Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

Introduction

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

• All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.

1. After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least 70% of the total !votes support the proposal.
2. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn 70% support.
3. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
4. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than 70% support of the total !votes.

Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles, or Vital Articles/Expanded list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.

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

---

Swap: Remove Steven Spielberg, Add Alfred Hitchcock

Support

1. Support. - As nom. Spielberg is too recent, and not at all as vital as Hitchcock. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza^T/C 10:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support pbp 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Although it's a slight improvement I'd prefer to remove Eisenstein or Hendrix, who where both active for a shorter time, or perhaps Duke Ellington. All of whom have probably had less impact than Spielberg. Recentism? Spielberg and Hendrix or the Beatles, all started in the 1960s, only Hendrix and Beatles were cut short under a decade where Spielberg has carried on to present day, which makes him seem more recent; Film by it's nature is within the last 100 years, so all filmmakers also have to be too. To have a selection of filmmakers (last 100 years) and also not seem recent too means we need filmmakers from only the early to mid 20th century over representing that period but almost miss out the late 20th century to present day completely, . I know I brought up musicians and not filmmakers, but if we think the articles in the 1000 are not right, why would we think the number articles in each sublist of it is right? Music has been around much longer than Film but 5 of our 13 musicians are from within the last 100 years, it was higher before we've also previously had Fela Kuti, Michael Jackson and Antonio Carols Jobim. I However think Hitchcock is an OK inclusion if we are having 5 or 6 filmmakers. Spielberg just isn't the first person I'd boot off to make room. Carlwev (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the world's three "great" races, Hendrix and Ellington are two of only three representatives of the Negroid race on this list. Of the 134 people currently listed here, only 2.24% are Negro, despite the fact that they make up 15% of the global population. There have been so many discussions of the list's systemic bias that I shouldn't have to make a big argument that all three major races should be represented here, and not just Asian and European. Hendrix is also the only person on this list with Native American heritage. It greatly concerns me that the last three or four people that have been removed from VA3 have been people of color. There are more people in Africa then in Europe, and there are roughly as many people of Africa decent as there are people of European decent, but this list is currently disproportionately white. There are currently 9 Asians and 3 Negros included, which is only about 9% of this list, despite the fact the Asians and Negros make up 75% of the global population. Whites make up 15% of global population, but 91% of this list. So please stop attempting to remove the few people of color on this list; we are only three removals away from 100% White and/or Asian. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The arts

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

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

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

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

Swap: Remove Art, Add The arts

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

Support

1. As nom czar ♔ 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza^T/C 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
6. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Updating talk pages

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

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

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

---

Scientists

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swap: Remove John Dalton, Add James Clerk Maxwell

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

Support

1. Support as nom James^x12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Dalton perhaps doesn't get enough attention, but I would have to agree that Maxwell is more vital. Neljack (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Agree with Neljack Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Benjamin Franklin, Add Richard Feynman

Support

1. Support as nom James^x12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Franklin is not famous as a scientist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Swap: Remove nth root, Add 0 (number)

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC
3. Support From a layperson's perspective (as opposed to mathematician) the number 0 just seems to be far more fundamental than the nth root. Although I also support removing percentage and keeping nth root as an alternative (see discussion below). Gizza^T/C 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose remove. See my comment below. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Cuisine or Cooking on the Level 2 and 3 lists

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

---

Add Molecular Biology remove blood

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Both should be included. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Blood is an essential topic pbp 16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

Remove Shahnameh

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - It's on par with the others mentioned above (Don Quixote, Epic of Gilgamesh, Iliad, Mahabharata). Athenean (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Orchestra, Add Musical ensemble

Not sure why Western classical music deserves preferential treatment on this subject, particularly when the list of musicians is already tilted towards that area.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Cobblet. Gizza^T/C 02:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. I dont think most people use orchestra exclusively for classical orchestras. But I agree with the general motivation behind this swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Very well-known term. Athenean (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Machu Picchu, Add Andean civilizations

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose woud be like swapping the Eiffel tower for "European culture". Yes, the Inca Empire should be on the lñist if it isnt already. So should Macchu Pichu.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - One of the most globally renowned archeological sites. Athenean (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per Maunus. Gizza^T/C 08:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Parthenon, Add Athens

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose not comparable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

---

Add Rat

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --ELEKHH^T 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Cattle

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support (as long as we stay under 1000) I think cattle is a very solid case. Carlwev (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support as stated below if we have plenty of crop related articles why not livestock? Gizza^T/C 23:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - We have enough animals on Level 2. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose would not oppose a swap of cow for horse.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

---

Swap: Remove History of agriculture, Add Tourism

While obviously important, the former is covered adequately by Agriculture and History of technology, as well as articles on specific historical developments (Animal husbandry, Domestication, Fertilizer; and the mechanization of agriculture is covered in Industrial revolution). I suggest removing it so that we can diversify our coverage of industries beyond those that involve resource extraction. Tourism is probably the most significant industry not on the list, and right now the word "tourism" isn't even mentioned once in the Industry article.

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Agriculture is vastly more important than tourism. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Yes, tourism is insignificant in the perspectve of the truly ital topics that an encyclopedia must coer. The history of agricuture is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Both should be included. Athenean (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

---

Swap: Add Le Corbusier, Remove Frida Kahlo

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose: For one, if we're going to improve the representation of architecture, I'd start with somebody else. For two, we're dropping one of the few women and one of the few Latins on the list pbp 19:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per PbP. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose I think removing Frida Kahlo would lessen the quality of this list. There needs to be more representation of South Americans, not less. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Too many EuropeaN men already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I have to agree with Cobblet here, though it pains me to remove Verdi in particular. Debussy did have a more revolutionary impact on music than any of these three. I'd be supportive of adding some others to balance things out - Stravinsky, Mahler and Schubert would be possibilities. Neljack (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
3. 'Support Getting rid some of the extremely overrepresented European classical composers is essential. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - I think the musicians list is currently "right-sized" and not in need of a reduction. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose I can't support this as it's currently proposed pbp 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Verdi perhaps, Chopin and Tchaikovsky definitely not. Athenean (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even if we did want to keep the same number of musicians, I could still name composers more significant than Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky that would also broaden our representation of classical music outside the Romantic era without compromising geographic diversity. From Italy I'd pick Claudio Monteverdi; from Eastern Europe I'd pick Franz Liszt (we don't have a single Hungarian on the list, while Poland at least has Marie Curie); and from Russia I'd pick Igor Stravinsky. That being said, I could comfortably argue that Debussy is more significant than the last two figures (it's harder to make a direct comparison with Monteverdi). Cobblet (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Maunus, this proposal won't "get rid some of the extremely overrepresented European classical composers", it will only serve to replace the ones currently listed with others. Also, we currently have 8 classical composers on the list, and if we dropped 2 or 3 of them this would lead to a situation where there are as many "modern" musicians on the list as classical, which will then lead to the addition of more classical artists and/or the removal of the modern musicians, namely the only three non-White ones, I predict. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think half modern and half classical would be about right. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So do I, but I assure you that we are in the minority in that regard. Mark my words, if this proposal goes through it will lead to the removal of the three non-European musicians, and the addition of three more classical ones. I predict that in addition to Debussy, they will want to add Stravinsky and Liszt, so that the list will never be 50/50. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc, are you not even reading the wording of the nomination now? The first sentence was "Romantic music is probably the most single over-represented art movement on the list." Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If we both oppose such a proposal they would have to amass a lot of people to get that one through.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Two opposes is rarely enough to block a proposal. As long as they get 5 supports the proposal will pass, and I can count 3 or 4 right off the top that will support. I respect your choice here, but be warned that this will lead to more not less classical representation, and the removal of the only three musicians of colour. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I cant vote oppose for what is clearly a move in the right direction just on the suspicion that it will be followed by a subsequent move backwards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, removing three for one reduces the diversity right off, not? Anyway, mark my words, if they remove two classical composers the list will include 6 classical and 5 modern, and the next move will be to remove a few modern to balance it out. Who do you think will be the first three removed? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Hamlet

