on the list)
3. Celine Dion (too recent)
4. Eminem (too recent)
5. Marvin Hamlisch (not popular music)
6. Johnny Hallyday (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
7. Billy Joel (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
8. Quincy Jones (if we start adding producers, then we need to add Berry Gordy and George Martin, among others)
9. Carole King (redundant with Baez)
10. Joni Mitchell
11. Gordon Lightfoot (redundant with Dylan and Baez)
12. Henry Mancini (not popular music)
13. Dean Martin (he had a great voice, but we already have too many crooners on the list)
14. Jim Morrison (removed, the Doors added)
15. Nana Mouskouri (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
16. Les Paul (too specific?)
17. Alla Pugacheva (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
18. Cliff Richard (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
19. Stephen Sondheim (not popular music)
20. Britney Spears (extremely recent, give it another 5-10 years)
21. Shania Twain (dropped at the request of Rsm77)
22. Andrew Lloyd Webber (not popular music)
23. Brian Wilson (added the Beach Boys)

My suggestions are nearly all for removals, except that I've proposed the addition of Wilson Pickett and Willie Nelson to round out soul and country music, and I've added the Beach Boys and removed Brian Wilson. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground should definitely stay. I think Jacques Brel should be in there as well for his influence. For something like this, I really think we shouldn't be thinking so much about sales. So people like Mariah Carey, Shania Twain, Billy Joel would be more obvious picks for me, as they're in no danger of entering the musical canon, and haven't had a huge enough impact to justify their inclusion for other reasons.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I've swapped in "TVU" and Brel, and removed Carey and Joel. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not very happy with Shania Twain being on the list when Muddy Waters, the Ramones, The Clash, the Sex Pistols, Simon and Garfunkel, Van Morrison, The Doors, Sly and the Family Stone, Public Enemy, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday aren't. I'm not saying they should all be on the list, just that the list could do with some work.--Rsm77 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Give me a half-an hour or so and I'll see what I can do to address your above concerns. Thanks for your valued input. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Armstrong and Ellington are in "19th to early 20th centuries". Perhaps dividing pre- and post-WWII isn't the best of ideas, and we should combine those two, then split them some other way, with ~100 total between the two (i.e. rock, jazz, soul, etc) pbp 03:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Rsm77, I've now amended the list to include your suggestions, except for Holliday, Armstrong, and Ellington, for the reasons pbp gave above. Any further thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hate to throw a wrench in all this, but I'm not sure I approve of these additions, S&G nonwithstanding...we will end up cutting a net of just 6, when 15-20 net would be more what we need. I still think breaking it down by genre is necessary so we can get a better feel on what we have pbp 05:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as not enough: There shouldn't be more than 75, sorry pbp 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Who says this list needs to be at 75? Just your personal opinion again? Then please at least propose 12 additional removals, or else they will all stay, right? Is that better then a modest trim with a significant improvement in content? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Who says this list needs to be at 87? Just your personal opinion again? I will propose trims once I've finished my bracket and sorted the bios by genre. Right now, we have some genres with a lotta people, when 5-6 should be sufficient pbp 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I had the list down to 80 articles, but Rsm77 requested 7 additions, which, in the spirit of compromise, I honoured. I think compromise is a necessary component of consensus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest here, I was mainly throwing in suggestions of people who were more qualified than Shania Twain. I would be fine with this section going down to 75, and I think it might be an idea to mix it in with the earlier section (featuring Louis Armstrong and others, sorry for my mistake there). This will mean removing some people. I am happy to withdraw my suggestions of The Clash, the Ramones, Van Morrison, and more reluctantly, Sly and the Family Stone (not much funk on the list). The Sex Pistols should certainly be on the list in my opinion. Muddy Waters, Public Enemy, and S&G should certainly be in the discussion even if they don't make the cut, as should Little Richard (sorry to add one more).

People who should be off the list:

1. Johnny Hallyday (big sales in France and Canada alone, little significant influence)
2. Cliff Richard (I don't think he is really significant)

Tougher decisions:

1. Do we need AC/DC and Black Sabbath? One could go.
2. Could we cut one of Baez, Cohen, and Mitchell?
3. Clapton, Harrison (he was out at one stage), S&G?
4. Cline or Parton? (I could see Parton going)
5. Dion, Iglesias, Mouskori, Pugacheva (personally I'd be happy with all of them going, but that's probably my bias - for one, sales should not be such a factor - for two, they have not had a significant enough impact on popular music as a whole - for three, I think it's fair to say that popular music has been driven by English-language singers (largely the US and UK) so if the list is English language dominated that's fair enough)
6. I suppose BB King is representing blues - I'd prefer to include Muddy Waters.
7. Wilson Pickett (I don't think he is up there with the other soul musicians)

Discuss.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I left Johnny Hallyday (the British Elvis Presley) and Cliff Richard, assuming that any deletions of non-Americans would be met with resistance (Brel comes to mind). AC/DC is hard rock, and Black Sabbath is heavy metal, two different genres. Also, Sabbath is arguably the most influencial metal band ever. As far as cutting Baez, Cohen, or Mitchell, I vote for Mitchell. Per BB King versus Muddy Waters; King is Mississippi blues, Waters was Chicago blues, also, I think including two bluesmen is not at all excessive (we have Parker, Coltrane, and Davis). I stand by Pickett as every bit as important as Cooke or Redding. Dion is already removed, and Iglesias is one of the top three most popular singers who ever lived. As far as Mouskori and Pugacheva, again, I only retained them under the assumption that any and all non-American deletions would be met with resistance, I couldn't care less if they are both removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I really am beginning to think we should mix in with 19th to early 20th century for a total of 100, and divide them into genres, at least in the discussion stage. If the genres are difficult to define we can always abandon them later.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. Genre warring is one of the more useless discussions that I have ever had on Wikipedia. The "modern" distinction is fine, you don't need to reinvent the wheel here, and to be frank, you are starting to "task" people while doing little to none of the actual "work" yourself. Anyway, this list is currently at an unknown total, so one could argue that to argue over every little addition or removal is a futile waste of time and effort. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is the point where I bow out of the discussion.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Aw...it was just getting good...

Purplebackpack's Counter-Proposal

Here is my counter proposal, which encompasses the entire sections of "Popular music" (both pre- and post- WWII), "Middle Eastern and Indian classical music". I add a few that were proposed additions above, plus John Philip Sousa and John Williams (you like people who sell a lot of records; I think there's something like a billion DVDs with a Williams soundtrack; also he has 48 Oscar nominations and five wins). Note that there are still over two dozen rockers, which is still way too much IMO.

Popular music, 98

1. ABBA
2. Charles Aznavour
3. Bee Gees
4. Jacques Brel
5. Cher
6. Bing Crosby
7. Stephen Foster
8. Aretha Franklin
9. Serge Gainsbourg
10. Whitney Houston
11. Michael Jackson
12. Kraftwerk
13. Madonna
14. Alla Pugacheva
15. Édith Piaf
16. Diana Ross
17. Frank Sinatra
18. John Philip Sousa
19. Barbra Streisand
20. Stevie Wonder
21. Vangelis

Musical comedy and lyricists, 12

1. Irving Berlin
2. Salvadore Cammarano
3. Marvin Hamlisch
4. Oscar Hammerstein II
5. Lorenz Hart
6. Jerome Kern
7. Metastasio
8. Cole Porter
9. Richard Rodgers
10. Stephen Sondheim
11. Andrew Lloyd Webber
12. John Williams

Blues and soul, 5

1. James Brown
2. Ray Charles
3. Marvin Gaye
4. Otis Redding
5. Muddy Waters

Folk and country, 10

1. Joan Baez
2. Johnny Cash
3. Patsy Cline
4. Bob Dylan
5. Woody Guthrie
6. Joni Mitchell
7. Bill Monroe
8. Willie Nelson
9. Simon & Garfunkel
10. Hank Williams

Hip-hop and rap, 2

1. Public Enemy
2. Tupac Shakur

Jazz, 10

1. Louis Armstrong
2. John Coltrane
3. Miles Davis
4. Duke Ellington
5. George Gershwin
6. Benny Goodman
7. Scott Joplin
8. Glenn Miller
9. Charlie Parker
10. Fats Waller

Latin, 2

1. Celia Cruz
2. João Gilberto

Rock, 29

1. The Beach Boys
2. The Beatles
3. Chuck Berry
4. Black Sabbath
5. David Bowie
6. Eric Clapton
7. The Doors
8. Jimi Hendrix
9. Buddy Holly
10. Elton John
11. Janis Joplin
12. Led Zeppelin
13. John Lennon
14. Paul McCartney
15. Metallica
16. Bob Marley
17. Nirvana
18. Pink Floyd
19. Elvis Presley
20. Prince
21. Queen
22. The Ramones
23. The Rolling Stones
24. Bruce Springsteen
25. The Who
26. U2
27. The Velvet Underground
28. Neil Young
29. Frank Zappa

Non-western traditions, 7

1. Ali Akbar Khan
2. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan
3. Muthuswami Dikshitar
4. Fela Kuti
5. Mohammad-Reza Shajarian
6. Ravi Shankar
7. Tyagaraja

