Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:52, 18 October 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/4 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Vital Articles

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles articles

This is the talk page for Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. Comments made on its subpages will not appear here unless added manually.

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed anytime as PASSED if at least five !votes have been cast in support, and at least two-thirds of the total !votes are in favor of the proposal. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list.

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles/Expanded list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

15 days ago: 08:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
30 days ago: 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
60 days ago: 08:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose a section below:

Thank you for participating in the Vital Articles/Expanded project.

People

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

Entertainers

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

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

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

Americans not on the list

Britons not on the list

Actors

AFI

US

UK

Before 20th century

Ireland

Peter O'Toole

India

Italy

France

Japan

Germany

Klaus Kinski

China

Bruce Lee

Actresses

AFI

US

UK

Before 20th century

Ellen Terry

France

Before 20th century

Sarah Bernhardt

Germany

Hanna Schygulla

Japan

Setsuko Hara

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

FAILED

Not removed 2-7 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sidney Poitier

Poiter ranks #22 on the AFI list, but I don't see why he should be listed. His ethnicity alone doesn't make him vital; we don't even list W. E. B. Du Bois or Booker T. Washington! Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Poitier left a lasting legacy still felt throughout Hollywood. He was the first African-American to win an Oscar in a leading role. He was the first black actor to successfully star in non-stereotypical roles, who until then were always cast as servants, maids, singers and comedians, and thereby helped paved the way for other African-Americans to act in such roles. Breaking the race barrier in film was a big achievement. The political side of the Civil Rights Movement is well represented with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Sidney Poitier covers the cultural side of the movement. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DaGizza. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in agreement with DaGizza. Neljack (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lets add Dubois and Booker T Washington, though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Pointier's ground-breaking work in film makes him jump the queue. Dubois and BT Washington were not actors, let's not compare against categories, they too should be added, but to an appropriate list. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FAILED

Not removed 4-5 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ed Sullivan

I also don't see why we need so many TV hosts, and Sullivan is the weakest of the bunch. He ranks #50 on TV Guide's "50 Greatest TV Stars of All Time," so I don't see why he should be listed. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another area with American bias. Neljack (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Either he or The Ed Sullivan Show should be listed; the promotion of people like Elvis, the Beatles and the Supremes played a decisive role in making rock and roll mainstream. Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: 50th in delivery? Sure. Sullivan was a wooden, unfunny host...who knew popular trends and was great at getting up-and-coming people on his show. p b p 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is recentism at its worst. Sullivan was groundbreaking in what was still the early days of television, in his promotion of modern music, in his work to overcome racism by promoting Motown acts, and the very high ratings his show achieved. If we must limit, then why do we have BOTH Steve Allen AND Johnny Carson on that list? (Arguably, we could replace with Sullivan and the Tonight Show if that wouldn't open up a different can of worms). Seriously, Sullivan is up there in cultural iconography with Walter Cronkite and the like. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Swap for The Ed Sullivan Show --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The show makes more sense in this case. Getting famous people to perform on his show is what makes it vital. Sullivan didn't have any special talents of his own, even as a television host. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kirk Douglas

I'm skipping Buster Keaton since he's more renowned as a director than an actor (he ranks #7 on the Entertainment Weekly list of greatest directors) and the Marx Brothers since they're notable as comedians. Next on the chopping block would be Douglas, who ranks #17 on the AFI list. We still have too many American actors, and I don't see a better place to start than Douglas. If he might be vital for contributing to the end of the Hollywood blacklist, shouldn't Joseph McCarthy be listed first, who was much more central to the "anti-Communist crusade"? Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Michael Caine

Caine doesn't seem that vital to me. He's certainly a prolific and recognizable actor, but he isn't known as one of the best actors of all time. He won two Academy Awards, which doesn't put him leagues above many other actors. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Lauren Bacall

I'm skipping Sophia Loren as well since she's notable to Italy. Bacall ranks #20 on the AFI list, and the films she starred in aren't that well-remembered. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose:Bacall's contributions include also being a Tony-award-winner on Broadway; her cross-platform talent elevates her over any number of other film stars, as does her involvement with political causes. I mean, seriously, you have people like Doris Day, who was an utter lightweight, Rita Hayworth, Barbary Stanwyck, all less significant. Debroah Kerr? Puh-leese, no. Bacall tops all of them. I'd also question including Greta Garbo over Lauren Bacall. Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should not blindly follow the rankings of one particular list. In this case, I think Bacall is vital, particularly for her impact on the portrayal of women on screen. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Remove Liza Minnelli

I'm not sure why she has to be listed. We don't list all of the EGOT winners, and she technically didn't win all four. Other than that, she doesn't seem vital. (She also won a few Razzies—those aren't exactly something that one of the greatest actresses of all time would have!) Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Mixed feelings here. Her body of work is kind of so-so, but when she is brilliant, she is brilliant. ("Cabaret", yes, "Arthur" - well, not really) I think it depends on whether you are trying to do something like trim the list from 40 to 20, or if you intend to cut her in favor of someone else. Between her and her mother (Judy Garland) how do others compare the two? Montanabw^(talk) 00:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefer a swap here, for another female entertainer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Will Rogers

Although Rogers was "one of the world's best-known celebrities," popularity doesn't make you vital. The article calls him "the leading political wit of the Progressive Era," but there's so many other American figures better suited to represent that era: where are William Jennings Bryan, Jane Addams, W. E. B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, Florence Kelley, and Robert M. La Follette, Sr.? (He isn't mentioned at all in the Progressive Era article.) He was also the "top-paid Hollywood movie star at the time," but we don't list people like George Formby or Tyler Perry, so I don't see why he should be listed. His article also seems to indicate that his legacy doesn't extend far beyond a few US states. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not only was he a key entertainer of his time, he is arguably one of the best known cowboys ever. His name is on more than a couple things here in Los Angeles, although that's not global notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Remove Bob Newhart

Newhart ranks #14 on the (US-biased, which should boost his ranking) Comedy Central list. The Button-Down Mind of Bob Newhart may have been the best-selling comedy album of 20th century, but I'm not convinced that comedy albums need representation anyway. And if sales make you vital, shouldn't J. K. Rowling and R. L. Stine be listed? Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Eddie Murphy

Murphy ranks #10 on the CC list, and being a high-grossing actor doesn't make you vital: we don't list Samuel L. Jackson and Harrison Ford, who have grossed more than Murphy. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Steve Allen

If people don't want to remove Ed Sullivan, what about Steve Allen? I don't think this list needs both him and Johnny Carson, as well as The Tonight Show. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree about the overlap with The Tonight Show, which is separately listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Hosts seem to have less notability and fame internationally than movie and music stars. Then from a US point of view many presidents were booted, I don't think he's more vital even if it is apples and oranges comparison. Carlwev 07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Paul Scofield

Yeah, he was great in A Man for All Seasons, but he doesn't seem like a necessary person to be on this list

Support

Support p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

How many entertainers and directors should be listed?

There seems to be a general consensus that too many entertainers are listed, but I think more discussion should take place to determine what the right number should be. In my opinion, 100 is a good milestone to aim for, and once we reach that number, swaps should be carried out to diversify the list. What do others think? And as for the directors, is that section right-sized or bloated? Malerisch (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your determination to pare down these sections of the list is much appreciated. These aren't really areas I know anything about, but compare the number of actors and directors to the number of artists, musicians and writers from the same period (and nationality, if that makes it easier); that should tell you what is over- and underrepresented. One of the many reasons the Victor Jara nomination bugs me is that I don't see a need for more Latin musicians if Diego Rivera isn't considered a vital artist – I would've thought he was much more internationally well-known than any Latin musician. Or compare the 49(?) American actors and 44 American writers with our coverage of American painting: in the 20th century, there's no Mark Rothko or Roy Lichtenstein, and in the previous century all we've got is Thomas Eakins – even Winslow Homer didn't make the cut. Maybe these examples only go to show how much tougher we are on painters relative to other types of artists – but perhaps the only way to get a truly representative list of 2000 people is to hold every other category to an equally tough standard. Cobblet (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to get actors, actresses and comedians down to about 50 total, and behind-the-camera people to about 30. p b p 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of actors, actresses, comedians and directors should not be less than the number of sportspeople (currently at 118) nor should it be less than the number of 20th/21st century musicians (this is harder to count but I think they're around 130 at the moment). Actors shouldn't have less coverage than other forms of entertainment from a similar time period. Personally I think this group should actually have more articles than sportspeople for a couple of reasons. Firstly, most sports around the world are male-dominated pastimes whereas film, televisions and related arts are performed and enjoyed equally by men and women and is therefore more universal. Secondly, film generally (but not always) is more capable than sports to inspire, influence and change society for better or worse. Think of some of the oldest science fiction movies, To Kill a Mockingbird (film) or The Eternal Jew (1940 film). Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a sensible way of looking at it, I'd like to remind people, that film, along with music is a vital 100 topic, sport is not. Although you could say it's meaningless, it does suggest we are treating film as more vital than sport, so for sports people to exceed film people may not be good. (I did try to get sport included in the 100 list by the way, but it failed, I would probably still support it.) Carlwev 17:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visual artists

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

Add Josef Albers

A crucial artist in the Geometric abstraction movement.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 12:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC) syntax fix[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I agree with Melody. Neljack (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We do have Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian who are both much more famous and can represent this movement. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Albers is highly famous as well, for instance his furniture design is quite influential, and his Homage to the Square series is very well-known to art lovers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Scott McCloud

An American cartoonist and comics theorist. He is best known for his non-fiction books about comics, Understanding Comics (1993), Reinventing Comics (2000), and Making Comics (2006). He has been awarded several times.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I'd be open to considering Marshall McLuhan though. Cobblet (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We hardly have any comics artists, and I am not sure we should either, but if we do start adding comics artists would come before adding theorists. Names like Stan Lee, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, and probably a dozen others are all before McCloud. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Harvey Kurtzman

An American cartoonist and editor of comic books and magazines. His large body of work includes writing and editing the parodic comic book Mad from 1952 until 1956, and the sexy and satirical Little Annie Fanny' strips in Playboy from 1962 until 1988. His work is noted for its satire and parody of popular culture, social critique, and an obsessive attention to detail. His working method has been likened to that of an auteur, and those who illustrated his stories were expected to follow his layouts strictly.