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I would say that Hamlet is probably the most influential literary work in English. Neljack (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - per Neljack. Athenean (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
7. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Pending a discussion regarding which work would best represent English literature. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. No need for quotas, and besides, Shakespeare's already on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose see comment Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Gizza^T/C 08:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me too. I think the only competition to Hamlet might be Beowulf or Canterbury tales.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone enjoys the Bard; I find his writing, verbose, self-indulgent and pretentious. I would take a good story by Dickens or Twain anyday over Hamlet, and that doesn't make me any less intelligent, so try not to poke fun at other people's personal tastes; there is no need to be rude and insulting. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people find every work of literature ever written to be "verbose, self-indulgent and pretentious". The last thing that should be dictating inclusion or exclusion from this list is personal taste. I don't understand quantum physics, but I sure woulnd't argue against its inclusion just because I found it "bo-o-o-o-oring"! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Theocracy, Add Oligarchy

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose it makes less sense to include the oerarching topic when it is not as consequential as some of the individual subtopics. IN any case the swap would have to be between the overarching topic and the subtopics and not with another topic that is itself vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Asteroid belt

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - per comments below. Athenean (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Swap: Remove Asteroid belt Add Comet

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

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support As significant to human culture and history as the planets. The study of comets contributed to the discovery of solar wind, the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Athenean (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - I don't think we should include such a specific topic; there are hundreds of Astronomy/Astro Physics topics that could be included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

Swap: Remove Nanotechnology, Add Paper

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza^T/C 04:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Swap: Remove X-ray, Add Medical imaging

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Athenean (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Series (mathematics), Add Sequence

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

I agree that the Math section is over-represented (I'd like more in the History section, for example), and that geometry is especially excessive.

(Regarding this specific swap, I'm not sure: the main usage of sequences is their sums, so the general article may not be best here.) - Ypnypn (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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

---

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

Every acid has a conjugate base, and vice versa: we don't need separate articles to describe two sides of the same coin. The article on the type of reaction is enough.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Athenean (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Agnosticism, Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support There is no need to list so many articles that cover a single philosophical topic. Gizza^T/C 03:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Rain, Add Precipitation

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Seems obvious. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think the specific is better than the wider term in this case, I would to add snow too, as that covers snow on the ground as well as in the sky, that precipitation does not. Carlwev (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza^T/C 10:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. oppose Specificity is good when the overarching topic is vague and unlikely to eer hae a good article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

   Coincidentally, both Rain and Precipitation are Good Articles. It might be easier to convert Rain into a Featured Article. Gizza^T/C 00:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Athenean (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Having both rain and snow is overkill IMO. Swap tornado for wind? Cobblet (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Precipitation is hardly vague: it's a well-defined component of the water cycle. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: remove Vladimir Lenin, add Franklin D. Roosevelt

It's excessive and undue to include two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of the 25 greatest leaders of all time, and since there appears to be a running consensus that Stalin is as vital as Hitler, we should remove Lenin, who only served as the Soviet leader for two years. FDR made a lasting impact on the US and western civilization, and was the longest serving US president. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; two consecutive Soviet leaders is excess; no other government or civilization enjoys this level of coverage; Lenin only served for two years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the addition but Support the removal; if nationalistic diversity is a priority, no country (be it the US or Russia/the Soviet Union) should be represented by more than two leaders on such a short list. And if chronological diversity is something else we care about, the Middle Ages/Postclassical Era is currently underrepresented: in particular, there is a 750-year gap between Augustus and Charlemagne that could be filled. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition & support removal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Lenin is historically vital FDR is not. Lenin and Stalin are comparable in Vitality to Lincoln and Washington.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Co-Founder of Marxism/Leninism which became the most influential communist theory, in fact communism as a social and political phenomenon itself. And communism was one of the three great ideologies of the 20th century besides liberalism and fascism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• It's unconscionable that US politicians would monopolize 12% of the "great figures" of history. Otto von Bismarck is one off the top of my head that had a greater impact than FDR; if we want more diversity (as in, more non-Europeans), I'm half-surprised Tokugawa Ieyasu isn't on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's even worse when you consider that by consensus, Benjamin Franklin is on the list partly for his political contributions. As for non-Western leaders, Ashoka also comes to mind. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The most recent leaders for Germany, China, Russia, India and England all died less than 70 years ago, but the most recent US leader was born 204 years ago. If the USA became the world's leading Super Power during the 148 years since Lincoln died, then how did they accomplish that without a great leader in 150 years? That's would mean that the US had two great leaders before they became a super power, but none since, which seems unlikely to me. If not FDR, then who? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That's silly reasoning. Japan was (until very recently) the second most powerful economy in the world. What "great leader" gets the credit for that? Nobody, because no one person can claim responsibility for that. How about giving credit for American superpoweress to the American people—the Edisons and Fords and MacArthurs and on and on who, as an aggregate, made the US central to politics, business, and culture of the 20th century? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the Civil War, the USA has not experienced the same kind of disruptive change that characterizes the modern history of the first four countries you mentioned. So it's not surprising to me that no president after Lincoln is on the list. Of course they've had great leaders since then: in fact, they've had many great leaders, of which FDR might be the most significant, but does he tower over his contemporaries to such an extent that he should be on the list at their expense? I'm not so sure. One thing I am sure: adding a third leader of a comparatively young nation flies in the face of our attempts to broaden nationalistic diversity. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Vladimir Lenin

It's excessive and undue to include two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of the 25 greatest leaders of all time, and since there appears to be a running consensus that Stalin is as vital as Hitler, and FDR is not vital, we should remove Lenin, who only served as the Soviet leader for two years. Lenin does not belong on a list of the 25 most significant leaders in the history of the world. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; either Stalin or Lenin should go, and since Stalin apparently isn't going anywhere, V.I. must make room for others. I would suggest Peter the Great, but I agree that no nation should have three. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support could make room for someone rpresenting an underrepresented world region. Technically Caesar and August were also consecutive leaders, but that argument is neither here nor there. I do agree that three leaders for Russia is too much on such a short list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Co-Founder of Marxism/Leninism which became the most influential communist theory, in fact communism as a social and political phenomenon itself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Leninism, the vanguard theory, the Russian Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Union - he's absolutely vital in my book. If Russia is thought to have too many leaders, then Catherine the Great is the least vital and should be removed instead. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Che Guevara

Iconic leader, known across the world. Ony one other Latin American leader on the list.

Support

1. Support. - As nom; User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No reason to have two Latin American leaders when South Asia only has one and Korea/Japan, Southeast Asia, Oceania all have none. Cobblet (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Ridiculous oppose rationale. We have three East Asian leaders: Qin Shi Huang, Mao Zedong and Genghis Khan. Japan, Korea are single countries not continents and Oceania is not of comparable importance in world history to Africa and South America. Latin America and Africa compbined account for 5/134 of the entires in the entire people section and the only Africans are egyptian rulers and Ibn Batutta. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it any more ridiculous than nominating the addition of another man to the list when we only seven women? Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would of course be happy to nominate a soputh American woman as well. BUt when I nominate I try to gess at what other people might want to support, and generally it is a very limited selection. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Che before Castro? pbp 21:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because Che's significance is both political and as a (pop) cultural icon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Add Nelson Mandela

Iconic leader, known across the world. Ony one other African leader on the list.