Dropped

1. AC/DC
2. Aerosmith
3. Harold Arlen
4. Burt Bacharach
5. Garth Brooks
6. Mariah Carey
7. The Clash
8. Jimmy Cliff
9. Leonard Cohen
10. Sam Cooke
11. Celine Dion
12. The Eagles
13. Eminem
14. Johnny Hallyday
15. George Harrison
16. Julio Iglesias
17. Billy Joel
18. Robert Johnson
19. B.B. King
20. Carole King
21. Alison Krauss (too recent)
22. Alan Jay Lerner (we've got plenty of Broadway types, he draws the short straw)
23. Gordon Lightfoot
24. Henry Mancini
25. Dean Martin
26. Jim Morrison
27. Jelly Roll Morton
28. Nana Mouskouri (Greece already represented with Vangelis)
29. Dolly Parton
30. Les Paul
31. Jimmie Rodgers
32. Tim Rice
33. Cliff Richard
34. Dinah Shore
35. Britney Spears
36. Shania Twain
37. Brian Wilson

pbp 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of pbp's proposal

• Strong Oppose. - Nice effort, and I think we are close, but for now ... 1) Per Wikipedia:Vital articles: "This list is tailored to the English Wikipedia." I count at least 15 non-English speaking acts out of 98 (15.3%). 2) I strongly oppose the removal of Aerosmith (the best-selling American band of all-time), and AC/DC (the only rep from the entire continent of Australia). Also, Sam Cooke, the Eagles, Garth Brooks, Leonard Cohen, Burt Bacharach, Robert Johnson, B.B. King (why 10 jazzers and only 5 from blues and soul?), and Alison Krauss, who is not that recent at all; her first album was released in 1985 (the same year that Whitney Houston released her debut album). Krauss is also the most awarded singer and the most awarded female artist in Grammy history with 27 wins and 41 noms. 3) Elton John and Bob Marley are not "rock", neither are the Beach Boys. Scott Joplin wasn't a jazz artist, he was a ragtime pianist. 4) Your choices for "Latin" are lacking without Julio Iglesias, the most popular Latin artist who ever lived. You would be better off to drop the other two and keep him. 5) You shouldn't group blues and soul together, they are quite different genres. 6) to only include one blues artist and 10 jazzers is ridiculous. 7) James Brown is not blues or soul, he is Funk. 8) I don't see any funk artists other than Brown listed. What about George Clinton and/or Sly and the Family Stone? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Further observations. Pbp, your choice to break the artists down into sub-categories has exposed some issues with our list. 1) there is only one artist representing the blues, one artist representing funk, and one artist representing Reggae. 2) Your jazz list has three horn players and several piano players, but no guitar players or drummers. Where are Charles Mingus, Jaco Pastorius, Wes Montgomery and Buddy Rich? Elvin Jones anyone? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • • • So? We'd have room for more of those guys if you weren't insisting on having dozens of rockers on this list! As for funk and reggae, I doubt they really deserve more than a single musician. As for why no jazz guitarists or drummers, remember that horns (and winds, remember, Benny Goodman was a clarinetist) and piano players carry the melody and lead the bands. Aslo, Montgomery, Rich and Elvin aren't anywhere near the caliber needed to be on this list, sorry. Also, note that Blues and Soul are covered by the same WikiProject, so it makes sense that they be in one grouping pbp 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

1) is contradicted by WP:GLOBALIZE, and since English-speaking countries are 80-90% of the world population, it seems fair to have 15% of popular singers be from non-English speaking countries. 2) This is a finite list; there have to be glaring omissions, and 29 rockers is too many as it is, 3) When you only have a finite list of categories, there are some stretches that have to be made, 4) note that Rsm proposed dropping Iglesias above, 6) no, it isn't. Jazz is much more encompassing than blues. 8) One funkster is more than enough. This list isn't long enough to have multiple funksters. In general, you need to remember that this list has purposes other than to turn out articles about recent American pop icons. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to put my foot down here; we should not devote more than 1% of this list to popular musicians, and I will oppose any proposal that leaves the number of pop/librettests/non-Western musicians at a number greater than 100 pbp 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Yet again, WP:GLOBALIZE does not pertain to WP:VA, it pertains to article space. Per "English-speaking countries are 80-90% of the world population", perhaps, but has 10-15% of "popular music" really come from non-English speaking countries? 2) "29 rockers is too many", is an opinion that runs afoul of WP:OR. 3) It was better/simpler as "modern", you've convoluted the discussion with genres now, which will be a continuing issue of contention, but you would already know that if you edited music articles. 4) You and Rsm agree 100% with each other, at all times, so it matters very little to me that you cite him as an "expert" on latin music, he is not. 5) "Jazz is much more encompassing than blues". Huh? What are you talking about? Do you have a source or is this more WP:OR? No offense, but you really don't seem to know enough about music in general to be leading this discussion. 8) Funk is worthy of two or three entries if Tyagaraja and Muthuswami Dikshitar are included. Again, you should stick to topics in which you are educated; you seem to be a bad choice for popular music, which you seem to disdain. Also, please stop with the petty jabs, you're not ever gonna find a girlfriend if you keep acting like a type-A control freak with no sense of humour or taste for popular music. I'll bet Harry Potter is your favourite book series ever, and 30 Rock is your favourite TV show, yet somehow you continuously demean people who enjoy popular music. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know how to respond to this. I'll make the following points:

1. I see no evidence that globalize doesn't apply to project-space
2. It's also OR to say that X, Y, and Z musicians belong is also OR/personal opinion. This whole list is personal opinion, so just delete the whole schbang?
3. You're darn right that my personal feeling is that 40-50 modern musicians would be sufficient, and five rockers would be more than enough. Would you rather I'd proposed that?
4. The "You're not ever gonna find a girlfriend if you keep acting like a type-A control freak" comment is a pretty clear personal attack, and as such, it can and should be stricken by whatever editor so chooses, and you, Gabe, should be blocked for two weeks for saying so pbp 00:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Globalize is important. I do not see vital as being equated with well known or popular, but in understanding the wider music industry. It might be better to a degree to step back, look at each name and explain what the historical influence a person or group has had on say the musical genre, etc. (Best example I can think of: Law of robotics in Science fiction comes not from Isaac Asimov, but from Eando Binder. Law of Robotics extends beyond fiction, but was reshaped and discussed by a number of novelists and was used to inform thinking by engineers and cybernetics people in terms of ethical considerations.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Point of information: according to List of languages by total number of speakers, English speakers are well under 20%, and native English speakers less that half of that. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Laura and pbp, no offense, but you do not seem to understand what Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is attempting to do. 1) the templates relate to articles, i.e. "The examples and perspective in this article". 2) You keep using this project page (is it a guideline, policy or essay?) as a reason to remove American content, however; what the page actually says is: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is 'What haven't we covered yet?', rather than 'how should we change the existing coverage?'" You are misrepresenting what the page actually says, and you keep using it as a reason for removal of American topics, something the page expressly discourages. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not sure about including Glenn Miller in the jazz list. I think Ornette Coleman, Count Basie, Lester Young and Coleman Hawkins each had more lasting effect on the music (to say nothing of Jelly Roll Morton or Bix Beiderbecke). (edit conflict) Thus, articles about those musicians may be of more importance to the encyclopedia. I have to admit I'm a little pessimistic about the process, and part of me says that (assuming issues such as WP:N and WP:V are accounted for – a big assumption) all articles are vital. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. I'd also suggest Little Richard for inclusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing?

It appears that GabeMc is trying to stack this discussion in favor of too many recent American musicians by notifying a number of WikiProjects: Rock, Blues and Soul, Hip-hop, etc. He has failed to notify other interested WikiProjects, such as those associated with classical and musical theater, and projects associated with something other than recent music pbp 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Very selective choices pbp. I was in the process of notifying all the projects, which I have now done. I think you only beat me to two of them. Where your post there was not neutrally worded, as were mine. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post isn't neutral in that it assume that at least one article in each genre should be kept or added. It's also grammatically incorrect, doesn't mention that the discussion is specifically about musicians, and links to VA rather than VA/E. Mine is a significant improvement over yours pbp 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you are really scraping the barrel now; resorting to critiquing the grammar of my talk page posts, that's too funny. "Mine is a significant improvement over yours", how very mature. Is there a discussion thread of which I am unaware in which there is a clear consensus that no musicians from particular genres (read genres pbp doesn't like) will be included as vital articles? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look at the pages you posted to, you'd have noticed that there are many of those pages where there are no musicians from that genre or region currently on this list, your proposed list, or the sensible proposed list (for example, you posted to the Pakistani and New Zealand music pages, there aren't any Pakistanis or New Zealanders on the list). Also, I'm not sure notifying only Music projects was the right call, what's going to happen is that they'll demand that this already-bloated-and-not-globalized list become even more bloated and even less globalized, and that'll crowd out more important stuff like food, geography and history. Also, it's definitely canvassing that you posted to projects associated only with Mariah Carey and The Clash; that'd be like if I posted to Talk:Marvin Hamlisch. If you put a (poorly but) neutral-worded statement on a biased set of pages, its still canvassing, and you shouldn't have done that pbp 23:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Pbp, you simply do not know enough about popular music, or music in general, to be so controlling of this discussion, that's why we need others to join in, that's why I posted to the other music projects. Also, why no Pakistani or New Zealand artists, I thought your goal was globalisation? You removed AC/DC, the only Australian act on the list. Editors at Carey and the Clash should know that someone (you) with absolutely zero interest in, and near zero knowledge of, popular music is deciding which articles are vital and which are non-vital. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I know an awful lot about music, Buster, just because I don't cow-tow to your sensibilities is irrelevant. I hosted a radio show at my university for 3 1/2 years, and I played hours upon hours of popular music. I have neither "near zero knowledge" nor "absolutely zero interest", and regardless, neither interest nor knowledge is a prerequisite for participating in any subsection. The "people only editing what they know and are interested in" that you're calling for leads to people just adding and adding more articles in areas they're interested in (like, judging from your edit history, you pretty well are in recent rockers) got us to 300-some-odd articles over the 10,000 threshold, continuing that practice would just make it worse. Again, you are clearly demonstrating that you have no comprehension whatsoever of Wikipedia policies, particularly canvassing. You either need to notify the projects or the talk pages of the other hundred-plus musicians and composers on this list, or you need to blank the notices you posted at Carey and Clash. Otherwise, it's purely and simply canvassing. Sure, others need to participate, but those "others" need to also come from non-music fields, not just from music pbp 00:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing your comments at individual entries pbp 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring ommisions