There is an award in honour of him.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Of the five comics artists currently on the list two already represent the American golden age of comics - Eisner and Kirby - we dont need Kurtzman too. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Writers

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

Add Lucian

The author of a famous book True History, however, he is not included in the list despite the fact that this book is included in it.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Redundant with the book, but I would support removing the book also.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Tom Clancy

Tom Clancy in military fiction is like Stephen King in thriller fiction.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I Stephen King on the list? Of he is he should probably be removed.15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Popular, but not very influential or acclaimed. We can't include every best-selling author - it's necessary to look at their influence and critical reputation. Neljack (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. This list also doesn't need any more American writers. Malerisch (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose" If anything, American writers is bloated relative to a) non-American writers, and b) American non-writers. We could stand to lose a few. p b p 22:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much of a niche-writer, not that acclaimed as writers go. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Sōseki Natsume

Undoubtedly the most famous and popular novelist within Japan (second likely going to Ryūnosuke Akutagawa who should also be added), he was highly influential to later writers such as Akutagawa and Haruki Murakami. Certainly more important than some of the 152 writers on the list from the US, Canada, or Europe. Jucchan (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regarded by many as the greatest modern Japanese writer. Certainly at least as important as the other Japanese writers we have, not to mention - as Jucchan points out - some of the huge number of Western writers we have. Neljack (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I would add Murakami first.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Murakami should also be added, I would say Akutagawa as well. That would get most of the really important Japanese writers. Jucchan (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists

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

Remove John Pilger

He doesn't seem to be on par with the type of people we are currently retaining on the list. Take a glance at the Great Britons omitted above and you'll see what I mean. p b p 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

p b p 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malerisch (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add John Thomson (photographer)

This figure is crucial since his work among the street people of London is regarded as a classic instance of social documentary which laid the foundations for photojournalism. He went on to become a portrait photographer of High Society in Mayfair, gaining the Royal Warrant in 1881.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose His article doesnt give the impression that this is a vital photographer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less vital than Alfred Stieglitz, Margaret Bourke-White, or Eadweard Muybridge, who aren't listed. We're also missing Nicéphore Niépce (the inventor of photography); Thomson surely can't be more vital than him. Malerisch (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Malerisch. Jucchan (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

On the other hand, photojournalism itself might be vital. Malerisch (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add I. F. Stone

An American investigative journalist and author. He is best remembered for his self-published newsletter, I. F. Stone's Weekly, which was ranked 16th in a poll of his fellow journalists of "The Top 100 Works of Journalism in the United States in the 20th Century".

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose So why should we add him and not one of the people who wrote the 15 top works of journalism in the 20th century?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose p b p 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 16th in the US, how much is that on a global scale - probably not in the top 50. Need I say more? Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I.F. Stone was once on the list, but we removed him here p b p 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians and composers

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

Add Victor Jara

Chilean folkmusician who was tortured and executed by Pinochet's forces during the 1973 coup against Allende. More than anyone he became the symbol of the injustice of the Chilean revolution in the West and is among the best known Latin American trova artists outside of the continent.

Support

Support
Support A key figure in the development of the nueva canción genre of music, which is widely recognised to have played an important role in revolutions and social upheavals in Latin America, Spain and Portugal in the 70s and 80s. He became an international symbol of the struggle for human rights and democracy, not only in Chile but around the world. Neljack (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Adding Jara will definitely improve the list of musicians as it stands. I support removing one of the bossa nova musicians and adding perhaps Vicente Fernández, Tito Puente or Shakira (as a female Latin representative even though she's quite recent). Dunno how many should be added as I think the overall number of musicians should probably go down somewhat. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose The next Chilean added to the list should be Bernardo O'Higgins: if he isn't vital no exponent of nueva canción ought to be. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Apples and Oranges. Jara obviously doesnt go towards filling the quota of Chileans, but the quota of Latin American musicians which is entirely empty. O'Higgins have no chance to ever come on the list since he is competing with both Allende and Pinochet - another Chilean leader would be entirely unreasonable. A single Latin American musician on the other hand is very reasonable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because apples and oranges are different doesn't make it acceptable to include one apple and five oranges. Antônio Carlos Jobim, Celia Cruz and João Gilberto are three Latin American musicians already on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to have noth Jobim and Gilberto on the list. But more absurd to limit the coverage of Latin American music to three persons. Compare that with the number of Latin American leaders and you will see how the weight is skewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a propose a swap, I'd be more open to that. I think there are more internationally well-known Latin American leaders than Latin American musicians. I'd regard Evo Morales (to name someone not on the list) more vital than Jara. Also, compare the number of Latin American musicians to the number of African, Arab, East Asian and Southeast Asian musicians. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, bossa nova is very well represented. The genre itself is listed and two of the three Latin Americans are bossa nova musicians. I'd support swapping bossa nova with samba and adding son cubano. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Directors, producers and screenwriters

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Businesspeople

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

Add Pablo Escobar

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

Support

Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Escobar still seems more vital to me than many of the other businesspeople listed (Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Lakshmi Mittal, Larry Ellison, etc.). Malerisch (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neljack (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Perhaps we should add Manuel Noriega. He was both a military dictator and a drug dealer. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have Frank Sinatra. He was both a singer and a mafioso. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explorers

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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Wilhelm Wundt to psychologists

Wundt was the first person to use the term psychologist and is (with William James - already listed) a central figure in the early development of psychology as a science of its own (late 19th century). He established the first experimental psychology laboratory in the world and was one of the first who argued for objective measurements in the newly founded science of psychology. Many of his students became influential scientists. Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.-- Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The father of experimental psychology. Neljack (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a highly influential figure in the history of psychology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Edward B. Titchener to psychologist

A psychologist who is best known for creating his version of psychology that described the structure of mind - structuralism.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not the next psychologist to be added to the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add G. E. Moore

He was an English philosopher. He was, with Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and (before them) Gottlob Frege, one of the founders of the analytic tradition in philosophy. Along with Russell, he led the turn away from idealism in British philosophy, and became well known for his advocacy of common sense concepts, his contributions to ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, and "his exceptional personality and moral character."

Support

as nom. He is no less crucial than Bertrand Russell.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Moore was an important philosopher, but not at the level of Russell. Neljack (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much less important than Russell, who was also an important public intellectual. Mostly notable for being the one to whom Wittgenstein said "Don't worry, I know you will never understand it" when he turned in the tractatus for his defense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add A. J. Ayer

An English logical positivist whose book Language, Truth, and Logic is an essential reading on the tenets of logical empiricism– the book is regarded as a classic of 20th century analytic philosophy, and is widely read in philosophy courses around the world.

Support

as nom. He is a crucial figure in logical positivism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Logical positivism is dead and Ayer's influence largely is too. Neljack (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Marshall McLuhan

A Canadian philosopher of communication theory and a public intellectual. His work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory, as well as having practical applications in the advertising and television industries.

McLuhan is known for coining the expressions the medium is the message and the global village, and for predicting theWorld Wide Web almost thirty years before it was invented. Although he was a fixture in media discourse in the late 1960s, his influence began to wane in the early 1970s. In the years after his death, he continued to be a controversial figure in academic circles. With the arrival of the internet, however, interest in his work and perspective has renewed.

Support

as nom. I'm surprised that the article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose#

Discussion

Religious figures

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

Paramahansa Yogananda

Paramahansa Yogananda's teachings are not properly characterized as either Hinduism or Christianity for that matter. The goal of his teachings is to reveal the oneness of original Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and original Yoga as taught by Bhagavan Krishna [1] There is not category that represents this in your Vital Articles, so he needs to be placed in the section Other. His teachings are Self-Realization Fellowship. This is why I created a new category called Self-Realization Fellowship. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not response to my post in one week, I plan to correct the mistake. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a section titled "Self-Realization Fellowship" would look out of place in the Other section since Self-Realization Fellowship itself isn't a vital article. Yoga is currently categorized under "Common concepts" in Philosophy and religion, but there isn't a general "Eastern religions" section in People. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. Malerisch (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians and leaders

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

Add Sundiata Keita

Along with Musa I of Mali, Sundiata Keita was one of the two great rulers of the Mali Empire. He overthrew the Ghana Empire and founded the Mali Empire, has been accorded heroic status among the Mandinka people and is the protagonist in the Epic of Sundiata. His expansion of the empire laid the foundation for future growth, Sahelian trade and spread of culture by the empire throughout West Africa. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Some trivia (doesn't really add to his vitality). One of Sundaita Keita's nicknames was "The Lion King". The Disney movie also adopted various ideas from the Epic of Sundiata into the movie. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Hideki Tojo

I know we have Hirohito from this period, but Tojo, as head of government, did most of the heavy lifting during the World War II era. Most notably, he authorized the attack on Pearl Harbor. In comparison to other leading industrialized nations, we have very few Japanese leaders. Could potentially also be added in military leaders.

Support

p b p 19:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose Historically significant does not equal vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partial oppose on the grounds that we only have so much room. See discussion below for my more detailed rationale. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Maunus:, why not? What makes him too unimportant to not be on this list? p b p 22:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the criteria by which I decide how to vote in these matters. I think my criteria are probably quite different from yours. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are. I don't have written criteria, but it's probably time I did. p b p 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat in opposition because I am not sure of who would be "kicked off" to make room. If there is a decision that "we should include three biographies of major players on the Japanese side of WWII," then sure, I'd be OK with Hirohito, plus Tojo and maybe someone like Isoroku Yamamoto. But if only one, then Hirohito is the one to keep. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We're under quota for bios at the present time because of recent entertainer removals. I'm fine with another entertainer being removed for Tojo. p b p 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add John Jay

He is one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, yet this list does not contain the article, despite the fact that the other six men (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington) can be found in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose We can't list all the Founding Fathers. Jay, while an important one, is not as important as those listed. Four of them were Presidents. Of the other two, Franklin is there as much for his exploits in other areas as for his political contributions, while Hamilton - as the first Secretary of the Treasury - was essentially the founder of the American financial system and - as one of the principal authors of the Federalist Papers - was instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution (I realise Jay was also an author of the Federalist Papers, but he authored a lot fewer and was less influential). Finally, I think we have more than enough American political leaders as it is. Neljack (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per pbp and Neljack. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He is not the most well-known American. He was definitely important in his time, but not important enough to be listed on a list of people from world history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose p b p 03:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

John Jay is all well and good (Prez of Continental Congress, Sec of State under Congress of Confederation, Federalist Papers collaborator, 1st Chief Justice), but he's not the next American political leader I'd add. Not while Earl Warren, John C. Calhoun, John Quincy Adams and William Jennings Bryan aren't on the list. The other six Founding Fathers we have are of leaps-and-bounds more importance than Jay. Each of them are in the top 25 of the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Americans; Jay isn't even top 100. Six Founding Fathers seems about as high as you can go: we're talking about, what, 60 years of American history (1755-1815) of a country that had less than 10 million people by 1815? p b p 20:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about Hamilton is that he founded America's first political party. Also, each of the four Presidents who were Founding Fathers are on here at least in part for significant things they did aside of being President: Washington for being a Revolutionary War General and presiding over the Constitutional Convention; Adams for his work in the Constitutional Congress, with the Massachusetts State Constitution, and diplomatically; Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, founding U. Va., and various achievements in architecture and the natural sciences; and Madison for his work on the Constitution. p b p 01:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed feelings; Jay was significant as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and one of the authors of Federalist.' OTOH, how does he compare to other omitted individual founding fathers, such as James Monroe? Discuss. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably take Monroe over Jay. But I'd take Warren, Calhoun, JQA or Bryan over Monroe. p b p 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military leaders and theorists

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

PASSED

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Michiel de Ruyter

The navy is not well-represented in this category. De Ruyter was a 17th-century admiral that fought in the Anglo-Dutch Wars and lead the Raid on the Medway. Is considered a Dutch national hero by some.