Support

1. Support. - As nom; User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza^T/C 00:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Like Gandhi (whom we have), Mandela had a profound effect both on the history of his own country and as an international symbol of justice and reconciliation. Neljack (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose For the same reason given in the previous case, plus we have two rulers of Ancient Egypt so it's only true that we have one Sub-Saharan African leader. But I would support swapping Shaka out to add him. Cobblet (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We clearly dont need two rulers of Egypt on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not so clear to me: these are the only two Ancient Egyptians we have in general. (By comparison we have seven figures representing Ancient Greece.) Who would you remove? Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I would remove Hatsheshut, whom most people have never heard of. I would of course also support removing some Greeks. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I assume she's on the list as a notable female leader. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If we wanted an egyptian female leader Cleopatra would be the obvious choice, imo.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cobblet:, we have only two Greek leaders, this discussion is about leaders, so why would Greek leaders have to pay the price for the lack Egyptian philosophers? Yeah, there might be seven Greeks in toto on Level three, but seven out of 134 isn't at all ridiculous for an English language Wiki when you consider what a staggering influence ancient Greece has on modern Western Civilization. Did ancient Egypt influence Western Civilization at a comparable level as Greece? There are nine Asians on the list, BTW. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

But Greek is notable for its philosophers not for its political leaders, so why should they have two leaders on the list?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It was just a point of reference: I'm OK with it myself, but was not sure if Maunus would be, if he considered it obviously necessary to remove one of the two Egyptians. And both Curly Turkey and I have suggested Asian leaders that could be added to the list, so your point has been acknowledged. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Gotta admit, Greek influnce has been far, wide, and broad. Personally I wouldn't be bothered to see it bumped to eight by switching up Homer for the Iliad.
I can see an argument for Nelson Mandela in that he represents the rising conscioussness of racism as a thing to be fought against that has only risen in any significant form since the late 20th century. I won't vote one way or the other, however. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Categories

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

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

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

Support

1. As nominator. Gizza^T/C 03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
2. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - It seems like there is a good idea in here, but this proposal is too open-ended as it stands right now. Consider re-working this as an either-or, versus a multiple-choice, which doesn't work all that well here, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Athenean (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC
5. Support - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - Are we going to start adding every sect of every major religion? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Remove Nobel Prize

Support

1. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- Too specific. Gizza^T/C 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
7. support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

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

Discussion

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

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

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

But they wouldn't be in the social sciences section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Kidney or Lung, Add Eye

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

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

Support

1. Support As nom. Gizza^T/C 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support either, preference to lose kidney though. Carlwev (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support swap for kidney; oppose removing lung Cobblet (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Remove kidney. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - The kidney and lung are vital organs, the eye is not. Athenean (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

OK my mistake, we had them in the past I hadn't noticed their removal. see here [[1]], agree all the same. Carlwev (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Ideal number of People/biographies

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

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

That's a strange position on West Africa when just yesterday you said that all religious sects with 100 million people or more should be included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Catholicism is an important subtopic of Christianity. Fela Kuti doesn't hold the same significance to West Africa. Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming that sports is never as important as religion, but to some people it is. E.g., there are over 1 billion atheists on earth, so I doubt they care about Catholicism as much as you think they do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports? Kuti was a musician. And I assume nothing of the sort. I think you'll find a lot more people care about major religious denominations than even FDR, to name your favourite example. But I digress. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cobblet, sorry, I mis-typed; I meant Music. BTW, I noticed that a good deal of your comments lately include personal attacks, particularly against me. Please re-read WP:CIVIL and attempt to refrain from personal comments about editors; keep your comments about content, please. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

When I make arguments that others find untrue or incoherent, I expect to be challenged and corrected (and this has happened many times—you did it to me right here). I don't perceive such comments as personal attacks, and when I feel obliged to defend my opinion, I'm surprised that others would consider my words as such. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I think it is a reasonable trend that as the number of vital articles increase, biographies as a percentage also increase. There are none in the Vital 10. I also support a slight trimming to around 125 or maybe a bit lower. Gizza^T/C 12:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think People is fine as it is, and I would suggest that there are numerous areas with excess that should be trimmed before People. E.g., I think that Science is currently the most bloated section with 187 articles, including 5 types of chemistry, 10 elements, Science, History of Science and Scientific Method, Chemistry, Chemical bond, Chemical compound, Chemical element and Chemical reaction. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just curious: besides People, are there any other sections of the list you don't consider bloated? Cobblet (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mathematics, Health and medicine, Arts and culture and History seem about right. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I happen to disagree (IMO math could easily be cut by 10 topics and history increased by the same amount), but at least I understand where you're coming from now, thanks. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I also think Mathematics and Health and Medicine could be cut back with about 10 topics each, and I also think that both history and people could be expanded with 10-20 articles each.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's relatively right-sized at the moment. I wouldn't go much lower than 125, nor higher than 150 pbp 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Add Liu Hui to Mathematicians

1) There are currently no Asians included in the list of Mathematicians. In fact, the list is currently 100% Indo-European. 2) Liu Hui is one of the greatest mathematicians of ancient China. 3) There is a 1,000 year gap between Euclid and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī; Liu Hui fits neatly in the middle, having been born around 220 CE. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; adding Liu Hui would diversify the list both ethnically and chronologically. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for the same reasons given here. The nominator himself didn't consider Liu Hui worth adding to the Level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Cobblet, please stop making this personal. I opposed the previous addition hastily, and have since reconsidered. Zu Chongzhi also has a good case for addition, but since Liu Hui is much earlier and his solutions to mathematical problems presented in the famous Chinese book of mathematics, The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art make him a better candidate, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You weren't the only one: there was a strong consensus not to add him. The best person to represent China's contribution to math and science in that time period is undoubtedly Zhang Heng, although he was not first and foremost a mathematician, but an inventor. (That shouldn't make it a problem to add him—he is clearly more notable than Liu Hui.) I'm also opposed to adding more people when we haven't critically examined the existing list. For example, it's not clear if Pythagoras was responsible for much of the work that has been attributed to him. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we have been critically examining this list for several years; or do you think that the work we did before you came on wasn't critical enough? Have fun trying to remove Pythagoras; that should be entertaining. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That Fela Kuti was hastily added and then just as hastily removed as recently as a few months ago suggests that we have not yet established sound criteria for what sort of people to include. Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

FTR, User:Maunus added Kuti almost 10 months ago in the interests of cultural diversity. I don't remember anyone except maybe Carl complaining until you came along. For the sake of globalization, please allow us to also include people of African and Asian decent. You seem intent on angelizing an already Euro-centric list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You flatter me: in fact, he was removed by consensus out of a discussion that I didn't even start. Who's being personal now? Your comments on my supposed European bias are laughable when you know nothing of my ethnic background, and when you've opposed suggestions I've made in the past to counter such bias (e.g. the people and cities I've suggested adding to the Level 4 list, the countries I've suggested adding to this list, and the swap of orchestra for musical ensemble I suggested.) Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Zu Chongzhi to Mathematicians

1) There are currently no Asians included in the list of Mathematicians. In fact, the list is currently 100% Indo-European. 2) Zu Chongzhi is one of the greatest mathematicians of ancient China. 3) There is a 1,000 year gap between Euclid and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī; Zu Chongzhi fits neatly in between them, having been born around 429 CE.

Support

1. Support. - As nom; adding Zu Chongzhi would diversify the list both ethnically and chronologically. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not on the Level 4 list, and not as notable as Zhang Heng. Cobblet (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Zhang Heng to Mathematicians

1) There are currently no Asians included in the list of Mathematicians. In fact, the list is currently 100% Indo-European. 2) Zhang Heng is one of the greatest mathematicians of ancient China. 3) There is a 1,000 year gap between Euclid and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī; Zhang Heng fits neatly in between them, having been born around 25 CE.