China

1. Carsick Cars
2. Eason Chan
3. Jacky Cheung
4. Hanggai
5. Soler

India

1. Nitin Sawhney
2. Ustad Vilayat Khan
3. Hariprasad Chaurasia
4. Lata Mangeshkar
5. Mohammed Rafi

Indonesia

1. SambaSunda
2. Sabah Habas Mustapha
3. Chrisye
4. Krakatau (band)
5. The Lani Singers

Brazil

1. Marisa Monte
2. Michel Telo
3. Renato Russo
4. Caetano Veloso
5. Elis Regina

Pakistan

1. Atif Aslam
2. Rahat Fateh Ali Khan
3. Ali Zafar
4. Shafqat Amanat Ali
5. Hadiqa Kiyani

From 5 of the 6 most populous countries on Earth (excluding the US). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's get rid of some lesser-known American rockers or bluesters or jazzsters or whatnot, and replace them with 1-2 guys from each country. But I stand by my belief that 100 modern+lyricists+eastern traditions is the number. More than 100 modern musicians is too much when you only have 10,000 articles pbp 00:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm absolutely willing to work with you to reduce the "rock" sub-list to its essential parts, but if you want to remove some entries from your proposal, I'd start with Joni Mitchell and Simon & Garfunkel (add John Denver over Mitchell). Also, if you moved Elton John and the Beach Boys to pop, and Bob Marley to reggae, then the "rock" sub-list, won't appear larger than it actually is. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• How could we "get rid of some lesser-known American ... bluesters"; you've only included one in your suggested list for the English speaking Wikipedia? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, you're more than welcome to do the following to the proposal:

1. Drop Joni Mitchell
2. Add John Denver, a second bluester, and some of those international people
3. Move any number of articles from one section to another (note the first section is "general" pop music)

Dropping S&G I'm not so sure about, I think they're the best example of folk/rock after Bob Dylan, and I believe they're still the best-selling duo ever. I think with your additions we'll be >100, so we may need to find more to cut pbp 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the best-selling duo of all-time is not Simon & Garfunkel, it's Hall & Oates. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc's counter-counter-proposal

Here is my counter-counter proposal. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular music, 100

Blues and soul, 12

1. Sam Cooke
2. Ray Charles
3. Aretha Franklin
4. Marvin Gaye
5. W. C. Handy
6. Robert Johnson
7. B.B. King
8. Lead Belly
9. Wilson Pickett
10. Otis Redding
11. Mamie Smith
12. Muddy Waters

Film composers, musicals and lyricists, 10

1. Irving Berlin
2. Salvadore Cammarano
3. Marvin Hamlisch
4. Oscar Hammerstein II
5. Lorenz Hart
6. Cole Porter
7. Richard Rodgers
8. Stephen Sondheim
9. Andrew Lloyd Webber
10. John Williams

Folk and country, 10

1. Joan Baez
2. Johnny Cash
3. Patsy Cline
4. Bob Dylan
5. Woody Guthrie
6. John Denver
7. Bill Monroe
8. Willie Nelson
9. Simon & Garfunkel
10. Hank Williams

Funk, 2

1. James Brown
2. George Clinton

General, 22

1. ABBA
2. Charles Aznavour
3. The Beach Boys
4. Bee Gees
5. Jacques Brel
6. Cher
7. Bing Crosby
8. Stephen Foster
9. Serge Gainsbourg
10. Michael Jackson
11. Elton John
12. Scott Joplin
13. Madonna
14. Bob Marley
15. Alla Pugacheva
16. Édith Piaf
17. Prince
18. Diana Ross
19. Frank Sinatra
20. Barbra Streisand
21. Stevie Wonder
22. Vangelis

Hip-hop and rap, 2

1. Public Enemy
2. Tupac Shakur

Jazz, 10

1. Louis Armstrong
2. Count Basie
3. John Coltrane
4. Miles Davis
5. Duke Ellington
6. George Gershwin
7. Benny Goodman
8. Jelly Roll Morton
9. Charlie Parker
10. Django Reinhardt

Latin, 2

1. Antônio Carlos Jobim
2. Celia Cruz

Non-western traditions, 6

1. Jacky Cheung
2. Chrisye
3. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan
4. Fela Kuti
5. Mohammad-Reza Shajarian
6. Ravi Shankar

Rock, 24

1. AC/DC
2. The Beatles
3. Chuck Berry
4. Black Sabbath
5. David Bowie
6. Eric Clapton
7. The Doors
8. Jimi Hendrix
9. Buddy Holly
10. Janis Joplin
11. Led Zeppelin
12. Little Richard
13. Metallica
14. Nirvana
15. Pink Floyd
16. Elvis Presley
17. Queen
18. The Ramones
19. The Rolling Stones
20. Bruce Springsteen
21. The Who
22. U2
23. The Velvet Underground
24. Frank Zappa

Dropped

1. Aerosmith
2. Harold Arlen
3. Burt Bacharach
4. Garth Brooks
5. Mariah Carey
6. Jimmy Cliff
7. Leonard Cohen
8. Celine Dion
9. Muthuswami Dikshitar
10. The Eagles
11. Eminem
12. Whitney Houston
13. João Gilberto
14. Johnny Hallyday
15. George Harrison (including the Beatles is enough)
16. John Lennon (Ibid)
17. Paul McCartney (Ibid)
18. Julio Iglesias
19. Billy Joel
20. Carole King
21. Jerome Kern
22. Kraftwerk
23. Alison Krauss
24. Alan Jay Lerner
25. Gordon Lightfoot
26. Henry Mancini
27. Dean Martin
28. Joni Mitchell
29. Glenn Miller
30. Jim Morrison (added the Doors)
31. Nana Mouskouri (Greece already represented with Vangelis)
32. Metastasio (great creds, but he died in 1792, and is therefore not modern)
33. Dolly Parton
34. Les Paul
35. Jimmie Rodgers
36. Tim Rice
37. Cliff Richard
38. Dinah Shore
39. Britney Spears
40. Tyagaraja
41. Shania Twain
42. Fats Waller
43. Brian Wilson (added the Beach Boys)
44. Neil Young

Discussion of GabeMc's counter-counter-Proposal

• By and large, I can get behind this. But one question: are we moving Williams to avant-garde, then? Sure, he's modern, but he sure ain't rock or pop or blues pbp 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, does this edit resolve your concern regarding Williams? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Support pbp 04:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do you think we could put Williams in with the

• I am somewhat surprised that your Rock listing doesn't include Iron Maiden. Intothatdarkness 14:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• The compromise goal was to come in at or under 100 articles. That constraint means that inevitably, some rather notable bands/acts will not be included. FWIW, my ideal list would be around 125, and there would be room for Maiden. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• See my comment above at "Purplebackpack's Counter-Proposal" regarding the jazz selection. Would also suggest Little Richard for inclusion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• We already have Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and Elvis, so Richard would seem to be a bit excessive unless we remove a 1950s rocker. Who do you suggest Little Richard should replace? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell > John Denver

Joni Mitchell's songs and alternative tunings have been profoundly more influential than John Denver's pop hits. It was a mistake to replace Mitchell with Bob Denver. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. Joni did plenty of pop herself, and Denver also used alternate tunings to influential affect. If consensus builds around including Mitchell over Denver then we'll swap them. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

King Crimson or The Kinks > The Doors or AC-DC

The Kinks are important for power chords and BritPop (catchy songs and British themes). For their sexual adventurism (David Watts) and power chords, they are more important than the wonderful AC-DC.

King Crimson belongs for its contributions to heavy metal, symphonic (progressive) rock, instrumental, and music-theoretical and Gamelan influences.

The Talking Heads or The Pixies are worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If pbp would allow us to exceed 100, then I would certainly add all four bands you've mentioned. However; since we have a working consensus to limit this list to 100, in order to include the four bands you mentioned above you will need to make a case for just as many removals as additions. AC/DC isn't included because they were more important then the Kinks, but because the entire English speaking continent of Australia is not represented without AC/DC, while British rock on the other hand, is already about 1/2 the list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilson Pickett?

What is Wilson Pickett doing on this list when there's no Jackie Wilson in it? MadeinJapan (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• If we weren't trying to keep the list under 100, I would have certainly included Jackie Wilson. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is not what I'm trying to say. I'm actually fine with Pickett being on this list. But since you already have him in the top 12 of the greatest blues and soul artists, you have absolutely no reason to omit Wilson, since he can be considered a greater vocalist/artist. Also, consider adding T-Bone Walker. Drop The Velvet Underground, add Van Halen. I like the rest of the list. MadeinJapan (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, but since pbp has stated that he will strongly oppose any inclusions that push the popular music list over 100, in order to add Jackie Wilson, we will need to remove someone else, lest the list exceed 100. Same with T-Bone Walker. As I said above to another editor, my ideal list would be around 125, not 100, and almost all of these above suggestions would be included, if we could exceed 100, but again, pbp has vehemently insisted that the list of popular music should not exceed 100. If push comes to shove, we could swap out Pickett for Jackie Wilson, which I would disagree with, but I will of course honour consensus, should one develop in that regard. FWIW, if I had my way, I would drop TVU for VH, or include them both, but I don't see consensus for that at this time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the list should be kept under 100. I've never heard a sound argument for it. Adding Jackie, T-Bone Walker, and VH without removing Pickett and VU seems like a good idea to me. MadeinJapan (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you MiJ, but working on Wikipedia means compromising with others, so I am doing my very best to do that. If you have an issue with the 100 article limit, I suggest you take it up with User:Purplebackpack89‎, as I've already done my best to lobby for more room. Thanks for your input. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• This list is supposed to have 10,000 articles. Of those, 80% of them should be something that aren't bios; that leaves 2,000 (That's 20%; the 1,000 list is only 13.5%). I don't see why more that 5% of the bios should be pop musicians from the last 100-200 years. That still means there's almost as many recent musicians as there are religious leaders from everywhere and all of human history; there are more recent musicians than inventors and explorers combined. Pop musicians are fairly recent, and not all that globalized, with blues and soul being inherently non-globalized (I'm of the opinion that 12 is too many, considering that blues isn't that old, and is almost exclusively from one region of one country in the world). Adding more musicians crowds out other topics, other topics that are less recent and better globalized. Also, I am perfectly fine with there being "glaring omissions" in musicians. There are "glaring omissions" everywhere else. In any other category, I could easily give you several names or topics not on this list that are as important, or almost as important. Why should musicians be any different? pbp 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, per your above comment: "considering that blues isn't that old". As a designated musical form, blues is at least 101 years old, and if you trace its actual roots, it pre-dates Abe Lincoln. Per: "Adding more musicians crowds out other topics". Right, important topics like: Afternoon tea, McDonald's, Blue cheese, Ice cream, Candy, Acorn, Hamburger, Ketchup, Mustard, Tartar sauce, Baby food, Breakfast cereal, French fries, Potato chips, Coca-Cola, Hot chocolate, Cocktail, Martini, Can opener, Barbie, Frisbee, and G.I. Joe. We have 15 "types" of colours, when cyan, magenta, and yellow cover them all. Also, lets not forget that, according to you, there is definitely room on this list for the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Kermit the Frog, Mario, and the highly influential Harry Potter. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• 150 years isn't particularly old in comparison to all of recorded history, which is several thousand years old, and to trace it back to pre-Civil War, you have to through Afro-American spiritual or other types of roots music. As for the laundry list of things, sure blues music is more important than most of the things you listed, but a particular blues musician may not be, especially when you already have several others. I don't understand why you're not a fan of food and drink articles, since everybody eats daily, food and drink articles are probably significant enough to justify having 1.5% of the list. And what is it with you arbitrary hating on colors? First you say color isn't 1000 material, then you say that specific colors don't belong. Most people perceive there to be more than three colors. You don't here somebody say, "I'm going to paint my house cyan-magenta", they just say, "blue". Furthermore, I seem to recall taking no opinion on the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or Kermit; HP and the plumber were the only ones I specifically favored keeping. But if you think those things don't belong on the list, go right ahead and start a discussion about them! pbp 03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• 150 years is kinda long in terms of "popular music" though, is it not, and is that not what we are discussing here? Also, I never said that color wasn't 1,000 material, I said it was misplaced in the sub-lists, and it belonged with the scientific topics, most likely under light or optics. You keep saying that all people eat, but don't you think that most people also like music? Did ancient people sit around a campfire and listen to unpopular music? Also, is an encyclopedia analogous to a history book IYO, because you keep going to the strawman of "all of recorded history", but the two, while quite similar, are not at all synonymous. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• "All of recorded history" is not a strawman, and yes, an encyclopedia should be a book that covers topics dealing with it, and our list should be too. As for, "don't you think that most people also like music?", there are way more articles on music and musicians than there are on food and chefs (actually, there are zero articles on chefs), and in any proposal I would advance, there would continue to be way more articles on music/musicians than on food/chefs. But, until we get Musicians down to 150-160 bios (that's counting classical musicians and performers), and probably drop some specific works of music too (I think there's over 100), music is bloated and will need trimming. pbp 04:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, my current proposal is at 100, are you now asking for more cuts? What is preventing your support? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um, above I said, "By and large, I can get behind this..." and I'm sticking to that... pbp 04:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, my point about the difference between an encyclopedia and a history book is that no serious history book would even include an entry on Harry Potter. In that way, an encyclopedia is not the same thing as a history book. Can you at least agree to that? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