Support

Support – Editør (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Naval leaders are indeed lacking compared to other military leaders. De Ruyter's tactical genius and contribution to victory against the combined English and French fleets in the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars ensured Dutch domination of global maritime trade in the 17th century. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of the preeminent naval leaders, who should be included. CRwikiCA talk 14:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while Ed makes a good point below, I don't think that's reason enough to oppose de Ruyter's inclusion (and I'd argue that we ought to add Tōgō too) Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Well, this list is supposed to be limited to 650 people, hence why I'm not proposing to add both. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then pull someone else off - the list needs some significant work anyway. We have von Wallenstein from the 30 Years War when Gustavus Adolphus was by far more significant as a military theoretician and commander. We have three conquistadors in the Early Modern section while Maurice of Nassau, for instance, is left off. And George Marshall is in this section? Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Actually, the quota for people for 2000, so the list isn't that limited! The 650-article quota is for Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History, which does not include people. There isn't a quota for military leaders and theorists specifically, so feel free to propose some. Malerisch (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Naval leaders are indeed underrepresented. Also, the early modern times saw the emergence of both the British and the Dutch empires that replaced the Spanish empire as the most powerful empires of the time largely based on their naval power and great field commanders. No Dutch commander is currently listed; so also an underrepresentation (although something may be said for listing Maurice, Prince of Orange or Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange instead, who were probably the best field commanders in the world in their time). Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

On the fence. What makes Ruyter more deserving than Tōgō Heihachirō? The English Wikipedia tends to have issues with systemic bias; let's not perpetuate that! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a related point, I'm struggling to understand why Isoroku Yamamoto is not also included. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And on the above point, perhaps we ought to have a wider discussion on the composition of the list. There are a number of names I'd like to see replaced with more deserving individuals. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malerisch above, feel free to propose other articles. – Editør (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

Add Willis Carrier

Inventor of air conditioning p b p 14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

p b p 14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems important enough. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose While his invention (air conditioner) is undoubtedly important, it is his only lasting contribution. As a person he seems largely unremarkable and not comparable to other vital inventors currently listed in the vital article list like Brunel; Alfred Nobel or Thomas Edison. Arnoutf (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An important invention (though not in the absolute top level of importance, I would suggest), but I agree that Carrier does not quite reach the level of importance of other inventors listed. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not vital. Nor is his invention.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Simon Stevin

A highly influential Flemish mathematician, physicist and military engineer who translated various mathematical terms into Dutch. Also the first to show how to model regular and semi-regular polyhedra by delineating their frames in a plane.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Traslating things into dutch makes noone vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the next mathematician I would add to the list. Where are Hermann Weyl, Richard Dedekind, Apollonius of Perga, and Bhāskara II? Malerisch (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Seki Takakazu

The man who laid the subsequent development of Wasan, or Japanese mathematics. He has been described as "Japan's Newton".

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose nope.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose someone who isn't even famous in Japan shouldn't be on the list. Jucchan (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Seki Takakazu is absolutely a crucial figure in the history of Japan, as he laid the subsequent development of Wasan.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Gottlob Frege

He was a German mathematician, logician and philosopher. He is considered to be one of the founders of modern logic and made major contributions to the foundations of mathematics. He is generally considered to be the father of analytic philosophy, for his writings on the philosophy of language and mathematics. While he was mainly ignored by the intellectual world when he published his writings, Giuseppe Peano(1858–1932) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) introduced his work to later generations of logicians and philosophers.

Support

as nom. I'm very surprised that this article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very influential in both philosophy and mathematics. Generally considered the father of analytic philosophy and one of the founders of modern logic. A striking omission. Neljack (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Giuseppe Peano

He was an Italian mathematician. The author of over 200 books and papers, he was a founder of mathematical logic and set theory, to which he contributed much notation. The standard axiomatization of the natural numbers is named the Peano axioms in his honour. As part of this effort, he made key contributions to the modern rigorous and systematic treatment of the method of mathematical induction. He spent most of his career teaching mathematics at the University of Turin.

Support

as nom. I'm very surprised that this article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We should have the Peano axioms, I think they are on the list.

Discussion

Sports figures

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

History

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

Basics

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

History by continent and region

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

History by country

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

Prehistory and ancient history

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

Post-classical history

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

Early modern history

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

Modern history

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

Add Vichy France

We have several articles on Nazi Germany but none on the French equivalent. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not more vital than any other Axis puppet state (Manchukuo, Independent State of Croatia, Quisling's Norway, etc.) in WW2. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cobblet. See List of World War II puppet states for how many puppet states could potentially be added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too short-lived to be "vital". Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I don't mind historic regions but it does seem much less vital than Nazi Germany, I couldn't get Roman Britain to come aboard for example, that lasted 360+ years and is kind of an era in British history, Vichy France only lasted 5 years at most. Carlwev 08:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MIXED

Empire of Japan added 8-1 after 15+ days and 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster not added 4-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Empire of Japan, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster

As title, since m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded contains all of them, and this expanded list has less than ten thousand articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Empire of Japan, not sure about the other two. You also have to note that the meta list has a 800 article quota, but this one has a 650 quota. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Empire of Japan, neutral on the others. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Support Empire of Japan (notwithstanding my concerns about the history quota) and Oppose 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. The Empire of Japan is indeed a huge omission, but the other two articles are less so. When history only has a 650-article quota, articles about specific events should be exceedingly rare compared to periods/eras. When even major periods of Japanese history are not listed (e.g. Kofun period, Sengoku period, and Azuchi–Momoyama period), I don't think the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami can compare. I would even consider events like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria more vital. If we're talking about the overall impact of the earthquake and tsunami on Japan, I would argue that the air raids on Japan caused more devastation. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is even less vital than the earthquake and tsunami and should be covered in the overarching article anyway (let's list nuclear reactor first, for a start!).

Broadening our perspective to East Asia, I think it should be starkly clear why the other two articles shouldn't be listed: we're missing Mongol invasions and conquests, Manchu conquest of China, Dungan Revolt (1862–77), Republic of China (1912–49), Goguryeo, and Division of Korea! I don't believe the other two articles about specific events in Japanese history are similar in vitality to any of these. Malerisch (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same thoughts as Malerisch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear disaster are redundant with eachother. Empire of Japan I think is sufficiently covered in the rest of the coverage of Japan and its history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Just thinking out loud, I like these more than the other recent ideas, I can't help thinking some of these threads would be better separated, although simpler together only if voters agree on them all, otherwise it gets complicated and may put people off voting for one but not another. Empire of Japan seems very good to me, I like it more than the other 2. There are many Disasters, to choose from, in long ago and recent history, but these still seem higher importance than sportsman, actors and Beatles songs. Which other natural disasters types and examples do we have I forget. On a side note I thought of having natural disaster at the 1000, we have several types, but they all share a big impact on humans and other life in common. I think we need Impact event too. Carlwev 13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for another discussion on quotas. 800 articles may be a little too high but at least 700 is reasonable. I believe the measurement and biology sections could be cut to make room but everyone will have a different take on this. Notwithstanding the increase, some sections in history are bloated. There are articles on small medieval/postclassical kingdoms that only lasted for about a hundred years. Not sure how most of them can be vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the target for history articles could, and should, be increased, all of the articles that Malerisch would be great additions to the list. I personally think that astronomy could be cut to 200 articles, specifically by cutting some more constellations. Geography could likely be cut to 1150. Jucchan (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Assyrian genocide, Greek genocide and Cambodian genocide

As title, since they are all crucial, especially Cambodian genocide since at least 1 million (maybe around 2 million) people died in the event, and linguist Noam Chomsky even denied its existence!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. If Khmer rouge are not on the list I would support adding them, and I might support adding the Cambodian genocide on its own. We should be very careful with beginning to add genocide articles, since there are many, they are always controversial (and tend to be poor articles) and it is difficult to argue that any single one is more notable than another.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think genocides are per se vital. Depredations of all sorts are horrific and many are historically important but not vital in human history. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Three Mile Island accident

As title, since it is a highly significant nuclear incident in history of the world.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose History is currently over quota (see Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded), and all of these additions need to be paired with removals. More specific to this nomination, the Three Mile Island incident is ultimately a minor incident in United States history. When things like Louisiana Purchase, Reconstruction Era, Gilded Age, and Roaring Twenties aren't included, I don't see how this is more vital. Malerisch (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, definetly not vital, compared to Fukushima and Chernobyl. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The only nuclear disasters with some vitality are Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are many industrial and other manmade disasters not listed including Bhopal disaster, Great Smog, Tenerife airport disaster, Church of the Company Fire, 2013 Savar building collapse, MV Doña Paz, more famously but not as deadly the RMS Titanic, etc. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the others. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even that significant in Pennsylvania history. Thank you, President Carter. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

If any shipwreck deserves to be on the history list, then this is the one that should be on it. 1500 people died from the wreck and is perhaps the most notable shipwreck of all time. Multiple movies have been made on the event, and the action of the captain to sail into the iceberg is high satirized to this date, with the phrase "Titanic Ego" being coined from this event.