Support

1. Support. - As nom; adding Zhang Heng would diversify the list both ethnically and chronologically. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose additions purely for the sake of diversifying the list. Might support adding him if another mathematician were removed: Pythagoras would be my suggestion, since many things credited to him may not actually have been his work, while Ancient Greece's contribution to math and science is already represented by Archimedes and Euclid. That being said, Shen Kuo is already on the list. Are we overlooking someone not from China? Cobblet (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:Cobblet, are you asserting that on a list of 31 Inventors, scientists and mathematicians, that one Chinese person is enough? They are among the most ancient civilizations on Earth and currently the world's most populous nation. On what basis do you think that there is only one vital Chinese person in the history of all invention, science and math? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "asserting" that any more than you're "asserting" that only European, Arab and Chinese people deserve representation on a list of vital inventors, scientists and mathematicians. While I think that it's a futile exercise to try to expand this list to cover people of all possible backgrounds in anything approaching a proportional manner (apparently this is true even of the level 4 list, where my attempts to move in that direction have met with general opposition), I'm open to the idea of making rational substitutions to increase its diversity. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cobblet, regarding Pythagoras and your assertion that "many things credited to him may not actually have been his work", what then of Shakespeare, who is well-known to have "borrowed" heavily in some of his major works? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I quote from our article on the Bard: "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution." Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, but if it was, then I assume this article could be nomed for deletion then? Shakespeare authorship question 2) Ever heard of the poem, The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet? In an article in The Atlantic (April 2002), Richard Posner notes that Shakespeare's "famous description in Antony and Cleopatra of Cleopatra on her royal barge is taken almost verbatim from a translation of Plutarch's life of Mark Antony." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Of course not. It's been a subject of scholarly research, which has indicated exactly the opinion expressed in the quote I gave. 2. And a personal website counts as an RS, I suppose. Are you seriously comparing this one case of plagiarism to the authenticity of a person who was supposedly son of Apollo and had a golden thigh? Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

One case? Perhaps you should take a look at Sources of Hamlet, which accurately states that the Bard likely ripped the story off of Thomas Kyd's Ur-Hamlet. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case we're not even sure Ur-Hamlet existed, or that it was Kyd's work. Even if all that was true, I doubt there are many people who would remove him from the list for that reason alone: see the first sentence in Plagiarism#Plagiarism and the history of art, which is just common sense (backed up by six citations)—we're talking about an artist, not an academic. If you persist in comparing the question of Shakespearean authorship to the authenticity of a person who was supposedly son of Apollo and had a golden thigh, I will recuse myself from the conversation. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A passage from The Tempest (Tempest, Act I, Sc II), comes heavily lifted from Michel de Montaigne (‘On Cannibals’ – Vol I, Chapter XXXI). Source: A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, The Poems, Problem Comedies, Late Plays. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Guru Nanak Dev

Sikhism has just 30 million devotees, but putting numbers aside, it hasn't made anywhere near as significant an impact globally as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; Sikhism has not made the historical impact that the world's other major religions have made. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support we cant have the main figures of all religions with 30 million adherents.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Currently there are 3 Sikhism related articles (the religion itself, Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Granth Sahib which per above is far too many for a religion of its size. Then there is the fact that Guru Gobind Singh was arguably more influential than Guru Nanak Dev. I would also argue for the removal of the holy book. Gizza^T/C 09:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Association football, Olympics, and Track and field

Association football, Olympics, and Track and field are too specific for Level 3. We shouldn't identify vital sports at this level; including Sport is sufficient. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. As nom; these three specific sports do no belong at this level; let's leave the inclusion of specific sports for Level 4, where there is ten times as many spots. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sport deserves more than one article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose: First off, I'm fine with having up to 10 sports articles on this list. Second, two of these aren't that specific: you have a discipline that's been contested for 2,500 years and consists of a variety of running, jumping and throwing events. Then you have an international competition that serves as the premier championship for many sports. Soccer is more specific than track or the Olympics, but it's also the most popular sport worldwide pbp 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Each of these are significant elements of human culture in their own right, much more so than any other sport (or chess for that matter). I think these three articles are pretty much exactly what we need: the only thing I'm not sure of is why we chose track and field over athletics (sport) or running. Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose I would support removing track and field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap; Remove Track and field, Add Athletics (sport)

Track and field is too narrowly defined for Level 3. We should not be so specific; we should be more general when listing sports-related topics. Athletics covers much more than Track, which is arguably subsumed by Athletics. Yes, we have the specific sport of Association Football, but as the world's most popular sport, it is the exception here, not the rule. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; too specific for Level 3. Athletics covers much more area and in more inclusive. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Remove, not add. I think Athletics is covered by Olympics no?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support The distinction between track and field and athletics as a whole is a legacy of the history of Western sport, particularly the Ancient Greek Olympics. From an NPOV perspective it seems better to include the latter article. And saying athletics are "covered" by the Olympics is like saying soccer's "covered" by the World Cup. Cobblet (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - as per nominator BluesFan38 (talk)
6. Support - per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
7. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@Maunus:, I think Athletics covers all sports not included in Olympic games. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How so?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In fcat the article only includes running and jumping sports. In my usage "athletics" refers to all the traditional sports of the olympics, like spear and discos throwing, and running and jumping and whaever others there are. I guess Americans sometimes use athletics for all sports.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Bede (Philo/Soc sci)

We have no historians, and we're weak in the Middle Ages

Support

1. pbp 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - If we are looking to add a historian, then Herodotus would be the best candidate, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Herodotus or Leopold von Ranke are better choices for historians.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Herodotus (Philo/Soc sci)

We have no historians

Support

1. pbp 18:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
3. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - The first historian. Athenean (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - "father of history" (Cicero) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Vital to Western civilization, but not vital in a global sense. Cobblet (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the most serious omission on this sublist might be Francis Bacon. To call Herodotus the "father of history" is impressive but imprecise: better to say that he was the father of Western history. Look at how the lead of Histories (Herodotus) is written; or consider that he had no influence on people like Sima Qian. On the other hand, Bacon's ideas were directly responsible for the industrial and scientific revolutions that have ultimately spread around the world. In other words, Bacon's influence is global; I don't think one can say that of Herodotus. Cobblet (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Herodotus is worthy of inclusion, but I would say Thucydides is at least as important. They represent two different historical traditions, much like Plato and Aristotle in philosophy, and I would say that Thucydides's realism has probably been more influential than Herodotus's moralism. There is a very interesting discussion of their respective historical approaches and subsequent influence in our article here: Thucydides#Thucydides versus Herodotus I don't think two historians is two much, when you compare it to, say, philosophers, but I suspect others may disagree. Neljack (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Swap Delhi with Athens