While you've been talking about how many Blues and Funk musicians there should be, among other things, I've added Blues and Funk music themselves to Arts > music. I don't know if anyone noticed they weren't there. Another case of concentrating on biographies and not including their trade/field itself first. I am hoping no one minds? Carlwev (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To blues, of course not. That was a perfectly acceptable add pbp 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch Carl. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a hard job and I give kudos to those doing it - I think a few major people are missing like Oscar Peterson and Guy Lombardo.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Moxy! Since we have a "working" consensus to limit this portion of the list to 100, some major artists are noticeably absent. If we add Peterson and/or Lombardo, we would need to remove one or two entries to make room for them. Who do you suggest we remove in favour of Peterson and/or Lombardo? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Run–D.M.C.

Run–D.M.C. needs to be on this list. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree TK, and I would also add the Sugarhill Gang, but as I said above, there is a working consensus to limit this sub-list to 100 entries. Are you suggesting that someone should be removed in order to add Run–D.M.C.? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove The Velvet Underground. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 21:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I had removed them in my first draft, but at least two editors disagreed with their removal, so I added them back. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, there shouldn't be less than 3 hip hop artists on this list. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Talk to User:Purplebackpack89, he's the one forcing this list to stay at or below 100 entries. I've never heard anyone else say that it should be limited to 100, he's the only one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've given you very good reasons several times as to why it should be limited to 100, and other editors have agreed with my globalization and recency arguments. Yet you've chosen to ignore them. Also, if we cut something, it needs to be blues and soul. Relative to Latin, world music, country, and folk, blues and soul are overrepresented. pbp 23:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Who else said 100 was the max? Please provide diffs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion: remove one artist from folk. Add Run–D.M.C.. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Folk's already pretty poorly represented...I could pull the "glaring" omissions number and point out that Pete Seeger, Judy Collins and Peter, Paul and Mary aren't on the list... pbp 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how any of the names that you listed are greater than Run-DMC. By the way, another glaring omission in the folk department is The Weavers. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If we are talking about glaring omissions in folk, then what about: the Carter Family, Charlie Poole, Doc Watson, the Byrds, Emmylou Harris, James Taylor, John Prine, the Kingston Trio, or Phil Ochs? There are many, many more ... GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"This list is tailored to the English Wikipedia"

Do we really need that statement. I've seen it misinterpretated, and it flies in the face of globalization, so I think not. pbp 02:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. - Is it really so bad that we have several Wikipedias in several different languages that cater slightly to their readership? Is it really so bad that the Russian Wikipedia need not be overly concerned with English topics, or that the Indian Wikipedia can include more Indian musicians then are allowed here? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Point me to Indian Wikipedia. No such Wikipedia exists. English is one of two official languages of India, so if by Indian Wikipedia, you actually mean English Wikipedia, then yes, English Wikipedia should be concerned with parts of the world where English is the official language. 125 million people in India speak English. Can you stop with the ignorant statements like that and work towards a more global perspective? --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The Tamil Wikipedia is here, and there are many other non-English Wikipedias. Look here. Also, there are about 40 million Spanish language speakers in the US, yet we also have a Spanish language Wikipedia. Why is there not a single Latin musician on the list that is not in the Latin category? E.g., Los Lobos, Bruno Mars, Selena. Also, there is no need to get belligerent and call my comments ignorant. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
      • The Spanish Wikipedia has a Vital articles list, and most of them aren't Spanish or Mexican. The French Wikipedia has a Vital articles list, and most of them aren't French. Logically, most of the people on the English Wikipedia's Vital articles and Vital articles/Expanded list shouldn't be American or British pbp 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Please see an appeal to inappropriate authority, or WP:OSE. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
          • YOU'RE the one who brought up the Spanish language Wikipedia, and anyway, I consider it an appropriate authority, so your link's out the window either way pbp 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Are you suggesting that the Spanish language Wikipedia is an appropriate authority for what should be done at the English speaking Wikipedia? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Can you give a reason why it shouldn't? Why isn't what other Vital articles lists do relevant to this one? pbp 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                • A valid reason? The servers are in Florida? But really, they can do whatever they feel is right at the Spanish Wikipedia, and the same goes here for us English speakers. We do not take our orders from France or Spain, do we? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • No single country should be calling the shots on this list. Not France, not Spain, not Britain, not the US pbp 02:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                    • Do you think the Spanish or French speaking Wikipedia should define what's vital to the English speaking Wikipedia? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support removal - I agree with pbp and LauraHale: vital articles must be independent of the language. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How vital is this?

Dear music enthusiasts: I came to this discussion because I saw GabeMc's invitation on the WikiProject:Roots Music talk page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this is the first time I've come across such wide disagreement among experienced editors. The concept of "Vital articles" seems to be a divisive one, especially in a subject area such as music where everything is opinion, anyway. No two people will ever agree on this list. Musicians in different genres could be called "vital' based on their influence on other artists, their influence on historical events, etc. As for "popular" music, maybe sales should be the only consideration. In that case, I nominate for that list Henry C. Work, composer of the song "Grandfather's Clock", which was so popular when it was first released that it was the first piece of music to sell over a million copies (of sheet music). I'll leave this discussion now and go back to editing articles without attention to whether they are considered "vital". —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry Clay Work seems to be a viable choice: he also wrote two songs popular during the American Civil War: Kingdom Coming and Marching Through Georgia. He seems to be the most important 19th century American composer of popular song, with the exception of Stephen Collins Foster, who wrote My Old Kentucky Home, Suwannee River and countless others. I suggest you mention it in the subsection entitled "Discussion of Gabe's counter-counter-proposal" above, where we're hashing out popular music since 1815 pbp 17:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Classical musicians and performers

Since we’re chopping a number of recent musicians, we should probably cut a few from the classical area as well. There are 35 classical composers and four avant-garde composers. That sounds about right, although they may not be the right ones…we should probably add Aaron Copland and Metastasio (who we’re about to drop from modern); some of the drops I’d suggest would be Alexander Borodin, Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Alexander Scriabin or Erik Satie.

However, the area that is bloated is classical performers. There are 31; I think that that can be cut to 15-20. Here are my 15, as a starting point:

1. Marian Anderson
2. Vladimir Ashkenazy
3. Andrea Bocelli
4. Maria Callas
5. Van Cliburn
6. Glenn Gould
7. Lang Lang
8. Jenny Lind
9. Yo-Yo Ma
10. Luciano Pavarotti
11. Itzhak Perlman
12. Arthur Rubinstein
13. Beverly Sills
14. Frederica von Stade
15. Li Yundi

Feel free to add up to five more. Thoughts? pbp 02:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Super-duper Harry Potter strength oppose. - Someone more knowledgeable about classical musicians and performers then pbp or myself should weigh-in before we even consider gutting this section. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Support. - Looks good, nice work! I agree that Aaron Copland and Metastasio should be included in "Classical musicians". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