Support

Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the caveat of "so long as we don't already have a bunch of shipwrecks and naval disasters." Being made into a movie is not a compelling argument for me, but It was illustrative of the hubris of technology, mass loss of life, major cultural impact, and so on. Probably also not a lot of things on that list between 1900 and World War I. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well put, Montanabw: it's the epitome of hubris of technology. IThe accident was the first big incident after the industrial revolution (that I can think of right now) and made a clear statement about security issues associated with the new technological possibilities. It clearly demonstrated how the consequences of human failure can be multiplied by technology. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Battle of the Somme

Over 1 million people died in the battle and I think it's encyclopedia material equal or higher to articles have on the world wars and other history topics below. We do have Western Front (World War I) which it is included within, but then we include Attack on Pearl Harbor and Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though they are covered in Pacific War which we have. I'm not saying they should get removed but just an example that some events, if vital enough, should be included even if their parent article is too.

WW1 articles now are Balkans Campaign (World War I), Eastern Front (World War I), Italian Front, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, Western Front (World War I)

WW2 articles Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Atlantic, Eastern Front (World War II), Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II, Pacific War, Western Front (World War II), Yalta Conference, another random battle

I dislike the inclusion of is Wounded Knee Massacre with aprox 400? deaths, is surly lower priority than Battle of the Somme?

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 18:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose If you're just looking at casualties, Siege of Leningrad should be on the list first. In terms of historical and cultural significance from a global point of view I'd be perfectly comfortable removing Pearl Harbor and Wounded Knee – where's Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria or Nanking Massacre? Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most significant individual battle currently omitted from the list in terms of causing political change, cultural change, having symbolic value and a large death count is the Siege of Baghdad (1258). I'm open to removing Pearl Harbor and Wounded Knee as well but probably not the atomic bombings. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet and Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: The vitality of a battle is not determined by death count but by its historical and cultural significance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Wounded Knee Massacre

Although I don't think topics involving Indigenous peoples of the Americas are over-represented I don't think an article like this is the best to represent their history. This battle saw about 331 deaths, including 200 woman and children (300 on one side 31 on the other). I can't help think there must be a huge number of similar battles and/or wars with higher numbers and importance that are missing, from American history and other areas. We don't have Sioux Wars, Great Sioux War of 1876, Battle of the Little Bighorn, look also at categories Category:Wars between the United States and Native Americans and Category:Battles involving Native Americans, There are over 60 wars and over 60 battles in those, plus more within sub categories of those. Although not the least significant, The wounded knee Massacre doesn't stand out to me as the most vital of those either. Also perhaps articles on the "peoples" themselves who are/were around for 100s or 1000s of years may be better to have than one battle where they happened to fight the US in their later history. There are Native American Peoples and other native peoples missing that seem higher importance than battles/massacres like this. If I have missed a reason why this article is more important compared to those in the categories above then I'm sorry and please share. Carlwev 18:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 18:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the listing of very specific incidents like these should be kept to a minimum. See comments below. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Cobblet. Malerisch (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportper nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose The massacre is not significant because of the number of dead, but because it marked the end of the North American indian wars and the major shift of public opinion from seeing Natives as enemies to seeing them as victims. It is recognized worldwide as particularly salient example of the atrocities committed by the US state globally, and by the natives themselves - probably only the Sand Creek Massacre is comparable but that is not nearly as well known world wide, and the Battle of Little Big Horn. It gives its title to Dee Brown's seminal work "Bury My heart at Wounded Knee" which was the first major attempt of revisionist history writing about the American Indian wars - and this books immense popularity made Wounded Knee a symbol of the atrocities and of this view of history (which I think is by now the mainstream). I might be convinced to vote for a Swap with the Battle of Little Big Horn if a very good rationale for why this should be considered more important is provided, but there is no way that I could vote for a straight removal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maunus PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maunus. This may not be best listed as a "battle" as it was an attack on unarmed civilians, but it is of extremely significant importance in the history of Native Americans. Yes, Trail of Tears should be added, in fact, if we had to list a very small list of the most significant incidents in white-Native history in the Americas, I'd put these two right after the Columbus encounter and before the Battle of the Little Bighorn as far as impact on indigenous people goes (and really, three articles is not too many here, presumably Columbus is already here, linked elsewhere!. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Could support a swap with another Native American topic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in any case, but would consider moving to another tab (ethnology, politics, or anthropology). --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We list an extremely limited number of specific battles (where's Battle of Marathon, Battle of Yarmouk or Battles of Tarain?) and as important as Wounded Knee may be, it's difficult to argue that it belongs in such select company. I'd support a swap for Trail of Tears – it certainly isn't inferior to Wounded Knee in terms symbolizing the US's treatment of its natives and I prefer listing the topic that had a deeper impact on the lives of native Americans. I think a more general topic like Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas would also be a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded Knee is not notable as a battle, indeed by most accounts it wasnt a battle at all but a massacre. Trail of tears would be a good addition. I wouldnt want to compare what had a deeper impact on the lives of Native Americans. Wounded Knee was the last element in the process that finally confined the Sioux tribes to the federal reservation system and the control of the BIA. Indian Removal could be a good addition as well. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee should both be included, though perhaps "battles" is the wrong category - is there a better category for moving both of them? They are distinct atrocities, very different in nature, but both linked to American Indian policy and representative of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" struggle of native people - the Cherokee went out of their way to attempt to save their land by assimilation, the Sioux went out of their way to preserve their way of life by resisting assimilation. Both were mercilessly crushed. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw I think that the problem with adding Little Big Horn, Wounded Knee and Trail of Tears as representing Native American history is that it leaves out natives in all other countries than the US. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you call it a battle or a massacre, the point remains that it was a discrete incident that was emblematic of a larger phenomenon. I'm speaking of the difference between the Bosnian War and Srebrenica, the Holocaust and Auschwitz, the Armenian genocide and the Hamidian massacres, the Cambodian genocide and the Killing Fields, the Sino-Japanese War and Nanking; if you say we cannot even call the Cambodian and Armenian genocides vital (see discussion below), I think we have to be extremely picky when it comes to such events-within-events (the second of each pair of events I mentioned is not on the list). Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Native American history is already underrepresented - we are talking about the population of two continents. For the record I didnt say that we couldnt call Armenian and Cambodia genocides vital - I said that doing so opens up to a pesky discussion of why one genocide would be more important than another. I am not interested in that discussion since all genocides are equally important to different people. Wounded Knee is important as a global cultural icon of the fate of Native Americans - not simply because it is its one of the many genocidal atrocities of US imperialism. If that were the rationale then indeed the list would have to be a lot longer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you opposed the nomination, that's all. Again I compare Wounded Knee to Auschwitz and Nanking and ask what makes one more vital than the other two. OTOH, for a topic like hacienda/peon or Potosí I have a harder time making valid comparisons to events unrelated to native American history, which says to me that there might be something more vital about them. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when I make decisions I don't compare the historic significance of events, I find that a futile and subjective exercise, but I try to compare the cultural significance of the knowledge of the event - by doing that we are gauging not how important events are but how important other people are likely to think they are, and hence how likely they are to look for them in an encyclopedia. This does mean that I tend to estimate "iconic" events and persons higher than "high impact" events and persons. It is an act of balance, but I think that, and then making decisions about weighing coverage, are the only meaningful ways to say that we should include one President and not another, or one massacre and not another. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be guinness book of records "three most important presidents", "three biggest massacre", "five most winning athletes" etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your distaste for such comparisons. But the "cultural significance of the knowledge of the event" frequently depends on the significance of the event itself; so I think your criterion essentially introduces an additional element of subjectivity. When you say "cultural", whose culture are you referring to? To whom is serfdom more "iconic" than peonage? Cobblet (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And very frequently the cultural significance is entirely unrelated to objective measures. I recognize that it is a problem to that any judgment of cultural significance is located in a specific culture, but since this is inevitable in any case it makes more sense to be cognizant and explicit about that fact. So the answer to "whose culture?" would be "the culture of those who make encyclopedias".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you believe, and since Americans and Britons constitute 51.5% of Wikipedia's editorship, does it then follow that half the topics on the list of vital articles should be relevant primarily to an Anglo-American audience? Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is already the case, and also for more than 51,5% - I'd say probably all of the articles are primarily relevant for an Anglo-American audience and reflect Anglophone upper middle class interests and worldviews. And I think that is what is should do. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a stance is incompatible with Wikipedia's stated intention to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever written, and the spirit of policies like NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It very clearly is not since I am not arguing that any articles should not be included or that our coverage of any specific topics should be weighted towards any particular viewpoint. There is no neutral view of the world, and wikipedia by design can never come to reflect all views. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia cannot reflect all views does not mean it cannot reflect more than one view. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is of course not what I am arguing, there is not a single monolithic western view, everyone who is arguing here represent Western views, and there is no way to escape that. You do seem intent on not understanding what I am actually saying, I really dont think I can be any clearer in my statements here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You assume too much of the people who contribute here if you think they all necessarily represent Western views. You said the articles on the list are "primarily relevant for an Anglo-American audience and reflect Anglophone upper middle class interests and worldviews" (I take it you did not mean to distinguish between "Anglophone" and "Anglo-American"), and that you are comfortable with that; I'm not. Cobblet (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you could read that out of Maunus statement. Apart from that, Maunus is saying exactly what I have tried to say so many times. I'd choose "iconic" over high significance within a scientific discipline. Melody Lavender (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Wikipedia's editors live in the US and UK: these are the people who "make the encyclopedia." Should Wikipedia therefore prioritize improving articles that are relevant to people from those two countries? Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is already the case and necessarily so. In fact the priority given currently is even narrower than that, focusing primarily on the interests of youngish American white upper middle class men. This does not mean however that articles about English speakers are more vital than articles about speakers of other languages, because luckily English speakers have fairly wide interests and also look outside the English speaking world. But if the Encyclopedia was written by Hindi speakers, Danes or Zulus it would certainly look very different. Realizing that our audience has a cultural background that we need to take into account is not the same as giving into parochialism, because encyclopedias also have an educational function - it makes a statement about what people "ought to know" - again from the perspective of a particular culture. And that is the balance we are trying to strike here, in my opinion. If you are an English speaker who doesn't know about Wounded Knee, then you are intellectually empoverished, and that is what the encyclopedia should be able to help you with. If you don't know about the Sand Creek Massacre or the statistics of how many Natives died due to colonization you can be more easily excused. That is why we need to keep this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that expressing an opinion on what people "ought to know" based on the perspective of one culture is the very essence of parochialism. But for the sake of this discussion, let's pretend to agree we're OK with that, whatever we call it. From a Western perspective, I agree you are intellectually impoverished if you don't know about Wounded Knee. But I think you are equally intellectually impoverished from the same Western perspective if you don't know about Auschwitz or the Killing Fields. I see no reason to include the first topic as a specific example of ethnically motivated violence but not the other two. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense, because there is no other perspective from which we can make statements about what people ought to know. There is no "view from nowhere". As for Auschwitz and the killing fields, we are not discussing those topics here. I would personally be inclined to support their inclusion. But Wounded knee is, as I have explained, not just an example of ethnically motivated violence, it is an iconic event in Native American history (which is underrepresented), and also an iconic event within the study of US history and within the study of ethnically motivated violence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Realize that any people here like to pretend that they are not making decisions based on their on particular worldviews and cultural backgrounds by making reference to seemingly objective facts when they make decisions "Number three on X list of best American actors", "disaster with X most casualities", "every household has one of these", "caused this event which is surely vital" etc. These types of rationales for me are simply selfdelusional because they do not escape the cultural situatedness anyways. It is much better to be explicit and say "this topic" is one that no reasonably educated person of my wider social group should be able to get away with not knowing about", because that is the basic rationale for even having an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there is no "view from nowhere"; but it does not follow that we must adopt the view of only one particular culture. I think an approach that includes perspectives from multiple cultures is more desirable. I think you are incorrect to lump together all the arguments you mentioned as self-delusional. For example, it is evident that listmakers have their own biases and I think the contributors here have the intelligence to be able to take that into account; and there is nothing "culturally situated" about a casualty figure. All the things you say about Wounded Knee are true, but equally valid statements can be made about other instances of ethnic violence that are equally vital to the histories and cultures they represent. To single out Wounded Knee when American Indian Wars is also listed reeks of American parochialism to me. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is something culturally situated about a casualty figure. First of all the decision to focus on casualties is a culturally situated decision, the historical events for which we have casualty figures available is also a culturally filtered set of events. It is a valid argument that including Wounded Knee can be considered parochial, I understand that argument and accept it as valid, but disagree. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference from what perspective we are judging and what we are looking to include. I think there is an implicit understanding that we are looking for a worldwide perspective, but we are (or should I say most of us are) trying to make that judgement from a UK-US cultural perspective.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the former is not meaningfully possible if you are using the latter approach. It would suggest, for example, that Psy is the most important Asian musician of all time. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be giving into parochialism, because this is only the case in this particular moment. And also it disregards the fact that Encyclopedia have an educational role, it is not necessarily the case that Psy is the single East Asian artist that we think English speakers "ought to know".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you believed it was important that people be educated about iconic figures. Psy is the one East Asian musician that approaches "iconic" status in the West; if he is not vital (from the perspective you and Melody seem to be advocating) then no East Asian musician is, and we should remove Teresa Teng from the list immediately. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that suggests a very limited view of what "iconic" means, and again you dismiss the educational role. It is not a question of which figure our readership is most likely to already know, but about whom we would prefer them to know. Knowing about Teresa Treng, gives them a better understanding of East Asian music and its history, adding Psy is unlikely to do so unless he keeps up his current trajectory for decades to come. It seems that you are trying very hard not to understand what is being argued, instead trying to find apparent contradictions you can try to make the argument look absurd. That is not a very interesting kind of argument to me, so pardon if I stop having it. In the end I dont have to justify my votes to anyone, and I am clearly not going to convince you that Wounded Knee should stay. Lets agree to disagree as the saying goes. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I find your positions self-contradictory: they allow you to accuse others of Western bias in some discussions while excusing yourself when you fall into the same trap in others. As members of Anglo-American society, I think it's duplicitous to say that we favour cultural diversity when we also say we prefer an Anglo-American perspective. "Cultural diversity, but only on our terms" is just bald-faced parochialism. I don't see anything in Wikipedia's core principles and policies that suggests we espouse such a worldview. This is a problem we take on when we try to assess everything only in terms of what is "culturally significant", and it's magnified when we take "culturally" to mean "to our own culture".