Athens is the cradle of Western civilization, philosophy, and democracy, and through that, vitally important on a global scale. Should be included together with Jerusalem and Rome. Delhi on the other hand is not the most notable nor the largest city in India, that title goes to Mumbai, which is also the financial and entertainment capital of India, while the spiritual capital is in Varanasi. Two Indian cities is moreover overkill, and Delhi has not played a particularly critical role in Indian or world history. Athenean (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Athenean (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
2. I was relcutant, but the rationale convinced me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
7. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Although Delhi's historical and cultural contribution to the world is important, on balance, Athens had a greater overall influence on world history and culture, at least imo. I also think that Delhi's population, although a strong consideration, should not override the accumulated and multifaceted historical impact that Athens had on the world. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Reason below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per AbstractIllusions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose I can support including Athens but not at the expense of Delhi. Gizza^T/C 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose per DaGizza. --Carwil (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Per AbstractIllusions. Solomon7968 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose per abstractillusions Pass a Method talk 19:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• If we treat cities as cities and not as things held within recently constructed national borders (as the nomination does) then the whole Delhi vs. Athens thing collapses. Delhi is 14 times larger than Athens in population. Athens would be the smallest city in population terms on the vital articles page. Delhi has three world heritage sites, Athens has one (if we want some way to objectively measure "critical role in world history"). And if we want to talk about overkill, five cities from an area with 710 Million people (Europe) or two from an area with 1 billion people (India or 1.7 billion to more appropriately talk about the subcontinent) (and of course zero from an area with 800 million people, subsaharan Africa, but nothing new there). It is problematic to say Athens, if we must add another European city, is more geographically or historically important than Berlin, Madrid, Vienna, or Amsterdam? If the vote was just an add Athens, I say yes. It is the shaky removal of Delhi that is so problematic. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I went with strict city numbers for population. If we go with the urban or metropolitan area, my claims *14 times larger and *smallest city in population would both not hold. The ratio (from 14 times to 5 times) and its ranking would change (3rd smallest I think), but not significantly so. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delhi is the second largest urban area in the world. Or if we don't like raw data, here's a good explanation. And it is estimated to be second largest in the world for the next decade at least. Removing the second largest urban area in the world from a list of vital cities should require some careful discussions it seems to me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what AbstractIllusions has said with which I agree, I would argue that Delhi has played a critical part in Indian history. It was the capital of two significant empires (Mughal Empire and British Raj. Khari Boli, the dialect of Hindi spoken around Delhi is the standard dialect and along with English one of the lingua francas of India and other parts of the subcontinent (It is the dialect predominantly used in Bollywood films as well despite it being based in Mumbai). At the moment the only countries with two cities on the VA list are China and India, which due to their billion plus populations I believe is reasonable. Gizza^T/C 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Plus: If the primary rationale is Ancient Greece, that already is on the list.--Carwil (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Generally there are too many illnesses, several of which are not really that important to have an article about. Yes, COP kills many people, but its social and cultural role is very limited.

Support

1. Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
4. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
6. SupportAbstractIllusions (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Dengue fever

Generally there are too many illnesses, several of which are not really that important to have an article about. Yes, Dengue is serious in many regions, but it is not up there with Aids, Malaria or Influenza in significance.

Support

1. Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
5. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Bot

There is a BRFA over here. Ypnypn (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Swap: Remove Mary Wollstonecraft; add Kahlil Gibran

1) There are currently 4 British writers on the list of 15, which is 26%; I think we should cut one. 2) There are currently NO Arab writers. 3) The list currently includes exactly one non-Indo-European. 4) While Wollstonecraft was moderately successful and is widely read Gibran is the third best-selling poet who ever lived.

Support

1. As nom; this add would improve the list's ethnic diversity and reduce it's systemic bias toward Indo-Europeans. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Wollstonecraft kinda, sorta founded feminism. She wasn't a popular writer, but a political one. While it improves diversity on the ethnic level, it reduces it on the gender level. pbp 23:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose not a good swap. Per Purplebackpack.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - agree with Purplebackpack reasoning. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Maybe a straight add then? If we retain Wollstonecraft, then we are basically saying that Britain will have four entries when no other culture has more than two and several have none. Maybe she is in the wrong list, because there are other better and more important writers than she who are not currently included. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Purplebackpack89:, by no means did she start feminism in Europe. There were significant changes in that regard at least 50 years before she was born. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is an easy fix here. Add Gibran, Move Wollstonecraft to Philosophers. She's taught in far more introductory political philosophy courses and textbooks than world literature textbooks. And if her only reason for being a writer is not the prominence of her pieces, but their impact on creating (or fostering) a political philosophical system (feminism), then certainly she can be moved. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• At the very least, she needs to be moved; there are armies of writers more highly regarded that Wollstonecraft as writers—there are armies of female writers whose writing is more highly regarded than hers (e.g Jane Austen). Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Move Mary Wollstonecraft from Writers to Philosophers and social scientists

• Per AbstractIllusions, Mary Wollstonecraft is not vital as a writer. She is vital as a philosopher. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support . - As nom; she is misplaced in the list of writers. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support . fine. Gives more room in writers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. I'm unsure about the Gibran part below. But this move makes sense. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
5. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Add Kahlil Gibran

1) There are NO Arab writers on the list, which currently includes exactly one non-Indo-European. 2) Gibran is the third best-selling poet who ever lived.

Support

1. As nom; this add would improve the list's ethnic diversity and reduce it's systemic bias in favour of Indo-Europeans. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support . Per nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. I may consider him the Danielle Steel of poetry, but reading New York Times Book Reviews that mention him showed me that this debate (actually insightful poet vs. faux-mystic fluff) is part of his significant importance. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza^T/C 09:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
5. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Shaktism, Kali and Krishna

Per the discussion above (link here). In summary, Hinduism is overrepresented in having 6 subtopic articles. The three texts are more universally revered within Hinduism than the one sect, one Goddess and one God.

Support

1. Support As nom. Gizza^T/C 09:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Seems a reasonable move. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
4. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
5. support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap Israel with Democratic Republic of the Congo

DRC is big (11th largest in the world) and populous (19th largest) and is the poorest country on earth. Israel is small and small and is one of many examples of middle-GDP democracies in the list.

Support

1. Support, as nominator and see below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and discussion. It will also boost representation of the currently very underrepresented region of Sub-Saharan Africa. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per nom Pass a Method talk 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Israels global and historical importance exceeds its mere numerical importance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Fuller explanation: There is a clear outlier in the Countries list. Israel is the 96th most populous country in the world and 153rd largest in terms of area. The closest other countries in the list are Australia (52nd most populous) and Bangladesh (94th largest). If we account for GDP, Israel's total rank is 289 (96(pop)+153(area)+40(GDP)), which is 120 total ranking points over Bangladesh (8(pop)+94(area)+58(GDP)). DRC is the "largest+most populous" state not on the list. In addition, although there are a lot of rich countries and middle-GDP countries on the list (the highest is Bangladesh at 58), DRC is in the lower half of countries in terms of GDP and the poorest country on earth in terms of per capita GDP. These aspects seem to make it more vital for knowing about "Countries" in all the diverse forms they come in than is Israel. (Should you care about geographical coverage of the list, number of other countries within 2000 KM of Israel listed=3, number for DRC=1) AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, dear, you're itchin' for a new lead-lined hole in your head, ain'tcha? Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Nah, just looking at it objectively. I was as surprised with what I found as the best replacement as anyone (started thinking Thailand or South Korea would be a better fit). I'm not pumped about DRC, but I do think Israel doesn't fit on the list and am up for any alternatives. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't include or exclude countries on population. Israel's significance goes beyond it's borders. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree with you (population is simply a means of gauging an entity's exceptional-ness or normal-ness in the group), the question then becomes: What is it about Israel's significance which makes it worthy of being a truly exceptional case in the list? High GDP? Nope. High English language population (as mentioned in the FAQ)? Nope. It is ok (even good) to have exceptional cases, but we should be clear on why are including some cases but not others. I would like to propose that exceptional cases should be included when they fill conceptual gaps. I can't see what 'concept' of the entity known as 'countries' that Israel adds that isn't already covered by the other examples (or by other better examples). It would seem that a list which omits any HIPCs is missing a really crucial piece to the puzzle (and about a fifth of the countries of the world). You may think that my proposed approach is not great or that my application of it to Israel is wrong, but I think it would be useful to be transparent about the criteria we want to go about for including outlier cases. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Drama

Having Theatre and then a sub-listing for Drama is redundant.