1) This the third or fourth time you've flipped-flopped on something; you gotta stop doing that! 2) Excuse me? I know a thing or two about classical music. I know you seem to think I know nothing about any kind of music, but I actually know a great deal about it pbp 04:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: User:GabeMc has changed his opinion from Support to Oppose to Neutral to Oppose in the last three-and-one-half days, during which time the proposal has not been altered. His last edit summary, "this list should not be gutted by pbp" seems to indicate that his support or opposition to this proposal seems to be more determined by feelings to me at the particular time rather than the proposal's merits pbp 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. - I can change as many !votes as I want for whatever reason I want backpacker. You have no business gutting a list of artists, that's my personal opinion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why do I have no business removing a bloated list? Because I disagree with you on the idea of this list returning to 10,000 articles, something you yourself wanted to happen a few weeks ago, but now have started an RfC that says the exact opposite? Make up your mind, man! Oh, and stop criticizing me in edit summaries! pbp 03:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I meant I think you are the wrong person for this particular task based on your lack of knowledge about the topic, your hostile attitude toward all who disagree with you, and your complete unwillingness to compromise. Also, I think your sudden concern about the list being "over the limit" is irrational and misplaced (no one cares but you, and you didn't until I mentioned it here), and your goal to arrive at 10,000 is not properly motivated. You dislike bios, you dislike me, you think I love bios, so you want to cut bios. That's not the right motivation. Come on, you think 6 blues articles is too many, but there is always room for the great and influential boy wizard, Harry Potter. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are being completely arbitrary here; you just upped your oppose some more because I said something you didn't like. We've been over this about knowledge; I was a campus DJ for three years, and anyway there's WP:ANYONE. And will you stop it with Harry Potter already? It would have been kept with or without my support pbp 04:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• And I quote: "Harry Potter is ... the most influential fictional character of my lifetime", thus my reluctance to take your opinions at VA seriously. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can you name a better candidate that was conceived of since 1989? I stand by that comment 100%, and you dislike it and others of my comments neither gives you the right to continually lambaste me, nor denies me the right to participate in subsequent discussion pbp 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think you are misusing influential. Has there been a string of copy-cat Potters? Not that I am aware of. Popular and influential are not synonymous. What about Homer Simpson, Jack Sparrow, Stewie Griffin, Austin Powers, Tyler Durden, or Cosmo Kramer? Too silly when compared to the deep story-lines of magic stones, spell-casting and flying carpets? FWIW, many years ago I worked as a reading tutor, and our prime directive was to get kids to read, no matter what they wanted to read (almost). So, if Potter has influenced kids to read, then that's a great thing, but its not the same as influencing popular culture. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals, period, and quit the bickering with each other, which drives editors away from this page when we are trying to encourage participation. And Gabe, for the record, I am in favor of Harry Potter being on this list and I am offended by your use the article as a football. Jusdafax 04:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jusdafax, do you support the inclusion of Harry Potter while we exclude: the Kinks, T-Bone Walker, the Grateful Dead, Brian Eno, and Jackie Wilson (among many others)? Do you at all see what I mean about the arbitrary set-limits? Why not shift the discussion to whether or not an article is vital to the project, versus how many spots we have left? The current system is archaic and self-limiting. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have admired these lists and the overall concept of them since I first became seriously active in the last decade, and while this project has been fairly inactive for a couple years, it has good value as a guide for the present. I have been very cautious in approaching change here; I do remember asking for the inclusion on the 1000 list of Haydn, the father of symphonic form, at one point. As for the overall concept of the lists, they are not supposed to be, and cannot be, perfect or completely definitive. Dirtlawyer1 and I have argued for a more contemplative pace of change here, and for more voices to be included. We need to tone down the rhetoric; let's speak quietly, as if we were in a library, which in a sense we are. Comparing Potter to music acts is apples and oranges, so let's not go there. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in massive revisions to these lists. Let's take a step back and respect the work put into these lists as a legacy, not something to rush to alter. Thanks. Jusdafax 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1) I agree with your above comment: "My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals". Great suggestion! 2) I also agree that pbp and I should "tone down the rhetoric". 3) Per: "comparing Potter to music acts is apples and oranges", right, in a perfectly logical situation I would agree, but here at Wikipedia Vital Articles, they are both currently competing for space on the same list, "People". Including Potter means we exclude King Crimson. So even if they are apples and oranges, if there is a set-limit to how many apples and how many oranges you can have combined, then apples are indeed concerned by too many oranges and vice versa, not? Also, while pbp is insisting that the list return to 10,000 and that most of those cuts will come from bios, I am not aware of any discussion thread/s where this was determined to be a clear consensus beyond what pbp has unilaterally decided. Were you ever invited to discuss or !vote to cut 250 articles from bios? I wasn't, and I'll bet Dirtlawyer and Carl weren't either. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• See above discussion "The bio count...is too damn high!", started 19 days ago, RfCed shortly thereafter, and currently with 2 for, only you against pbp 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• 2 !votes for, and 1 !vote against is not a clear consensus, that's a straight-up vote. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please just relax and be patient, there is no hurry. The list has been over the limit for some time now, and there is no reason why this process should be rushed through by you, or anybody. Lets wait for input to come in from more editors before making choices based on two editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• For an example of apples to apples (sort of). - Harry Potter is currently on this list, but Kahlil Gibran is not. Under the current system of pre-set limits, one would need to argue for the removal of another person in order to include Gilbran, when clearly, if there is room on this list for Potter, then there should be room for Gilbran, the third best-selling poet of all time, behind Shakespeare and Lao-Tzu, not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quit referencing Harry Potter, please! If you do it one more time, I'm starting a WQA! pbp 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits

There is a discussion regarding the VA limits occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

TV and Film

I know there's no easy answer for this but hear me out. At the moment Film articles are listed in arts, and TV programme articles are not they are in mass media within Society and social sciences. Should they be together? I would have thought so. Films are mass media same as TV shows. Films are shown on TV after some time after cinema release, some films are only shown on TV, telefilms. Some franchises like Star Trek have TV shows and Movies out at roughly the same time with the same cast and perhaps the same crew. And they are obviously made the same way eg actors filmed, moving picture with sound, and both have a story to follow, both may have a writer director producer a script. The only main difference is one you can watch on your tv one in a cinema (or at home later) and one is usually stand alone and the other a series. They are the same really though aren't they. The only thing people may bring up is that TV shows listed include news, gameshow, American Idol, which are not like a film with a story. But then again within Art, in works of literature we have a dictionary and an Encyclopedia which are books but not really "Art" in the same way fiction is, the same way BBC news is not a movie. Should TV shows be with movies? they are the same. Also while I'm here, another point, I think Video games are kind of art, but not as much, ignore this last bit.Carlwev (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the present groupings are too broad. Cinema is an art form, but also a media form. I'm personally inclined to pull all the articles related to film, TV, radio and print journalism and place them in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Media pbp 16:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose moving all actors to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Media. Actors are artists, not media topics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

I think you misunderstood, actors/artists/real people not effected. The idea was to put TV shows in same section as Movies, as a movie and a programme are almost the same kind of art/work, (and possibly move things like radioshows newspapers and magazines too along with them too) Carlwev (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, actors (assuming we keep any) stay in bios. Non-people topics go to media. pbp 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah brakes on deleting the actors

Some of them can go but I don't think all of them. I would keep half of them, Schwarzenegger, Hanks, Gibson, Connery maybe even Cruise, Hoffman, Travolta, Depp, Hackman. I think a little trimming here and there can be done but not to much. I think the wrong areas are being targeted first. If I think about what I expect to find articles of in an actual encyclopedia, I think some of the films should not be there but some of these actors maybe should. I am puzzled we have 2 scorsese and De Niro films (Raging Bull, Taxi Driver) but we don't have Scorsese himself and we nearly deleted De Niro too, seems the wrong way round. I know we want a mix but I am very surprised we have so many individual paintings, songs and films at the expense of not including a tiny bit more artists, musicians and actors themselves. We have 27 paintings, by all means have the Mona Lisa, or The Scream but do we need The Ancient of Days, we do. Poetry, we are apparently missing the 3rd best selling poet ever Kahlil Gibran, but we do include individual poems like The Second Coming (poem) and Howl and Other Poems, when I believe a proper encyclopedia would have it the other way round. In short I think we need to trim areas a little but I don't think we are hitting the worst areas first when we should be, and I think our approach on art and artists, including film music and visual art is wrong. I have quietly been adding things in arts like Science fiction, fairy tale, Children's literature, Mosaic, Blues and deleting individual works like A Coney Island of the Mind, Erehwon, Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 or fictional place like Lilliput and Blefuscu and Metropolis (comics) (which are redundant with Superman and Gulliver's Travels which they are from and which are included.) It is changes like this I would urge people to make, not so much the deleting 30 fairly notable/vital actors musicians in one go. There are some terrible articles have found their way into the 10'000 list we just have to find them. There are of course some that can go, I just deleted Martin Short and Jennifer Saunders, I believe they're not vital. The actors I don't think are the most vital but I think they should not go yet, they are definitely not the least either. Carlwev (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a consensus for bringing actors down to 50, as there had been no opposition to the last proposal, which was a week old. Perhaps as a subthread of this, you should nominate several articles, one at a time, for removal. pbp 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. - Carl is right. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I think it would be helpful if we set a working number limit for each sub-list (say, plus or minus 10 percent), and start to prioritize the existing elements of the sub-list. For example, it's a lot easier to decide whether to keep or add David Lean when comparing the impact, accomplishments and legacy of Sergei Eisenstein, John Ford, Stanley Kubrick and Stephen Spielberg. At some point, number limits necessarily impose discipline on the selection process because one subject must be deleted to add another. Avoiding sub-list limits during discussion is one reason we are now over budget 200+ articles on the list of 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to do just that lol. I have, among other places, thrown out the numbers "50 actors", "100 sports figures", "100 modern musicians", and "2000 total bios". There's either not a consensus for doing that at all, or a consensus for the particular quotas I've set. pbp 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, PBP, not only should we have a "working quota" (if not a strict number limit) for each sublist, I also think we should have individual discussion and an !vote poll for each individual list item to be added or removed. I recognize this list is much bigger than the list of 1,000, and there is no reason why we can't handle more individual discussions at the same time, say 20 to 25. Again, that's not one big discussion of 20-25 topics, but 20 to 25 discussions of individual topics. The only danger, of course, is when we are simultaneously discussing 25 items from the same sublist, then we have the potential for confused and conflicting decisions, rather than engaging in the prioritization process I think we need to engage in; i.e., if we add this, what do we delete? Probably should limit ourselves to discussing no more than 5 items at a time from a particular sublist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bunch o’ Cuts

The consensus seems to be to propose cuts individually. I figure that since we can propose 5-7 changes at WP:VA at once, and since WP:VA/E is 10x the size, we can propose 10x the changes. Therefore, I am proposing the following people be cut

Kenneth Branagh (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Branagh is one of the great UK actors of the past 25 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose deleting Branagh. One of the two or three most influential British actors and filmmakers since he produced and starred in Henry V. His successful adaptation of Shakespeare into popular movie productions earns serious consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Cut Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Travolta, Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, Randolph Scott, Christopher Lee, and several others before Branagh. Some of the actresses deserve serious consideration for being cut, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Walter Brennan (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Not many people on this list have three acting Oscars, as does Brennan. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting Brennan. He was a character actor, and all three Oscars were in supporting roles. Not a major figure when we are arguing whether we keep major figures like Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

All his oscars were for supporting actor, he was hardly ever a main part. He was good at what he done and is remembered but is not vital. Edith Head has 8 oscars for costume design, but I wouldn't think she's vital. Carlwev (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Burbage (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are not many actors from the 17th century are on this list. Keep for chronological diversity. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral until we get our actor, musician and pop culture numbers under control. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the most influential actors of the last 25 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not one of the most influential actors of the last 25 years, but definitely one of the most significant/popular. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting DiCaprio. Again, Branagh or DiCaprio? Seriously? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Gene Hackman (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Hackman is one of the most influential actors of the last 25 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Carlwev (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral until we get our actor, musician and pop culture numbers under control.