On your other point: if you're really that concerned about educating a reader on the importance of the demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas or Chinese music, wouldn't those articles themselves give a fuller understanding of the topic than articles on Wounded Knee and Teresa Teng? Yet it seems you and others are opposed to including such general topics in favour of including "iconic" people and events. The standard argument has been that people are more interested in specific articles rather than general topics. That's debatable on a case-by-case basis, but even when true, this means we are suddenly deferring back to our readership to decide what they want to know. I see no consistency in our application of such arguments: it's odd to see Teresa Teng listed over Chinese music and Dixie (song) listed over national anthem on the one hand, but Peking opera listed over Mei Lanfang on the other; and I daresay most of our readership is much more interested in K-Pop and Gangnam Style than any of these topics. Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand why you think of that as self contradictory, I think of it more as an development, I came here to try to make the list more inclusive of the non-Western world, adding all kinds of things that in retrospect I can see would probably fit better in a different kind of list. But when I went through the process of actually thinking what an encyclopedia is and what its job is I realized that it cannot escape having a worldview integrated into it and that this will color its contents. I do still think it is important to have "diversity" and include a wider scope of knowledges than just prototypical Western knowledge - and that is what I mean by the educational function of the encyclopedia. I think it should explore the boundaries of typical western knowledge and that there should be some articles that challenge traditional western knowledge, but on the other hand the core function of an encyclopedia is to communicate a particular culturally situated view of what things in the world are important to know about. So know I approach this project by thinking of what I, as a western person who is aware of an interested in diversity, think it is important that the ordinary wikipedia reader should know about. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia in the history of the medium that has the means to escape the straightjacket of a worldview imposed on it by a handful of similarly-minded editors. Such an opportunity should be welcomed and acted on: I believe it is, and I believe this is the reason for Wikipedia's success. I see no reason why we must qualify the concept of diversity with quotation marks. We can do better, even if we cannot yet agree on exactly how. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I do agree that if we look at the list as a whole it is highly arbitrary what gets listed based on the quota system and what we compare with in a specific case. I don't see a good solution to that problem (except as I have suggested many times, to make simple quotas and let the WPS decide what gets included in their quota). Either we will have a list of only general broad topics that noone are looking for, or a list of specific iconic topics. Modernist architecture or the Eiffel Tower? No good solution, that we can carry out here in a concerted and homogeneous way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think there's quite a simple solution that may be applicable (or at least taken into consideration) whenever the topics to be compared aren't related to current events: look at their respective page views. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply another copout argument that does nothing to avoid the cultural bias, but everything to perpetuate it - while jettisoning any educational function of the encyclopedia and sanctifying the interests of 14 year old American boys as being the core of the project. An entirely irrelsponsible and absurd proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd and irresponsible only if you ignore context. I don't think "cultural bias" is the only reason one might prefer to read the article on the Eiffel Tower over the one on Modernist architecture. And we are not comparing the Eiffel Tower to Pokemon, or to the Ajanta caves. Cobblet (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Montanabw. The articles should be moved/nominated in a different section. Maybe politics, or better ethnology. Does anybody even know that we have an ethnology section? It has 29 articles. What makes ethnology any less important than other disciplines? The articles that are mentioned here might find a better home there. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bad idea, just because an historical event happens to an ethnic minority that doesnt mean that it falls under ethnology not history. The section on ethnology is not for this kind of thing, it is for concepts and findings from ethnological research.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were two sides involved, it didn't 'happen to a minority'. Ethnology analyzes the relationship of two cultures, and that is exactly the issue at hand. It was a turning point in the relationship between two cultures. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all that is not what ethnology does, you must be thinking of a different discipline. Ethnology is the theoretical and comparative study of human cultures. And yes the Wounded Knee Massacre did happen to a minority ethnic group, the fact that it was perpetrated by a majority ethnic group does not make it any more an example of "relationship between two cultures" than the holocaust or the Vietnam war. This is an historical incident, with historical ramifications.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this into ethnology doesn't make much sense unless you want to get rid of the history section entirely. Using similar reasoning, all of the wars can be moved into the military section and the Renaissance can be moved into art. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to add to the extensive bandwidth here that generates more heat than light, but Native Americans and Native American issues are given horribly short shrift on WP in general. Living people with living history need to be given due respect. While other indigenous people also need inclusion, this is a group of people who did survive genocide and are still here today; significant events in their history need to be added, and where they are added is not something I am worried about, just that is is added. This was not a military battle, it was a civilian attack. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical cities

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

History of science and technology

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

History of the social sciences

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

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

It should be added to both level 3 & 4, and history of anthropology should be added to level 4 as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the actual article it is more a history of sociology than of social sciences. It does not deal with the history of economics and psychology. The social science are that much of a hotchpot of competing paradigms and approaches that I seriously doubt that there are reliably sourced accounts of the social sciences as a group (but there is much on the history of sociology, psychology, economics etc). I am afraid any article in Wikipedia will be plagued with non neutral point of view (excluding important social sciences) or original research (trying to synthesize a history of social science ourselves). For that pragmatic reason I would not support inclusion in vital articles. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of other topics

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

Auxiliary sciences of history

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

Geography

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

Basics

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

Physical geography

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

Parks and preserves

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Parks and preserves for the list of topics in this category.

Countries

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

Regions and country subdivisions

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

Cities

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

Add Saitama and Sendai

Saitama is the the capital and most populous city of Saitama Prefecture, as well as being the 9th most populous city in Japan. It is a key transportation hub near Tokyo.