Support

1. As nominator. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
3. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Middle East from Geography: Continents and regions

In Geography: Continents and regions, we include both Asia and Middle East, but since the Middle East is a region of Asia, and we do not include any other sub-regions of any other continents other than Arctic, I think this could be trimmed as excess double-coverage. I realize that the region is quite notable, but certainly others that we do not include are equally important. At any rate, per WP:UNDUE it seems odd to single out one specific region of Asia as being equally important as the continents. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; we don't include any other sub-regions within any other continents except Arctic, so why should we include this specific region that is just one small part of Asia, which is of course already included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The Middle East also includes portions of northeastern Africa and a smidge of Europe. It's a geopolitical area. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Asia is a huge continent, with 60% of the world's population. The Middle East has a separate culture and history from the rest of Asia, and has is very related to Europe and Africa. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Middle East is vital in its own right, not just as a subregion of Asia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:Curly Turkey, I realize that its a geopolitical region, but it's also currently the only such region included on the list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • GabeMc: I see Europe and Asia on that list—should we replace them with Eurasia? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • What? Both Europe and Asia are continents, why wouldn't we include them in a list of continents? The Middle East is not a continent. FTR, Eurasia was on the list not too long ago and it was removed for essentially the same reasons I am using above. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Europe and Asia are defined politically and culturally as separate continents, not geographically, so the Middle East is not the only geopolitical region on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Wow, that's really a stretch. All I meant was, according to the ENTIRE WORLD, there are officially seven continents, of which Asia and Europe are two; the middle east isn't a continent and the only other region we include is arctic. What I hear is: "yeah, the middle east isn't really a continent, but since it's so important (to religion I presume) we include it." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
          • ALL CAPS does not make your arguments look any more convincing—to the contrary, it makes you look hysterical. Europe and Asia are considered to be separate continents by the "whole world" because of political, cultural, economic, linguistic, and religious differences—the same reason the Middle East is considered a distinct geopolitical area. Chopping down the region's significance merely to religion shows a level of ignorance that itself invalidate your arguments—especially when that "religion" is the three Abrahamic religions, and the neverending earthshaking newsmaking tensions between them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• If I could make an intervention: It is not true that the "entire world" says there are seven continents. From Encyclopedia of World Geography, "Because of the imprecision of the definition, geographers do not agree on the number of the earth's continents...In lists of continents compiled outside the United States, Europe and Asia are often combined as Eurasia. And since Africa and Asia are connected at the Suez Peninsula, Europe, Africa, and Asia are sometimes combined as Afro-Eurasia..." The conclusion I draw from this is that a clearer division between continents and "geopolitical regions" may be warranted. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Remove History of East Asia, History of India, and History of the Middle East

Under History, we include these three sub-topics under History of Asia, which seems excessive. We have History of Europe, but not History of England, and History of North America, but not History of the US. Also, to include History of Asia with History of East Asia, History of India, and History of the Middle East, means that about 1/2 the landmass of Asia is double-covered. Currently, History of East Asia is a very poor article that repeats much of the material about the history of China. History of India and History of the Middle East are already covered at length at History of Asia, which states: "The history of Asia can be seen as the collective history of several distinct peripheral coastal regions such as, East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East linked by the interior mass of the Eurasian steppe." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; these articles contain too much overlap and duplication with the broader article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Asia is a huge continent, with 60% of the world's population. Comparing these large, populous areas with eventful histories to History of England is completely inaccurate. In fact, let's replace History of Asia with History of Central Asia and History of Southeast Asia to round out the picture and reduce the redundancy. Ypnypn (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Each region of Asia is similar to Europe in terms of area, population and cultural diversity. I wouldn't mind removing History of Asia and adding Central and Southeast for balance. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose overlap is a concern, but see alternative proposal below. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove History of Asia

Better covered in the more focused articles on the histories of East Asia, Middle East and India. Removing this article avoids overlap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - A fine suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Maybe someday when content changes this should be reconsidered, but right now overlap is significant. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This would result in the histories of over 1.2 billion people and nearly 30 million square kilometers not being covered by anything more specific than "History of the world". --Yair rand (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Yair rand. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

To cover the remaining 1.2 billion people, we would need to add History of Southeast Asia and History of Central Asia. Possibly History of Siberia as well but there are other lightly populated regions which aren't covered by a history article in the V1000 including Australia/Oceania. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider that we're twelve articles under the 1,000 limit, we can add History of Southeast Asia and History of Oceania without problems. (Siberia isn't necessary, given its minimal population and history). -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Indo-European languages from Everyday life

For some reason we have 13 specific languages listed under Language, and then Indo-European languages, of which nine have been specifically listed. Is there any reason why we would favor this particular group of languages above the others? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; we already list nine specific Indo-European languages and there is no particular reason to single out this language group as being more vital then all the others. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. At this level I don't see any need for language families. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support If there was space for one language family only Indo-European would be it due to its number of speakers and its significance to historical linguistics and the development of the comparative method. But among the 1000 most vital articles, there is no space for its inclusion in my opinion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. The add Sino-Tibetan proposed fix was interesting, but ultimately I think the list is more coherent with only languages and no language families. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Without having thought this through too thoroughly: Oppose. Afaict, almost half the global population speaks an Indo-European language as their native tongue, making it the most important linguistic group by an enormous margin. --Yair rand (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose The solution to the perceived problem is to add sino-tibetan languages, not to remove indo-european.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Agree with Maunus. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yair rand, yes, it's true that 45% of the global population speaks an Indo-European language, but that still leaves out 55% of the world, right? Why not also include Sino-Tibetan languages, which are spoken by 22% of the global population? Anyway, my main point here is that it seems odd to include nine specific Indo-European languages and the topical article. Perhaps we should consider removing the specific languages, and instead including the 10 largest language families. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it goes with outsaying that the 10 languages with most speakers are vital. However some languages with few speakers may also be considered vital becuase of historical or cultural significane and they should be added. Adding the 10 largest language families is not a particularly good idea, since the last 5 would account for less than 10 percent of the world's population.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In a tight list like this, I can't see any language families making it on. I also don't think population should be given undue weight. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: We could replace Indo-European languages with Language family, thereby locating the concept without having to choose just one.--Carwil (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Grammar and Word; Add Linguistics and Orthography