Henry Irving (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Retain for chronological diversity. Irving was an important English stage actor in the Victorian era. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral until we get our actor, musician and pop culture numbers under control. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• FYI, Gabe had this being dropped above pbp 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Derek Jacobi (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Jacobi is a founder member of the Royal National Theatre. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral until we get our actor, musician and pop culture numbers under control.

Discussion

• FYI, Gabe had this being dropped above pbp 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Philippe Noiret (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Retain Noiret for gobalisation; this list is pretty skimmpy when it comes to great French actors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting Noiret. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sean Penn (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting Penn. Sure, he's a decent actor, but he is not iconic or particularly influential. Should not have been on the list in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - 1) Slow down, 2) I agree with Jusdafax's comment: "I suggest new proposals halt now." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Redgrave (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to pbp, this list is too American-centric, but now he is attempting to trim out all the Brits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting Redgrave. Once big name whose star has gradually faded. Keep Branagh and Jacobi before Redgrave. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Richardson (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to pbp, this list is too American-centric, but now he is attempting to trim out all the Brits. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting Richardson. I've always had a soft spot for Sir Ralph because of his role in one of my favorite movies, but the biggest movies in which he appeared were supporting roles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Bob Cousy (sportsperson)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - First great ballhandler from the first second b-ball dynasty. 20-year career. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The first great basketball dynasty was George Mikan's Lakers. pbp 02:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good point, Cousy came 4 years after Mikan, although they did overlap or at least 6 years (Cousy 1950-70, Mikan 1946-56). We should really add Mikan then, as the game's first great big man. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Leopold Bloom (fictional character)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support The novel is enough, character doesn't appear anywhere else, not sure why he's in in the first place. This is just the kind of character articles we should go for instead unleashing on Harry Potter,Carlwev (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This character is 109 years old, and already included in the literature canon, while Potter is 16, and his place in literature is currently difficult to ascertain due to his extreme recency. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

* We don’t need two characters from 1984.

• Just as well, I wasn't aware he was in it. Carlwev (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Harold Arlen (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Celine Dion (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Cliff (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - A relatively minor figure when you consider who isn't included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll be bold and remove this one, if I were to agree also it would be 4 - 0 in favour of removing. We have to start somewhere or we will get nowhere, almost every suggestion has at least one person opposing, a few like this do not. Carlwev (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Eminem (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 12:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Perhaps the most influential hip-hop artist of the past 15 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The Beatles are already included. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - There are many others that should go before Harrison. He almost single-handedly popularised Indian music in the West, and was important to World Music. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Joel (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Joel is one of the most influential American songwriters of the past 40 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Carole King (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Until other less worthy entries are removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Alan Jay Lerner (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Lets slow down and take a break until after the Core Contest is completed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Lightfoot (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Folk is way underrepresented in this list. Didn't you maek a similar comment above pbp? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Re:Gabe: Yes, I did, to your proposed 100 above. But if folk is to be represented, I think that there are better representatives of it than Lightfoot pbp 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Dinah Shore (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Shania Twain (musician)

• Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Twain is the most influential country singer of the last 25 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• FYI, Gabe had this being dropped above. pbp 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, when I was attempting to compromise with you (which failed miserably). FTR, I can change my mind as many times as I please thank you very much! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tartar sauce (food)

• Support as nom pbp 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, There are lots of sauces and condiments in the world, some like ketchup mustard vinegar and mayo have a chance at staying, in stores there are many different varieties of mustards and ketchups etc in different sizes by different companies they are quite popular in lots of places. Tartar sauce not so much, is with the apple sauce, cranberry sauce, seafood sauce. Carlwev (talk)
• Oppose as not enough. I love tartar sauce. Why keep ketchup and mustard and drop this condiment? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the user wants this removed, just I the nominator do, this shouldn't really count as a vote against tartar sauce being removed pbp 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

An "oppose as not enough" is simply pointless. If you want tartar sauce deleted, then support this deletion and start another discussion right below this saying ketchup and mustard should also be deleted. As for, "why keep ketchup and mustard", ketchup and mustard are much more omnipresent than tartar sauce. You can't get tartar sauce at McDonald's or Burger King or a hot dog stand. Tartar sauce and french fries isn't a thing per se. I am a bit flummoxed by Gabe's recent "oppose" votes here, at DDL, at the Old and New Testament, and elsewhere; they seem to be for no other reason than to be disagreeable towards me. pbp 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's an interesting position pbp. I quote: "Oppose as not enough:". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• What's more disconcerting is that your vote is based partially on the fact that you love tartar sauce. Well, I love the combination of sweet and sour sauce, crab puffs and a Bahooka ade, but I ain't saying that those three belong in the 10,000 list pbp 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I love Doritos Carlwev (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think a few foods like some of the 8 cheeses and relish can go. Carlwev (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was joking, I don't like fish or tartar sauce. I was making a point about how personal preferences are negatively affecting this list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've nominated two more below. If you want to nominate some of the cheese, relish, ketchup, mustard, or mayonnaise, go right ahead. Since we're now voting on this one-at-a-time, how you feel about the merits of one article need not have a bearing on the merits of another article pbp 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Skating (sports)

Currently a disambiguation page, not an article pbp 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom pbp 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Yeah I didn't think we were really supposed to have disambiguations here, probably was just not noticed, we have rollerskating, skateboarding and ice skating, the main kinds. Well spotted, an easy delete I would think. Carlwev (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've been "bold" and just removed this. I can't imagine anyone would oppose removing a disambiguation page, especially since we have roller skating and skate boarding there. Carlwev (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Carl, I really don't think that only three people should be making these choices. Can we please slow down? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Breakfast cereal (food)

• Support as nom pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak OpposeCarlwev (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We have cereal on the list already pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cereal is a group of plants/grasses or their grain, which we use to make many things flour bread cakes biscuits corn flakes etc. Breakfast cereal is a type of food usually manufactured that comes in bags/boxes takes up a whole aisle in a supermarket and a large portion of people eat it every day, usually in a bowl with milk in the morning. It's origins are about 150-200 years ago, several large well known companies make it, it is a substantial part of the food economy. It's main ingredient is cereals and it shares the same name but it is not the same thing. Think of how many people buy and eat breakfast cereal, compared to Scotch Whiskey, or Feta cheese which are included. Carlwev (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fondue (food)

• Support as nom pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - A highly notable dish. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Overly specific. pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tan (color)

• Support as nom pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why drop tan and not the other non-primary colours? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

You don’t really hear the term “shade of tan” like you do “shade of brown”, “shade of gray”, “shade of orange”, or “shade of yellow”. Rather, tan is thought of as a shade of one or more of those four colors pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I went to art college and used many colours and words for them but we didn't really use the word "tan" at all. Maybe it is used in the USA more than the UK? We have brown I believe, Tan is just light brown isn't it. In the wikiproject color Top importance articles have some colours Black blue green etc. High imp...Pink, Purple. But Tan is only in Mid importance. It is too specific a colour, not universally known as a word, and no more important than another 20+ shades of colours that we aren't including. Yeah I would remove it.Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are now so many proposals that some !voters won't know if they are !voting for a drop or an add (its too easy to get lost in the long list). Maybe we should put an add/drop tag at the top of each sub-section. I.e., "Tartar sauce" (drop), or similar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Um, if I'm not mistaken, all the drops are in a thread with "drops" in the title, and all the adds are in a thread with "add" in the title. I believe that to be sufficient pbp 14:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 explains why delete Tan but keep the rest

Somebody (it was GabeMc) asked "why delete Tan and not all the other primary colors". For starters, see the above comments about "shade of tan" versus "shade of gray", "shade of purple", etc. For starters, deleting everything but the primary colors of red, green and blue leaves out black and white. Also consider the following:

• There are three secondary colors of yellow, cyan and magenta. Those are the colors that printer ink comes in (along with black). They are also all web colors. However, there is not much literary symbolism around cyan or magenta
• There are seven traditional colors of heraldry: yellow/gold, white/silver, black, red, blue, green and purple. Why does heraldry matter? Well, almost all flags of the world are composed solely of one or more of those seven colors. Almost all sports teams uniforms are too. And nearly all literary symbolism deals with those seven colors
• Purple and gray join the 3 primary, the 3 secondary, black and white in the list of the 16 web colors. Five web colors are not on this list (maroon, olive, aqua, navy, silver); lime is or isn't depending on how you few green
• Almost universally, if you buy a pack of 8 crayons, 8 colored pencils, 8 watercolors, or 8 markers, the colors will be red, yellow, green, blue, purple, orange and brown. Orange is also one of the colors of the rainbow (as is indigo, though some have pointed out that "indigo" is actually blue and "blue" is actually cyan), a tertiary web color, and is a secondary color in the outmoted system that has red, yellow and blue