Sendai is the capital city and most populous city of Miyagi Prefecture, and is also the most populous city in the Tōhoku region and 11th most populous in Japan. It serves as the center for the region's economy. There are no cities in the Tōhoku region currently on the list. Jucchan (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I don't see how Saitama's more notable than Kawasaki or Chiba or other secondary cities within major urban agglomerations, say Tangerang or Faridabad or Newark, New Jersey. Sendai's more significant, but I don't think a region that makes up less than 10% of Japan's population necessarily needs to have its largest city added to the list. There are more important Asian cities to add, particularly in China. Shimonoseki is often considered part of the Kitakyushu agglomeration and the population of that is about two million; Sendai's agglomeration is about 1.5 million. Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've only very recently gotten involved in this project, so I'm not sure how many vital articles on cities the project is aiming for. If the number of Japanese cities would be an issue, then I propose Kitakyushu to be removed, as it has a smaller population, is not a prefecture capital, and is situated in Fukuoka Prefecture which overlaps with Fukuoka which is already on the list. Jucchan (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet, How does the Kitakyushu agglomeration have a population of two million? List of agglomerations by population lists Kitakyushu as having a population of 1,590,000 people, around the same as Sendai. I was personally also going to propose Kawasaki and Chiba as well. Yes, there are important Chinese cities to add, but I don't think that would be a problem since Geography is under quota by about 50 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jucchan (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jucchan, I prefer to use this list. I don't know how exactly that person defined the Kitakyushu-Shimonoseki agglomeration but if Yamaguchi Prefecture has a population of 1.6 million and Kitakyushu proper has a population slightly under a million, two million for the agglomeration doesn't seem unreasonable. I admit though there isn't that much separating it and Sendai and I'm not too attached to keeping it. We've previously removed cities like Goiânia and Portland, Oregon, which are standalone 2 million+ agglomerations; without some exceptional historical or economic significance (such as the port of Yokohama) I don't think the satellite cities of Tokyo can be considered more important. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arts

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

Architecture

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

Add Ancient Roman architecture

We have Romanesque architecture on the list but not ancient Roman architecture, which sounds strange.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have many architectural styles, particularly when you compare this to the number of specific buildings listed. Ancient Roman architecture was influential and innovative, particularly in its use of features such as the arch, vault and dome. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neljack. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I would support removing Romanesque architecture.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I could support these additions if an honest attempt was made to include architectural styles across the entire world and not just the West. Otherwise this will just exacerbate the bias in this list. Why not add Ancient Egyptian architecture, Mesoamerican architecture, Islamic architecture, Chinese architecture and Indian architecture as well? Even many of these articles are about a group of styles equivalent to adding an article on "Western architecture". Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need all those articles, they are all obvious omissions, I think. I would support all the ones you mentioned, maybe even subarticles like Ottoman architecture, Persian architecture, Indo-Gothic, Indo-Islamic architecture and Hindu temple architecture. An encyclopedia without Romanesque architecture would be unimaginable.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Byzantine architecture

Many mosques are built using Byzantine architectural style, so this article is crucial.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had a big influence on Medieval, Renaissance and Ottoman architecture. Neljack (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Baroque architecture

Baroque architecture is very popular in the world, including Taiwan, where many buildings erected during Japanese rule use this style.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Ancient Egyptian architecture

Huge omission. We do have a pyramid and Thebes (Egypt) and Luxor, but not the overarching article, of which the inclusion makes sense in this case. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose We dont need all these overarching architectural traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Mesoamerican architecture

Huge omission. Incan architecture is at least represented by Machu Picchu but I couldn't find any Maya architecture. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major world tradition. Montanabw^(talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the moment. The style vs building debate isn't really resolved but in this case, as there are no representatives of Mesoamerican architecture on the list, adding this will be better than nothing. I guess we can push architecture up at the expense of music in case space needs to be made. We don't need so many individual songs. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose We dont need all these overarching architectural traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maunus. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

We could add El Castillo, Chichen Itza or Tikal. Chichen Itza itself is on the list in "Historical Cities" and Tikal would also fit better there. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding many architectural traditions could lead to a slippery slope where every building has an equivalent architectural style article. Khmer architecture can be added on the basis of Angkor Wat. Expressionist architecture or Australian architecture could be added due to Sydney Opera House. If Borobudur is added would Javanese temple architecture have to be added as well? We will have to draw the line somewhere to avoid excessively inflating the list. And if we have to choose between the building and generic style, I would choose the former in most cases. For example, I would prefer Taj Mahal over Indo-Islamic architecture or Mughal architecture despite there being many other impressive and iconic Mughal buildings such as Red Fort. The building articles have more substance to them. Generic is not always more vital than specific. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, IMHO, we need ONE article on the western hemisphere for crying out loud. Let's not be Eurocentric. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has been bugging me as well. I've outlined my solution below, which uses RSes to determine which of these articles are the most important. I've used this as my source for the following outline of possible architectural traditions, but other sources as possible as well.

I'd say that this is a pretty balanced list in terms of recentism and globalization. It's also not excessively detailed (21 articles), considering that we have 31 music genres listed. We have to draw the line somewhere between what's vital and what's not (e.g. Japanese architecture but not Korean architecture, neoclassical architecture but not Gothic Revival architecture, and Islamic architecture but not Ottoman architecture), and IMO this is a good way of choosing. By the way, Chichen Itza isn't actually on the list—a proposal to add it failed here. Malerisch (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That place is a good place to start although far from perfect. I would replace architecture of Africa with two specific types in addition to Ancient Egyptian even if it means that some parts are not represented. The continent being the second biggest by population after Asia is too big to lump into one article. I'll need to look at the rest of the list in more detail. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Islamic architecture

Huge omission. This article's subarticles Ottoman architecture and Persian architecture strike me as important and worthy of consideration for inclusion. Sumerian architecture is represented by Ziggurat of Ur which we voted onto the list recently; it's of course earlier, but close in terms of space. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I dont think Ottoman and Persian architecture are subarticles of Islamic architecture any more than Baroque and Romanesque are subarticles of Christian architecture. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Chinese architecture

Huge omission. Forbidden City is on the list, but that's not enough. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose We dont need all these overarching architectural traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Indian architecture

Huge omission. I would also support the addition of the subarticles Indo-Gothic, Indo-Islamic architecture and Hindu temple architecture. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Literature

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

PASSED

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nibelungenlied and The Song of Roland

We have Beowulf and Arthurian Legend and Gilgamesh, but we don't have the corresponding epics of Germany and France. Ironically, we have Wagner, whose Ring Cycle is derived from the Nibelungenlied p b p 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

p b p 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support my college world history textbook mention these!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

But why should we have the corresponding epics from Germany and France? What about the corresponding epics from Spain and Italy, or Denmark and Sweden or Thailand or Malaysia, or Zimbabwe and Morocco? The argument would be whether those epics are correspondingly vital as the Gilgamesh and the Arthurian legend. I think clearly they arent. The Nibelungen lied actually gains its notability from Wagner (whereas he doesnt gain his notability from the epic, so there is nothing ironic about including him and leaving out the epic that he made famous outside of Germany), and I dont see anything making the Song of Roland particularly important on a global scale. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the Nibelungenlied was culturally significant in Germany centuries before Wagner, we just added El Cid, and what makes you think that these two are significantly less vital than some of the works of literature we have on the list already? p b p 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Germany. But something being important in Germany does not equal vital. I didnt ad El Cid and would have likely voted against it, so no otherstuff argument will work here. It is not my job to show that these are less vital than otherstuff,but the nominators job to convince others that they are moreso.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You've nominated plenty of people in the past (Latin musicians come readily to mind) without making any sort of argument for why they are more vital than other people on the list; why are you so upset with pbp doing the same? Claiming the Nibelungenlied ("probably no literary work has given more to Germanic arts", quoth Britannica; and this is a literary tradition that boasts of Goethe, Schiller, Heine and Mann) is only vital because of Wagner is like claiming Hua Mulan's only famous because of a Disney movie. Roland and the associated Matter of France are equally central to the history of European literature and art. Cobblet (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why you would think that I am upset. I just disagree that these particular works have any global vitality. They are simple national epics of the type that every nation with respect for itself has. They have not particular literary qualities and are not usually studied except for their relation to national ideologies (or to Wagner). There are dozens of national epics of similar significance if one were to dare to look outside of Europe.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offering vacuous generalizations ("there are dozens of national epics of similar significance") and accusing others of a lack of global awareness when that topic has dominated discussion on this page for the last two months suggests that if you aren't upset, you're at least not in the mood for a serious conversation. Come back when you're prepared to actually enlighten us with your understanding of what truly constitutes a "globally vital" work of literature. Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I dont take your suggestions for how to argue or when to "come back". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the arguments you've presented here apply equally to most of the literary works on this list, unless you'd like to clarify them. A Dictionary of the English Language does not have any influence outside the English language, but that did not prevent us from adding it to the list not so long ago. If you want to explain why we can't list the Nibelungenlied or the Song of Roland but can have the Codex Regius and Popol Vuh (are these at the same level as Gilgamesh and King Arthur?), I'm all ears. Cobblet (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many derivative works do you know of the song of roland or the nibelungen lied. I know one of the nibelungen lead, and that work happens to be more notable than the lied itself. Like the Gilgamesh, the Popol Vuh represents the literaru heritage of an entire civilization, not a single european country, and it has inspired dozens of derivative works and translations. I cant even list the number of derivative works of the Arthurian legend. So obviously those three works need to be on the list. It is not at all obvious why the Song of Roland should. Or why the Nibelungen Lied should be considered notable apart from its being used by Wagner.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Roland: Numerous works of medieval literature including the masterpieces Orlando Innamorato and Orlando Furioso. El Cid is also inspired by it. See The Song of Roland#Adaptations for translations – the epic was widely read throughout Europe in the Middle Ages.

Nibelungenlied: Wagner's Ring cycle, two films by Fritz Lang; see also A Companion to the Nibelungenlied, p. 133-145.