In Languages: Grammar is but one aspect of linguistics, as is word. Orthography covers most of what linguistics does not. If we swap out grammar and word for linguistics and orthography the list will cover more ground without adding to it's numerical total. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. - As nom; this swap would greatly broaden our coverage of language related topics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support These two are the ones that should be kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose grammar and word are two of the most central concepts relating to language. They cannot be removed without crippling our coverage of language related topics. Add linguistics. Orthography is of little consequence when we have writing and or writing system.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. The rationale is confused, and the audience is miunderstood. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose removing word and grammar and oppose adding orthography. Support adding linguistics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh we're still finding inconsistencies, I noticed Linguistics, is in the vital 100, but is missing from the vital 1000. Although I think grammar may be should stay, may be. Linguistics has to be in, whether a swap or add, as it's in the vital 100. Well spotted. Carlwev (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Carlwev, grammar is one aspect of linguistics just as syntax is an aspect of grammar. At level 3 we should strive for the broader, more encompassing terms. E.g., we will not likely be including terms like phonetics, semantics, or pragmatics, and we should not include the term grammar at the exclusion of all others for the same reason. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Grammar is an aspect of language, not of linguistics. In some definitions of the discipline, for example Chomskys, linguistics is the study of grammar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'm wrong about this, Maunus. Linguistics is the overarching topic, grammar is one branch within linguistics. Word is a simple unit in linguistics, and it's place here is odd, IMO. Linguistics covers grammar and word and many other sub-disciplines such as semantics and syntax. Orthography may not seem as vital as linguistics, but it deals with virtually everything language related that linguistics does not. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am a linguist by profession and I know you are wrong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought you said you were a cultural anthropologist? Anyway, as a linguist, are you really saying that grammar and word are broader topics then linguistics? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that is a little complicated, technically I am a linguistic anthropologist, but my first degree was in linguistics and my second in anthropology and I work in both fields. As a linguist I am saying that grammar and word are vital topics because they are some of the main components of language. Linguistics I would also consider vital, but not more so than the substance of what the discipline studies. Just like we don't swap "society" with "sociology". The article on linguistics is a bout the discipline and its methods and history, not about the substance that its studies. Nonetheless the substance is more relevant for more people to know about than the discipline.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the article on language covers vastly different topics then the one on linguistics, and they do not really overlap much at all. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article on Language covers Grammar, the article on lingustics doesn't. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article on linguistics goes into quite a bit of detail relating to grammar. See Linguistics#History of linguistic thought, and the sections that follow, including Early grammarians, Comparative philology, Structuralism, Generativism, and Functionalism. At any rate, I seriously doubt that the Wikipedia article is an authoritative source on this point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Word" is not a simple unit in linguisitics, it's a single unit in a language. Linguisitics is the study of language; if Language is already on the list, then I don't see linguistics as being nearly fundamental enough to include. I might support removing Wrod and Grammar, but am opposed to the proposed swap. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a good analogy to use is that linguistics is the study of language just as biology is the study of life or living organisms. Word is then similar to Cell (biology. And cell is a single unit of life (for a multicellular organism) and so word is a unit of language not the study of it. I am still undecided over the specifics of this proposal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what CT is talking about; the overarching topic is linguistics, which subsumes both grammar and word. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No. You are trying the equivalent of removing DNA to make room for genetics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, and I assert that genetics should be listed before DNA, since the former subsumes the later. According to your logic, we would include "word" before "letter", or "clause" before "sentence". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are not helping yourself. Word is an actual unit of language. Letter is a random symbol used in some languages to represent the sounds in a word. Word of course is more important than letter. Genetics does not subsume DNA, but existed as a discipline almost a hundred years before the discovery of DNA.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not helping myself? Please keep your comments about the content, not the editors. All I am saying is that both grammar and word are topics that relate to linguistics, which is the overarching topic that describes those terms. Every thing to do with grammar is also linguistic, but not everything to do with linguistics relates to grammar. That seems quite obvious to me, and the fact that linguistics is already at level 2 supports my assertion that it's more vital than both grammar and word. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And all I am saying is that you are wrong. Grammar and word are subordinate to the topic "language", not to the topic lingustics which is the academic study of Language.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that; I never said otherwise. Maybe you misunderstood me, but I am well aware that linguistics is the study of language and grammar is the branch of linguistics that deals with the underlying structures. Are you really saying that grammar isn't a branch of linguistics? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no branch of linguistics called "grammar". Grammar is studied in most branches of linguistics, except for phonetics and phonology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• From the International Association of Young Lingusits: "Grammar, branch of linguistics dealing with the form and structure of words (morphology), and their interrelation in sentences (syntax)."

• From A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics: Grammar: the branch of linguistics dealing with the construction of such descriptions and with the investigation of their properties."

• From The Basics of English Usage: "In modern terms grammar is a branch of linguistics (the study of language), once called philology."

• From Readings in Machine Translation: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics."

• From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics that deals with the form and structure of words."

• From Informal Logic - Volume 20, Issues 1-2 - Page 143: "Standard Grammar is a branch of linguistics, itself a natural science."

• From Child development: through time and transition - Page 283: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics dealing with the form and structure of words (morphology), and their interrelation in sentences (syntax)."

• From Rand Memoranda - Issues 2915-2925: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics."

• From The literate executive - Page 9: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics that deals with the form and structure of words."

• From The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics: "Grammar: Any systematic account of the structure of a language; the patterns that it describes; the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns."

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, if you are correct, then are all these sources are wrong? Is your point here that syntax is the branch of linguistics that focuses primarily on grammar? If so, then why not swap grammar out for syntax? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are wrong (or rather they represent a common misunderstanding that confuses the phenomenon with its study), and you will note that none of them are high quality sources, and most of them are not actually directed at or written by linguists. The "study of the structure and form of words" is called morphology, not grammar - because by that definition isolating languages like Chinese would not have any grammar. You will not find any linguist saying that they study "grammar", they study syntax, morphology, semantics all of which are subfields of linguistics describing specific parts of grammar - but as I said, for a large majority of linguists, linguistics IS the study of grammar. In any case this irrelevant, because even if there were such a branch that would not mean that the phenomenon grammar is subordinate to linguistics it would only mean that we would have to include both the phenomenon and the discipline. (the two high quality sources seem to think that "grammar" is another way of saying "descriptive linguistics")User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics describes grammar as "the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns." To be clear, your assertion: "linguistics IS the study of grammar", is not 100% correct. Linguistics is the study of language, and grammar is one aspect of language, but linguistics is not concerned only with grammar; it considers things that are not at all related to grammar such as phonetics and phonology, which are completely separate from grammar. Why do you see grammar as a more vital topic than linguistics? Are the other four braches of linguistics less vital than grammar? Is grammar really the most important thing studied in linguistics? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not my definition, but Chomskys. He redefined the discplin in that way in the 1960s. Not everyone follows his definition but a majority of American linguists do. You also keep confusing the topic the dictionary says that grammar is BOTH the phenomenon and the study of the phenomenon. The phenomenon is vital. The study of the phenomenon is less so. And yes grammar is easily the most important thing studied in linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused; I know that grammar is both an object of study and a study in itself. This is bizarre, IMO, because you think that one particular aspect of language is more vital than all the rest, but how do we even get to grammar without phonemes, syllables, and morphemes? This appears to be a semantics argument about whether or not grammar is a branch of linguistics. Well, let's agree that it's not a branch of linguistics, but in that case grammar is still not the overarching topic, which is syntax. Can we agree that syntax is the branch of linguistics that deals with the grammatical structures? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"lingustics+is+the+study+of+grammar"&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS543US543&oq="lingustics+is+the+study+of+grammar"&aqs=chrome..69i57.7650j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=%22linguistics+is+the+study+of+grammar%22&spell=1. In Chomskyan linguistics grammar = syntax. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If grammar = syntax, and grammar is not a branch of linguistics, then is syntax also not a branch of linguistics? Because the sources you linked to above consider syntax as one of five braches of linguistics. Therefore, the branch of linguistics that specifically deals with grammar is syntax and syntax is the overarching topic that subsumes grammar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, morphology also explicitly deals with grammar, the confusion arises because Chomsky considers morphology a part of syntax, although other theoretical directions dont. But under any view syntax is a branch of linguistics and I would be happy to include it in addition to grammar and linguistics, but I fear that would probably give overrepresentation to the field of linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here are some better sources. About how linguists understand grammar [2]. About the branches of linguistics [3][4][5]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Specific criteria for inclusion, and question regarding exact number?

OK, two questions, both of which are possibly stupid and already asked and answered repeatedly.

• 1) What if anything are the specific criteria for inclusion? I myself might think, for instance, having an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia might be one specific criteria among several that articles should meet, and, maybe, depending on how many such articles there are in such, maybe a defining criteria.
• 2) Isn't the exact number 1000 rather arbitrary? Might it not make sense, given the wild expansion of content we have here, to maybe come up with some other basis for inclusion, like, maybe, having an article (or sufficiently long part of an article) to qualify as "vital" for all encyclopedias based on the content of other print or online reference sources? John Carter (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As for number 2, there are different levels: At level 1 there are only ten articles, at level 4 there are 10,000. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The number may be arbitrary, but it's important we hold fast to it. There are lists that can be as big or little as desired, and those are Top- and High-Importance article lists. This is not one of those lists pbp 02:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominate Germ theory of disease

Obviously this relates heavily to the Health and Medicine topic (equally to both). The Germ theory of disease talk page lists it as a topic of (1) Microbiology (Top-importance), (2) Biology (Top-importance), (3) History of Science (Top-importance), (4) History (High-importance) and (5) European history (High-importance).