Of the colors currently on this list, the only two not mentioned are pink and tan. Tan I'm proposing deleting. Pink has symbolism associated with femininity and is the next most common color after the eight above found in crayon, pencil and marker sets. In general, I find color to be such a basic and pervasive topic that it's OK to devote 10-20 articles to it. A children's book that covers a variety of topics will invariably mention almost all of this colors. Why shouldn't we? pbp 03:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you equating WP:VAs with a children's book? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Along with regular encyclopedias, heraldic uses, and other measures of important concepts, yes. We have 10,000 topics; we should have at least a few for children. And color is hardly a topic reserved for children; it is quite relevant to adults as well pbp 03:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not only children that care about colors, they are important to all kinds of art, fashion, architecture, culture and more. They have been talked and wrote about for millennia. They are only thought to be a child's topic because of their simplicity I guess. But one wouldn't remove the alphabet for this reason. Although you opposed Tan's removal, your other comments look like you do believe some colors should be removed, in fact most of them. Why are you opposing removing one? If in your mind there are too many colors, is removing one not better than removing none at all? Tan is clearly the least worthy, you appear to oppose because others won't let you remove more than one color. Sorry to poke, but I cannot see any other reason. Carlwev (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ang Lee

• Support as the nominator. What significance does he have? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Keep for globalisation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis (American political leader)

• Support as nom pbp 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 17:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Per pbp. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We have American Civil War and Confederate States of America under American history; we have Robert E. Lee under military figures. Jefferson Davis is one of four American political figures on the list who weren't POTUSes, two of the others are Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton and he most certainly isn't in a league with them. His main claim to fame was being president of a country that, according to diplomats of the major world powers at that time, didn't exist pbp 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of adds

Daniel Day-Lewis (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. He is soooooo overrated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. See below. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Re:overrated. Dude has three Leading Actor Academy Awards. Other guys? Not so much pbp 01:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reply to Gabe: Come on, he's not even slightly overrated. 3 Oscars for a leading role, and one of the only actors who have won the Academy Award in three different decades. Also, easily the most significant actor of the last 10+ years (Gangs of New York, There Will Be Blood, Lincoln). MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Robeson (actor)

• Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - FTR, this add was my idea. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin Scorsese

• Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Obviously. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, two of his fllms are included but not himself. Generally regarded as a pretty good director. Consider removing one of his films to add him, if it's all about the numbers. Carlwev (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Its only about the numbers if we choose it to be about the numbers. Also, where's Goodfellas? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Steroid

Off topic suggestion while I know people are watching, do you think we should have Steroid and/or Anabolic steroid, not sure on this, probably would? thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ooh and Animal trapping? I always thought this was important to man in lots of places at lots of times, not sure about the amount of foreign language wikis though quite low, is it covered by hunting enough? thoughts Carlwev (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would find it helpful if you included links to where you think articles should be added. The context of the sub-list is important for !voters. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

New Testament and Old Testament (either Lit or Philo/Relig)

The Bible is on WP:VA. We have a couple dozen biblical figures in bios. We even have a couple translations of the Bible in lit. So why not the Old and New Testaments? pbp 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom pbp 00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Have you ever seen the two in two separate books, other than the books of the Torah? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• SupportCarlwev (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes, I have seen the Bible printed as more than one volume. But, more importantly, the reason for including all three is that the Old and Testament articles cover things the main Bible article doesn’t. If we have 15 articles on characters of the Bible, we can have three articles on the books of the Bible. The Bible's pretty important pbp 01:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• I believe a real print encyclopedia is more likely to have separate articles on the Old and New Testament before having separate articles on 15 characters/people from the Bible. If a person or class is studying this area, they are more likely going to devote study to one of The Testaments as a whole before most of the individual people in it. You can get the Testaments separately, I have them myself. They are two distinct works made at separate times put together later. Some of the people in the Bible in the early story, of which it is thought they are probably not real people, the Old Testament is the main or only source of information on them. Most (not all) of the time you wouldn't have a character before the one work they appear in. There are plenty of peolpe in fiction/religion/mythology that can go to make way. I believe we could have them in. Carlwev (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

One of the most influential directors of all time.

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Carlwev (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support' pbp 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless and until another list item is identified to delete in order to make room. And, yes, I agree that Kubrick probably belongs on the list, but the recent unprioritized additions of far less important topics has created a problem that needs to be resolved first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Again we have 2 of his films (Clockwork Orange and 2001 Space Odyssey) but not him, I think that is the wrong way. Pretty important filmmaker. In general filmmakers are more important than actors. I would include this filmmaker; if I'm honest I presumed he was probably in but never checked. Carlwev (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• It really is time to exercise some discipline, folks. The list of 10,000 now exceeds its stated limit by over 300 topics. Unless and until another topic is identified to delete and make room for Kubrick, we simply cannot add Kubrick or any other topics. Yes, there are plenty of weak sisters we can delete--let's do it. This kind of undisciplined "it's important, let's add it without regard to number limits" behavior is exactly why this list is now 300+ topics over its limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done pbp 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Camouflage

• Support as nom
• Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm sorry although I think this belongs I don't know for sure where to put it, the article covers both animal and military camouflage. It is vary important to military, we have several military ranks included, camouflage is more important to military than descriptions of 10 or so different ranks. We have over 700 animals, but the concept of animal camouflage covers all sorts of very different animals and is well studied. It would more likely appear in a real print encyclopedia as its own article before it reached 700 individual animal articles. I am sure it belongs and may have added it a while back but I didn't know where to place it. Of the top of my head I would think in military, or biology, or color, or somewhere else? thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jailhouse Rock (song)

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: pbp 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose, important, need to think about it, but already have too many songs/albums over genres etc. Carlwev (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Much as I don't want to be contradictory, this is exactly what me and some other editors find wrong with this list. There are three things wrong with this: 1) it's recent when our list is skewed too much toward post-1900 already, 2) it's American when several editors have expressed concern about this list being too Amero-centric, 3) it's a song at a time when we're replacing songs with genres, books with genres and authors, even bios with topics. We have Rock and roll, rock music and Elvis on this list; having Jailhouse Rock as well is a tad overkill. At the very least, I'd like to see six other modern songs deleted if Jailhouse Rock is kept pbp 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Recent" in relation to what? How many pre-1950s songs do you want to include? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 09:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

See below for my songs vs. genres comments. I break it at 1900; the number I like is 12-15 songs from the renaissance or classical, and 15-18 songs from the modern era. In relation to the scope of human history (roughly 5,000 years recorded), Jailhouse Rock is fairly recent. Even in relation to Bach, Jailhouse Rock is fairly recent. But keep in mind that I also opposed it because of narrowness in scope (see Carl below) and redundancy to Elvis and rock and rock pbp 15:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I like your enthusiasm, but good luck on finding pre-1900s songs that are more vital than Jailhouse Rock. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Greensleeves. Brandenburg Concertos. Beethoven's 5th. I could go on... If we're going to have individual works of music, they shouldn't just be American, Canadian or British pop hits pbp 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit busy today to add a lot, but in general I think individual songs and things of similar merit are a tad too specific, we need more wider concepts. We are trying to reduce individual musicians, adding individual songs is even more specific than individual musicians; at least a musician is a slightly wider concept than one song. Carlwev (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jay-Z

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose He was on here earlier and was deleted. Carlwev (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: too recent, not the most representative of rappers pbp 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - He and Eminem should be included, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Recent or not, the most influential musician/songwriter of the past 15 years. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is he? "If" we have a recent (15 years) hip-hop artist I think it should Eminem, and I'm not totally sure about him. Eminem has sold more than double Jay-Z I believe. I don't think he is "that" influential I don't think he belongs within "vital" musicians. It looks like Jay-Z is a better businessman and is richer than many other musicians, but he is not among the most vital businessmen on the planet either. Carlwev (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What do album sales have to do with influence? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 10:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fats Domino

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Run–D.M.C.

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Hip-hop is currenty underrepresented, in fact, its almost completely ignored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Carlwev (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Public Enemy

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - Hip-hop is currenty underrepresented, in fact, its almost completely ignored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: pbp 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Carlwev (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps justifiably underepresented. Relatively new phenomenon (The Message came out only 31 years ago), and while it's global now, that's only occurred within my lifetime. In a list that should have less than 2,500 bios, probably only 2 hip hop artists are significant, and various proposals will get us to that number. Also, I think it's kinda paradoxical that Public Enemy is in and Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five is out. pbp 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pbp, do you think three inclusions from rap/hip-hop would be excessive? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not as excessive as four. Also, it depends on which three pbp 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are 5 hip hop artists (Run–DMC, Public Enemy, Tupac Shakur, Jay-Z, Eminem) worthy of a slot in this list. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 12:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, they all may be worthy, and GMF probably is too, but if we made a list of all the "worthy" topics, we could easily have 12-15,000. At present, consensus is to bring the list down to 10,000. And as such, I believe two hip-hop artists is the right number pbp 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Little Richard

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - As a co-founder of the genre, we should make room for him. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• MIJ, the list of 10,000 is already 300+ articles over its set limit. Nothing can be added without deleting something else. What specific musical artist would you propose deleting in order to add Little Richard? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Little Richard is more deserving than half of the names on the Musicians list. Some might disagree. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many add/drops at once

This is all too much too quickly. Can we please slow down the pace? Maybe we should limit this to 10 "active" proposals at a time. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think we can have more than 10 adds-drops because of the scale of the project. There are 10x as many articles in this one, ergo, we can have 10x as many adds or drops. This is still way slower than the huge lists. pbp 01:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• True, PBP, but there's no reason why there can't be 15 to 30 list items under discussion on the talk page at the same time. Once critical mass of 5 or more !votes is reached to add or delete, I think we can act on the particular item given the size of this list. If someone really strongly objects to the outcome of a particular item, we can continue the discussion and seek input from others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Who are you agreeing with DL1? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• We're never going to get 5 votes all in concert. We barely have 5 people editing, and certainly not 5 people agreeing. I think 3-0 and 10 days is probably enough consensus, 3-1 and 14 days probably is too (that's 75% majority and a week longer than an AfD). pbp 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't you see the real problem with what you just wrote? It's that so few editors are part of the conversation at all. I have tried to be, but my views are obviously too far from mainstream for the rest of (the very small number of) you to even bother responding. There are massive biases in the list (recent, American, etc), and it's inevitable that some editors are unlikely to see that. If you continue down the path you're on, this will become a pointless exercise, continually being challenged as others discover it. Can you do something NOW about the disastrous fact that so few are contributing? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Two quick things: 1) I agree with you that the massive American/recentist bias needs to be rectified by dropping a large number of recent actors, musicians, and sportspeople, 2) I've tried to get more people to contribute. GabeMc, DL and I have posted notices to a bunch of WikiProjects, some of which are fairly active. No dice pbp 01:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So stop. Wait until some others become interested. There is no deadline. If you rush now it's guaranteed to create anguish later. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with HiLo48. A major reason I am reluctant to participate in massive add and drop list discussion is my concern that this is a waste of editing time. This has been rushed into by very few people, and this will very likely have repercussions later. We need to have a discussion about a number of things first, as I see it, and it should be in one central place, not scattered around in several spots. Jusdafax 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Songs vs. Genres, geographies, instruments