Sure, I haven't listed "dozens of derivative works", but I think the ones I've listed are somewhat more important than an experimental rock band. These two epics represent more than the literature of their country: they are pinnacles of medieval European literature as a whole. I would consider works that inflamed medieval Christian belligerence or modern German nationalism at least as vital as any 20th-century novel. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus:, you seem to be arguing that you need to achieve global significance to be listed on WP:VA/E/A as a work of literature. It seems disengenuous to have numerous examples of the Great American Novel, but not the Great French Epic or the Great German epic. In terms of "there are dozens of national epics of similar significance", I honestly think that's not true. You're honestly more likely to read the two nominated articles in a foreign country then you are to read the national epics of the countries you mentioned (and, by the by, the Nibelungenlied has a significant following in Scandinavia). Heck, some of the countries you mentioned don't really have national epics, because they aren't unified by a common ethnicity and/or language the way France, Germany, and England are. I'd also turn your argument that adding these works decreases globalization on its head: if you look at the current list of literary works on this list, it's dominated by 1) works of the last 200 years or so, and 2) American and British lit. Adding two non-English language Medieval epics improves globalization, not damages it. p b p 13:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niebelungenlied does not have a significant following in Scandinavia (except among opera people), each of the Scandinavian countries have their own medieval epics. I really dont think these epics are vital at all in themselves. If you wanted to convince me instead of just badgering me for my opinion you would provide some examples of how they have been influential outside of their small spheres of local nationalism. They are also not good examples of literature and are not among the top 50 pieces of notable literature of the respective languages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've acknowledged that these works of literature are influential. That cannot be said for most of the works on this list. You're essentially saying being good literature is more important than being influential literature. Also, from where does the "they're not among the top 50 pieces of notable literature" come? That doesn't seem true to me, by any definition of notability p b p 15:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont think they are influential at all. I think they have a symbolic value within their respective countries and that the Nibelungenlied is only well known outside of Germany because of Wagner (and that consequently Wagner should be listed not the Lied). I have never seen the Song of Roland listed as one of the major pieces of French literature - among the earliest maybe, but not the best or most influential. Nor the Nibelungen lied as one of the major pieces of German literature. They are national epics simply and have no more nor no less influence than any number of other such epics such as Kalevala, El Cid, The Fenian Cycle, the Siege of Sziget, Pan Tadeusz, Epic of Jangar, Jewang Ungi, the Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Cobblet you are being quite the hypocrite here I think, you had no problem opposing almost all of my suggestions of additions offering NO rationales at all and now you are trying to badger me into offering a detailed rationale. I DONT EVEN NEED TO GIVE A RATIONALE FOR WHY I THINK THESE PIECES OF WRITING HAVE NO PLACE ON THE LIST. Feel free to disagree, but please quit making this out as if I am being irrational or contrary when that applies equally to yourself. I am not going to spend more time defending my vote here. These two epics are simply not vital in my opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pbp nominated two articles, not twelve – excuse me for behaving differently in different situations. But finally you have raised some useful points of comparison. El Cid's on the list and so is Adam Mickiewicz. I think the Fenian Cycle (better than Ossian), The Siege of Sziget and the Tale of the Bamboo Cutter (certainly better than True History as a work exhibiting science fiction themes while also having literary significance) are reasonable choices. The Epic of Jangar is less significant than the Book of Dede Korkut. The Kalevala is clearly less globally influential than the Nibelungenlied (indeed its composition was inspired by the presence of the latter), and we already have the Codex Regius to represent Scandinavian epics. The Jewang Ungi does not represent a pinnacle of Korean literature. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now you finally provided some arguments for keeping it. The fact that it is "the corresponding epics of Germany and France" is not a valid argument in itself (because by that reasoning we should also necessarily include the corresponding Epic of Thailand and Bhutan and the Solomon Islands if they have one). And that has been my problem with this nom all along. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really not evident that the literature of France and the Solomon Islands are not comparable? I'm sorry but that does seem rather irrational to me. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont live in a world where that can be assumed a priori no. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, Socrates. (Or the Solomon Islander or Bhutanese Socrates, if you prefer.) Cobblet (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) French and German are two of the 10-15 languages spoken by the most people worldwide. Therefore, it is more important we have the important works of those languages than languages spoken by fewer people. p b p 00:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that flawed logic we should list the foundational literature in Portuguese, Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Russian, Japanese, Javanese and Lahnda before the Nibelungenlied, and Korean before French.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing it by first-language, not total speakers. But we probably should have at least one work in each of those languages, except for maybe Javanese and Lahnda. p b p 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should have the leading work of literature from most if not all of those languages, not necessarily the foundational. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The national epic of Bhutan is the Epic of King Gesar, which is actually a pan-national epic. It is highly esteemed in Bhutan, Tibet, Mongolia, in the northern mountainous areas of India, Nepal and Pakistan, and various other parts of Central Asia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure I get your distinction between leading and founding. What are the leading and founding works in, say, English? p b p 04:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean leading in the sense of best, iconic and most famous while founding is the oldest, which may have influenced other literature in the language. Or at least the oldest text of note but not necessarily the best of all time. I guess it's subjective because it depends on when a language starts and finishes but something like Beowulf could be "foundational" and Hamlet would be "leading". They are often the same in many languages Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The leading Lahnda/Punjabi literature is Heer Ranjha, which was traditionally a folk tale and later made popular by Waris Shah. The author and story are the region's equivalents to Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet respectively. I think the Epic of King Gesar and Heer Ranjha are close to being vital. Not sure though if either are them are quite there. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

PASSED

Removed, 5-0 p b p 13:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Codex Regius add Poetic Edda

The Codex Regius in itself is neither famous or vital, the vital topic is the Poetic Edda which it contains. (The poetic Edda is not a national Epic, by the way but is notable because it is the main piece of literature produced by Norse culture).

Support

Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is the Prose Edda as well; nonetheless this is an improvement. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't list the Corpus Aristotelicum either. Malerisch (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

PASSED

Removed, 5-0 p b p 13:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Le Morte d'Arthur

King Arthur and Merlin suffice for our coverage of Arthurian literature. Le Morte d'Arthur is but one source of these legends: Historia Regum Britanniae is probably more significant in this regard.

Support

Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this still leaves us with King Arthur, Merlin and Camelot. If Le Morte d'Arthur were to stay, you could easily add Ramakien (Thailand's national epic and own version of the Ramayana) and many other articles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malerisch (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Yeah we have Arthur and Merlin, I knew we had a work with Arthur in it somewhere someone brought it up ages ago, I thought it could be found and nominated. If I'm not mistaken though, I removed Camelot myself a long time ago, although this may make no difference to votes here. Carlwev 07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake Camelot is included, I removed Avalon, I remember now. Carlwev 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

PASSED

Removed, 5-0 p b p 13:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Through the Looking-Glass

Is it really necessary to include both Alice in Wonderland and its sequel? We don't include The Hobbit or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer alongside LOTR or Huck Finn. Other classics of modern children's fiction such as Pippi Longstocking and Anne of Green Gables aren't listed at all ~~and neither are their authors~~; OTOH, Lewis Carroll's also on the list.

Support

Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it seems like Astrid Lindgren is listed. Malerisch (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Add Julius Caesar (play)

I do not see how the play about Julius Caesar is any less vital than Hamlet or Macbeth. Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare's masterpieces. A list of literature is not complete without the play Julius Caesar.

Support

Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Two shakespeare plays is enough for this list methinks. I wouldnt swap either Hamlet or Macbeth for this one, and if I were to add a third it wouldnt be Julius Caesar either. Evaluating the quality of a play is a subjective exercise, and as such it isnt what inclusion in the list should be based on. Hamlet and Macbeth are bvy far the best known and most frequently performed of Shakespeares works - followed probably by Richard III and A Midsummer Night's Dream. But as I said, two of his play is enough for this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Maunus. Adding another Shakesspeare won't add anything to the list, except make the section more skewed towards the English language. There still might be works of literature in the English language missing from the list but the Julius Caesar play isn't one of them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have nine Shakespeare plays as it is, and should be looking to cut some. Julius Caesar is one of the more important Shakespeare plays, but not right in the absolute top echelon of importance. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are more than enough Shakespeare plays on the list and while Julius Caesar is important, it's not more important than the ones already listed. Ca2james (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment: If any author should have multiple works on this list, it's William Shakespeare. If you look at influences on English language and literature, the only thing more influential than Shakespeare is the Bible (and Shakespeare purportedly consulted on the KJV). That being said, I think 5-6 Shakespeare plays should be sufficient, and I'm proposing a removal. p b p 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple works, yes, but even three would be more than any other writer. If both proposals pass, there will still be nine of his works - over four times as many as the next most mentioned author. That's overboard. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED

Removed 9-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Much Ado About Nothing

There seems to be consensus above that there are too many Shakespeare plays on this list. Much Ado About Nothing seems to me to be far and away the weakest of the Shakespeare plays listed. I'd put Taming of the Shrew and Merchant of Venice ahead of it, and I don't believe we have either. p b p 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom p b p 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support since I was going to propose this myself. If none of the history plays are vital I don't think we need so many of the comedies either (Midsummer Night's Dream and Merchant of Venice are both listed). We ought to make room for notable dramatic traditions lacking any representation at all on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malerisch (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking about nominating this for removal too. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Actually, The Merchant of Venice is already on the list. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, but my general point is that Much Ado About Nothing is both a) not one of Shakespeare's top 9 works, and b) not important enough to be on this list. p b p 14:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Natural History (Pliny)

A crucial book in Ancient Rome whose corresponding article is not include in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An influential and famous work. Neljack (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first encyclopedia ever. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Ancient Rome is well represented overall. Need a better rationale to include more.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Das Kapital

A crucial book written by Karl Marx whose corresponding article is not included in the list.

Support

as nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marx's magnum opus. Hard to deny its importance, whatever you think of him and his ideas. Neljack (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support globally influential. In this case, I don't think it is overkill to have both Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. Any more definitely will be. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good catch. Definitely an omission. Marx's ideas in their authentic, original form should be represented because they are often misunderstood/misinterpreted and abused. Marx's own ideas differ from the political system that was build on them. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

A book of history written by the English historian Edward Gibbon, which traces the trajectory of Western civilization (as well as the Islamic and Mongolian conquests) from the height of the Roman Empire to the fall of Byzantium. It was published in six volumes. Volume I was published in 1776 and went through six printings. Volumes II and III were published in 1781; volumes IV, V, and VI in 1788–89. The original volumes were published in quarto sections, a common publishing practice of the time. The work covers the history of the Roman Empire, Europe, and the Catholic Church from 98 to 1590 and discusses the decline of the Roman Empire in the East and West. Because of its relative objectivity and heavy use of primary sources, unusual at the time, its methodology became a model for later historians. This led to Gibbon being called the first "modern historian of ancient Rome".

Support

as nom. I'm quite surprised by the fact that this crucial article is not include in the Level 4 list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the most famous and acclaimed work of history in the English language. I think both Gibbon and the book are vital. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the very short list of essential books about western civilization. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Would support swap with author as this is his main source of notability.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If we are to have famous works of historiography rather than just the actual history, then I do think this might be a good candidate. But I am not convinced that we need the most significant works of historiography on this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbons is listed; this is the work on which his legacy rests. I could support swapping the author for the work but listing both seems redundant. Cobblet (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goood point, I would support a swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the next work of historiography that should be listed is the Records of the Grand Historian since we currently list the Histories. Malerisch (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Records of the Grand Historian should be added to the list. By the way, Edward Gibbon wrote not only The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but also other works, e.g. his memoir.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a seminal enough work that I am comfortable having both it and Gibbon on the list. p b p 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music

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

Add Scale (music)

Basic concept that strikes me as an obvious omission. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggested this a long time ago. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cobblet. Malerisch (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

An even more basic concept is note, which I think should be added first. Malerisch (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes aren't vital (musical notation is listed); pitch (music) is a little better. However, in the vast majority of musical traditions it's not the pitches themselves that matter, but how they're arranged into intervals and tonal centres. That's what scales are about. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Malerisch (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Singer-songwriter, add songwriter

Just seems disingenuous that we have one but not the other p b p 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

p b p 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose The former is am=n identifiable style of music, whereas any composer who has written a song whatever the genre is a songwriter. Former is arguably vital, the second redundant with composer. I could be convinced to vote for removal of the former though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Remove Slit drum

These seem poor inclusions. Only thing going for it is seems to represent, in a way, music from the non-western parts of the world, although I still think it's weak, and I would prefer another non-western genre of music with some substance, although not from the same region we are missing Samba which I may nominate. We don't have a huge amount of generic drum types. We don't even have Base drum, which could feasibly replace these, or not. Carlwev 09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Frame drum

Similar argument as slit drum above, I don't think it's within the top 150 music topics, and many other types of drum or other instruments equal or higher importance are missing like base drum, steel drum, Taiko, Sitar.