This topic is so engrained in our lives that we hardly would doubt the theory, yet it was a novel idea when developed in the nineteenth century. The concept is fundamental to medicine, and broaches subjects like sanitation, pandemic, virus, bacteria, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and infection, not to mention cholera, E. coli, smallpox, tuberculosis, AIDS, and pasteurization. It ties into quite a number of the vital articles and underlies the notion called Koch's postulates, a vital tenet of medical science. I doubt an average person could even name or articulate a competing theory to this topic. If you immediately said, miasma theory or had a bit of the vapors, well, congrats, you aren't an average person! I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Claude Monet re: number of images

Please join in the discussion at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? about the number and choice of images in the galleries. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Wind

Support

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per nom Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Jaqeli (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Definitely vital. Season is too. Neljack (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Can't imagine why we wouldn't have wind, surely vital. We have several things that are within winds scope but have missed wind itself. We have wind power, tornado and tropical cyclone which are in some form wind related. We also cover other weather things I consider slightly less important than wind, like cloud and flood. I considered a swap with one of the former weather articles but posted a straight add, as we are under count, adds and removes are going up alone more now; long time back a swap for wind vs wind power came and went with no consensus, partly because some didn't want to lose wind power. If you think a swap with something is better bring it up. Also I'm contemplating season as an add or swap with something, thoughts on that? Carlwev (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support of swap of wind in place of wind power or just the removal of wind power. I don't think it is as significant currently and historically as the other forms of energy listed. Things may change in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm surprised that coal isn't listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Good (economics) and Services, add Macroeconomics and Microeconomics

The entire economics category is wanting. Macroeconomics and microeconomics are the most common sub-classifications for economics, but they are omitted entirely. "Goods" and "services" are given top billing here, even though not much interesting about them can be said without a broader understanding of economic theory. The Good (economics) article is a good example of this since it offers little more than basic definition of "goods" and a discussion of "types of goods" (including Giffen goods), which isn't of much interest outside of a broader discussion of economics. This article is stuck in "start" class for a reason. --Bkwillwm (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Per nom. I still think goods and services are vital at the 10,000 level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support EllenCT (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support As nom. Bkwillwm (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@Bkwillwm and EllenCT, you can add your support votes formally now. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Market, add Supply and demand

Market is a term that covers a wide variety of physical and non-physical facilities where trade occurs. Much of the detail in the "market" article isn't relevant to high-level economics. Supply and demand covers the economics behind "markets" in a more abstract manner, and the concept of supply and demand is clearly more fundamental in economic theory. --Bkwillwm (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Per nom. I still think market is vital at the 10,000 level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support As nom. Bkwillwm (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@Bkwillwm and EllenCT, you can add your support votes formally now. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Clitoris, add Human body

An article so fundamental as Human body should be a vital article, and I do not think that Clitoris warrants inclusion in the top 10,000 most vital articles of Wikipedia, certainly not over Human body --LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree that the Clitoris article should be removed, and not just because I'm the one who has extensively worked on that article. It should be clear to anyone who has read that article why it is a vital article, especially given female genital mutilation (which is usually performed on the clitoris) and how commonly neglected the clitoris is in a variety of ways. If you want the Human body article listed, okay then. But the Clitoris article should not at all be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No one would suggest that we remove the Vagina article, for obvious reasons. And though the vagina gets far more attention than the clitoris from society (which is one of the things that makes the clitoris topic so vital, as essentially thoroughly noted in the Clitoris article), it is the clitoris that is equivalent to the penis/human penis, it is the clitoris that has been most controversial, and it is the clitoris that is most important to female sexual pleasure. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Human body is an article of fairly large importance to Anatomy. There must be another article that can be swapped on its behalf. --LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, Johnuniq made a valid point with regard to context on this matter. As for swapping an article for the Human body article, do we need to do a swap? The Human body article can't simply be added? Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say many men consider the male equivalent one of their most important body parts. It seems that the clitoris might be just important to women. Likely of concern to men who don't know what to do with it. Perhaps bump off an actor or rock star? I think there are way to many of those. BTW: testicle is visited far less that clitoris. Maybe remove testicle? Jim1138 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Human body

Seems pretty vital to me, and since we are under the limit a straight add here makes sense. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom; a glaring omission. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Human body should be added. Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Support either add or swap pbp 21:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Support as nom. --LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Jim1138, when we are under the limit a swap thread is not required. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved oppose to support. Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Earlier discussion, mentioned the number 10,000 and the clitoris, both of which are relevant to the 10,000 list but not the 1000. This is the 1000 list talk page. Which list are we voting for? If it is the 1000 list, an addition to the 1000 list would mean an automatic addition to the 10,000 too any way; wouldn't it?... My view: human body definitely belongs in the 10,000, and maybe in the 1000. Some overlap exists but probably not too much, with human, and anatomy. Human is very broad not just about our bodies, anatomy is about the study of the body as opposed to the body itself, and includes more species than just human too. Carlwev (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point. The editors above seem to be arguing that Human body should be included in the 10,000 list, not the 1,000. As far as "an automatic addition to the 10,000", well, in theory maybe, but I have yet to see this written as a working policy. I.e., I am not aware of anyone automatically adding something to the 10,000 list because it was added to the 1,000 list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The workings of this list and project to some extent baffles me, I feel if we have a list we ought to include Human body, but I don't have the time or patience to understand the rules of yet another byzantine Wikisystem of which we received no consultation as a WikiProject. --LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
      • LT910001, read the introduction at the top of this page; it might not explain everything, but its a good start. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Architecture

Surely architecture is more important than a mere subset of visual arts. In many ways it is the defining characteristic of any civilisation, in any meaningful terms far more important than literature. Arguably, anyway, but then this whole list of lists business is pretty subjective. ProfDEH (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to taking architecture out of the "visual arts" section so it has its own section under "Arts and Culture". It is a good idea. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support, as that would be consistent with Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts, but also simply because architecture is much more than visual art. --ELEKHH^T 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Homer

Odd that writers has Sophocles and Virgil but not Homer. RJFJR (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I Agree. Consider starting an add thread. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Add: Homer

Propose adding Homer to writers section. (Formal proposal in addition to comment above.) RJFJR (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support (as nom) since it's odd to have writers Sophocles and Virgil but not Homer. RJFJR (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - A glaring omission. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, but only if Iliad is removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support swap per Curly Turkey. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support One of the most influential and famous of all writers - a striking omission. Neljack (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• RJFJR, I've refactored the proposal so as to conform to our SoP, but I didn't want to place your support !vote; you may want to do that. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think I mentioned this before, but I thought Homer was a much better choice than singling out the Iliad. I'll support this, but only if the Iliad is removed first. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove: Iliad

Support

1. Per Curly Turkey. Homer is a better choice for inclusion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Support on the condition that Homer is added. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Support swap per Curly Turkey. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support; I'm comfortable with removing Illiad and adding Homer, especially since we don't have the Odyssey, which I'd give equal weight. RJFJR (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Discuss: Momentum?

We have Energy (as well as Kinetic energy and Potential energy) and Force and Motion. But we don't have Momentum. If we wanted to add momentum would we need to remove something else (and if so then what could we remove?) RJFJR (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RJFJR, I think we could just add momentum, but if you want to be more confident that it will pass I suggest finding another article in the same section that should be removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything vital about momentum. "Vital" entails that only a few articles will be selected out of the vast array of articles written. Kinetic and potential energy seem to cover the subject well enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

running for a fifth time - 10 Feb to 9 march....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)