There are 75 individual works of music on this list, many of which are in a genre already on this list and composed or sung by a person in the biography section of this list. Meanwhile, there are comparatively few genres, and virtually nothing of music by geographical region (i.e. Sub-Saharan African music traditions). Also, we don't have all the instruments of the orchestra, and not that many instruments from non-Western tradition. I personally believe that it'd be the better part of valor to cut the works to 30 (at least 12 of which would be pre-1900 to quell recency), and use some of that space to cut the bloat, but the rest to add genres, geographies or instruments pbp 02:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Both Dirtlawyer and Jusdafax want us to slow down. I agree with them. You are moving way too fast on all of this, and you seem almost frantic about it, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer also wanted some general principles laid down. Can't a guy do that? But, yes, I do want this to get done before people lose interest. It's been literally years since people were this engaged, it could be years before this happens again. And if each period of engagement results in only a small portion of this being fixed, it could take decades to fix pbp 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Way too much drama. I have said before and I say now that the squabbling, haste, and sheer volume of change is off-putting to most people. Then there are the now-open agenda-pushers pursuing their anti-American or recentism slants. The small number of overall participants is going to lead to charges that decisions reached in the past weeks are hardly a consensus. The charges and counter-charges currently active on ANI also do not inspire confidence in the active change-seekers. A period of reflection and measured discussion would be for the best, in my view. Thank you. Jusdafax 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A very good recommendation. There is no deadline. Sadly there's only a handful of editors active on this article. One or two have strong opinions that differ from another one or two with strong opinions. Allow time for more to discover it. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New approach to getting more people here

I've decided to tag the talk pages some of the less controversial articles that are here but not at WP:VA with Template:Vital article, the lv. 4 version. I think it will help get the word out about the project. I urge other editors to do same pbp 16:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Swap thread

We have an active delete thread, and an active add thread. I am now starting an active swap thread; i.e. one off, one in. Since swaps are often controversial, please try to stick with similar topics

Grover Cleveland out, James K. Polk in (modern American political leaders)

1. Support: as nom pbp 23:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per pbp's fine logic below. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. This is an excellent swap; Polk is one of the most overlooked figures in U.S. history and had a dramatic impact on the subsequent development of the country. Not sure how Cleveland made the list in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

It appears that the list of American political leaders was formulated in part by having every single American president who served two terms. Of those, some of them served two terms at a time, but did not implement much policy. Grover Cleveland is one of those, serving a time of political paralysis. On the other hand, Polk was successful in his policy pursuits; he ran on a platform of "Manifest Destiny" and achieved his stated goals in a single term. In most rankings of American presidents, Polk is ranked higher than Cleveland and several other American political leaders that are on this list. I'm not sure that keeping both Polk and Cleveland is a good idea, due to over-10,000 and globalization concerns...27 American leaders seems more than enough. FWIW, the American political leaders we have are Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama; plus Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson Davis and Henry Kissinger (the last two of which I have serious questions about inclusion) pbp 23:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would also support dropping the following presidents from the list: Ulysses Grant, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Grant is an obscure figure outside of the United States, and the others suffer from recentism. Maybe there should be an inclusionary exemption for the present occupant of the White House, given the importance of the role in world politics, etc. Although it also has recentism issues, I hesitate to propose Barack Obama for deletion given the symbolic significance of being the first black chief executive in U.S. history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm generally thinking along those lines, with the exception that "Useless" Grant might be better placed in military leaders (where Robert E. Lee is already). Three others I have questions about are Monroe (apart from the Monroe Doctrine, not a significant presidency), Kissinger and Jeff Davis. On the modern guys, sure, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 held the title of "most powerful man in the world" while in office. So did quite a few Kings of England (George IV, William IV), popes and East Asian dudes who haven't received much consideration from this list pbp 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • I know I kind of got the actors put back, but if we want to get rid of fairly recent people I still think we should trim a tiny bit off several areas, Musicians, actors, comedians, hosts, David Letterman, Tina Fey?. Plus things like songs, albums, poems, paintings. I hate to say it and I'm not normally the one to defend recent Americans, and I'm not saying they're completely safe, but I think we should trim the areas I said before removing US presidents, recent or not. I would remove things like this first, What's Going On (song), Marvin Gaye is enough. The Way You Look Tonight, Be Without You, a Mary J Blige record, really. There are more, I won't list them all, go and see. Carlwev (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Carl, I don't disagree regarding the songs, comedians, musicians and hosts, but I haven't had occasion to comment on those lists yet. I have reviewed the actors list, and I have commented on several individually above, as well as proposing more for deletion in the general discussion. As for the U.S. presidents, not only do Carter, the Bushes and Clinton have potential recentism issues, I don't think the four of them are all that historically significant when compared to the likes of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. Nixon makes it by virtue of Watergate and its impact. Reagan was a major transformational figure. I would probably cut Jefferson Davis, assuming we have included a general reference to the Confederacy (C.S.A.). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Brian Wilson out, The Beach Boys in

1. Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. We should consider similar swaps by adding other musicial groups and deleting the individual group members. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

I changed this over no one seamed to oppose, everyone agreed. Carlwev (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, in general, we really should wait more than 48 hours before acting on a proposal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gabe. I just took a look at this for the first time. 48 hours is rushing it. Ramming a change like this through on the Easter holiday weekend is additionally uncalled for. Jusdafax 2:13 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Um, we had "drop Brian Wilson" and "add the Beach Boys" in separate threads above, and before that, each of the proposals and counter-proposals on the “modern musicians cut to 100” above. It’s certainly been more than 48 hours that we’ve had a consensus to make this switch pbp 22:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Likewise, we should delete Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, and add the "Rodgers and Hammerstein" partnership; delete Alan Jay Lerner and add "Lerner and Lowe"; delete John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison in favor of the Beatles. There are easily another ten artists who could simply be deleted as not being "vital" enough (Dinah Shore? Britney Spears? Cher? Shania Twain?). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually think Harrison should be removed, but McCartney and Lennon should stay. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis Lerner, I'd just delete him outright. Think I proposed that above pbp 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim Morrison out, The Doors in

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support: This is "The End" of Jim Morrison in this list. It's time for the Doors to "Break on Through" to being on the list. pbp 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Need to find me an "L.A. Woman" and sleep all night in her "Soul Kitchen"
• Support. - Nice job lightening things up pbp! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I changed these over, everyone seamed to think it was a good change Carlwev (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, in general, we really should wait more than 24 hours before acting on a proposal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Core Contest (reposted notice)

• Casliber will soon be running the next in a series of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. The event runs from April 15 to May 13 2013. Editors will be selecting a core or vital article for improvement over the course of the contest period. Needless to say it would be greatly appreciated if the list were stable during the contest period. -- Dianna (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have reposted the preceding notice from the main talk page of WikiProject Vital Articles. I propose that we recognize a 30-day moratorium on any changes to any Vital Article list from April 13 to May 13, 2013 in order to not undermine the Core Contest article improvement effort. Discussions may continue during that 30-day period, but no changes should be implemented. I would be grateful if all of the present Vital Article discussion participants would acknowledge this notice and signify their support of the 30-day moratorium on changes during the article improvement effort. Thanks.

• Support a 30-day moratorium on topic additions and deletions from Vital Article lists from April 13 to May 13, 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support I was already thinking the same. I would suggest the period of time that it remains unchanged begin several days before April 15. There is the possibility that users may pick one of the articles in the list and start researching it and writing new content in their sand box before the official start date. Only for us then to remove their chosen article the day before contest officially begins. As we are under 1000 (984 I think), we could potentially add an article without removing one, not saying we should though. But it is the removing of articles that could potentially mess people up more that adding them. Carlwev (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Carl, while we are apparently 10 or 12 articles under our limit for the list of 1,000, we are 300+ over our limit for the list of 10,000. Can we get an accurate current count for the list of 1,000? The article improvement contest starts on April 15; perhaps we could start the moratorium on April 8 instead of April 13 to provide participants with the prep time you suggest. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. - This list isn't going anywhere; it will be here when the contest is over, so lets not make things difficult for other editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I suggest the change moratorium begin as soon as possible. I suggest making it April 5 at the latest. And seeing consensus for a moratorium here, I suggest new proposals halt now. Jusdafax 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No on the last part. Proposals can continue and people can talk about them, consensus can even be reached, but we can't enact them until May 13. I'm getting a bit of a feeling that some want to use this Core Contest as an excuse to take a month-long break from talking about this list. That's a dreadful idea. Also, I believe April 5 is way too soon...should be more like April 12 pbp 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Few things:

1. I don't see this page explicitly mentioned in the Core Contest. VA, yes. This, no
2. Generally, discussions have been running at least 10-14 days. Therefore, any changes between now and the drop-dead date proposed above will be the result of discussions that either are occurring now (00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)) or will be started very soon.
3. The price of one month of stability will be a few weeks of relative instability following the contest close pbp 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: per the reasons I've outlined in my comments above pbp 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's exactly the right time to speed things up. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

My two cents

We're progressing with such a slow tempo that I don't think we'll ever be able to cut this list to 10K entries, and then choose the correct 10K candidates out of 4M+ articles. I think we need to put a bigger effort into perfecting the VA-3 list since it's a much easier list to compile. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, I was under the impression that VA (3) was complete. Part of the problem is that a few editors think we should take a pause until, like, mid-May, which I frankly find ridiculous. I think it's time to speed things up. pbp 23:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we need to speed things up. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)