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Samba

Music as a whole, I'd prefer wider articles like genres, it is not among the oldest genres, but it originates from the turn of the 20th century, which is older than many genres we have, and is the main genre of South America particularly Brazil 5th most populous nation. It's also generally seen good to get representation for an area other than US and Europe. Considering we still have an odd mix of individual songs and albums like 4 Beatles/Lennon works, a Marvin Gaye album in addition to himself, a Fleetwood Mac album and Happy Birthday To You, and the song by the Righteous Brothers, etc etc I think Samba should be higher priority.

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack)

We have talked before about cutting modern music works. Here's a start. This is more notable for sales than critical acclaim. I think having the Bee Gees on the people list is enough to cover this.

Support

Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove All You Need Is Love

With the Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, I Want to Hold Your Hand and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on the list, the Beatles are fairly well covered even if this is removed. It seems a bit of a funny choice to me anyway, as there are several more critically acclaimed or popular songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, Let It Be, Eleanor Rigby or Hey Jude.

Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Performing arts

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

Visual arts

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

Add Peanuts

Shouldn't Peanuts be here, under a subsection called comics of the Specific Works section? It standardized the use of the four-panel gag, and pretty much defines the modern comic strip. Plus, it made a big impact on pop culture and is the most popular and influential comic of all time, and besides, it says on the Peanuts talk page that it is a vital article in art, but I can't find it here, so perhaps we have to add it.User talk:Gonzales John 10:12, 6 October 2014

Peanuts is already listed in Arts > Literature > Specific works of literature > Fiction > Comics. Are you asking that the article be moved to the Visual arts section? Malerisch (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Thank you.I was just looking for it in this page, and I just wasn't able to find it, so I made this suggestion. Also, saw Comics under Visual Arts, so I thought it would be there. About your question, I'm not sure whether it should be on Visual Arts or on literature, but that wasn't what I was asking, because I was just looking for it, so no, and thank you very much for telling me where it is. User:Gonzales John (talk) 10:37 6 October — Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for removing peanuts entirely.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add interactive art

A crucial article which is not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add installation art

A crucial article which is not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add photorealism

A crucial article which is not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love it as an art form but it's recentism. Get back to me in a century. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Modern visual arts

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

Add sound film

This article is no less crucial than silent film, yet this list does not include it.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not crucial. Would have been vital in a 1930s encyclopedia. Today this is just the primary topic of the article Film.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Now most motion pictures are colour ones, but color motion picture film is still included in the list. Both sound film and color motion picture film technology are great inventions in history of film, so both articles are crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters

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

Philosophy and religion

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

Philosophy

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

Add rigour

Though this article only has six language editions (no having Japanese one!), the topic is still crucial, thus it should be added to this list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose its a word not a thing. And its not a word that has a huge literature written about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This reminds of the proposal to add risk almost a year ago. Particular types of rigour, like risk, may be vital but the word itself is better suited for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Both of these articles could be restructured into disambiguation pages. FWIW mathematical proof, an example of the application of rigour to mathematics, is already listed. Perhaps critical thinking can be added instead? And I still think financial risk or risk management is vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Celibacy

Widespread and ancient idea, appearing throughout most of history up to modern day, in some form, mentioned in the teachings of most religions in many cultures of the world. Some promoting it and also some opposing it. Could go in sexuality or religion, but appears primarily a religious topic it seems. Fasting is under religion, not with dieting under food, for example. Carlwev 09:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 09:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add chicken or the egg

A crucial article in philosophy which is not included in the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

'Oppose This is not a vital question in philosophy at all. Would be an absurd addition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already have causality. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Leaning towards no. Adding this would mean adding other philosophical questions like If a tree falls in a forest, meaning of life, brain in a vat and stone paradox. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those are not at all philosophical questions at all... They are popular pseudophilosophy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are hypothetical situations that give rise to philosophical questions. If a tree falls in forest addresses the issue of reality and chicken or egg addresses causality. But these concepts are already listed as vital, which makes it pointless to add the thought experiments. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add conflict of interest

A crucial article which is not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Religion and spirituality

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

Add meaning of life

A crucial article in metaphysics which is not included in the list.

Support

as nom. I'm surprised that it is not included!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of the biggest philosophical questions in existence. It is the fundamental question that humans ask when they consider their place in the universe. It touches numerous philosophical subjects such as existence and symbolic meaning. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Specific religions

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

Unitarianism and Nontrinitarianism

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

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

Theologically they are not the same. And Unitarianism is also an actual church, where non-trintarianism includes many different ones, some that are unitarian and others that arent. Jewhovah's Witnesses for example is non trinitarian, but not unitarian, neither were the gnostics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Shahadah, Salat, Zakat and Sawm

All of them are no less crucial than Hajj.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for Shahadah which is the most fundamental tenet of the religion. Learning towards supporting the others. Islam is underrepresented compared to Christianity and Judaism. All four of these articles are more vital than Imam in any case. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Five Pillars of Islam is listed. Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Cobblet. Hajj is the only one of the pillars that is widely known outside of the islamic world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thinking about these, I like the first 2 more, the 3rd is OKish. When I think of the last one, it does seem significant, but we already have fasting and if you read the fasting article you'll see many religions have their own fasting tradition and article. If we add Sawm which we could then a strong argument could be made to include Lent possibly a few more, not that that's a bad thing. Also we are missing a fairly good overview: abstinence. Carlwev 13:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why would we list the Shahada if we don't list the Nicene Creed. I think it's the number of Christian denominations we list that gives rise to the disproportionate representation of Christianity. I don't know the religion well enough to be certain about this, but topics like Twelver and Wahhabi movement/Salafi movement are the sort of article I would consider adding, particularly when things like Druze are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esoterics, magic and mysticism

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

Mythology

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

Everyday life

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

Family and kinship

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

Cooking, food and drink

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

Add Vegetarian cuisine

We have vegetarianism on the list, but I think their cuisine is vital, too. There have been efforts now and then to put cuisines by country on the list. I believe this comprehensive article which touches many cuisines is a better option.

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Redundant with vegetarianism: the articles should be merged. Cobblet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet. Ca2james (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont think the articles should be merged, but really there is no need for both on this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Household items

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

Sexuality

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

Stages of life

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

Sports and recreation

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

Add harness racing in lieu of Standardbred

!Voting down in the #Organisms section, proposing there to delete Standardbred and replace with harness racing. I guess people vote down there? Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Voting below in the other section, this is an FYI Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Restore Dressage

This article was removed without consulting anyone who actually is part of WikiProject Equine. This is not merely an Olympic level discipline, but it is the classical foundation of all modern riding. It is highly significant and should not have been removed, particularly for the ill-informed reasons given below. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Equestrian at the Summer Olympics

There are significant numbers of competitors at the Olympic level; but noting concerns about too many articles on Olympic sports, I recommend this one be added as the overview. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. If we add this, we probably would have to add dozens more ...at the Olympics articles p b p 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pbp. Jucchan (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pbp. Ca2james (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

My instincts on this say it's a bad idea, looking at this category page (here) shows there are 34 sports with their own "sport at the Summer Olympics". Plus another 19 in the Winter Olympics here. We have many of the sports there listed via their "main" article. If we have equestrian main article and Olympic article then logically why not many of the others in the Category links above? The only argument I could imagine which I don't think is that strong, is we could list cycling and swimming plus swimming (sport) and cycling (sport) but not their Olympic articles though, Equestrianism like swimming and cycling is a non competitive activity as well as a sport, but equestrian sports redirects to equestrianism so the olympic article could be seen as representing the sport, but we list Horse riding too.

If Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, why not Swimming at the Summer Olympics, or Basketball, Judo, Field Hockey at the Summer Olympics etc.

I previously suggested Grand National and/or Kentucky Derby as alternatives to the horse and riders we had a while back, but those events, although better than riders, may not be vital either. I would remove Secretariat (horse) too especially now we've removed Show jumping and dressage, Is that horse more vital than many sports, sportsman, even presidents and cities, err? Carlwev 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd argue stronger for dressage than for this article; my only comment is that if you are covering Olympic disciplines as opposed to sport overview articles (i.e. Skiing at the Winter Olympics vs just skiing), then this is the one to use if you don't want to include all three Olympic Equestrian sports.

As for your other comment, my take is that we already have horse racing as a vital article, which though it is not in great shape at the moment, encompasses (or should encompass) the major worldwide races such as the Kentucky Derby, Grand National, Epsom Derby, Melbourne Cup, Prix d' Arc d' Triomphe, and so on (trust me, you do NOT want to get in the middle of a spat over whether Epsom or Kentucky has the real "derby" =:-O ) I didn't raise the issue of Secretariat, I do question if that article is vital, but for different reasons than yours - I do not agree that one single named horse is inherently too irrelevant to be included (particularly looking at how many celebrities are on the list), but the reality is that there is huge debate over the significance of Secretariat when compared to a small number of other horses, such as Man o' War. For that reason, I think any one horse included is too fraught with hazards - I also think "horse racing" could be written to cover significant racehorses as well. even better would be breed articles such as Thoroughbred (which is FA, by the way) or even Arabian horse (a GA) would be more appropriate. Also, do you have Domestication of the horse on your list? That one is vital if no others - even superceding saddles and stirrups - domestication of the horse itself changed human history. Montanabw^(talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the horse is important, but other aspects before the sporting horse, like transport, agriculture, work, war. I didn't particularly mind dressage, The number of sportsman bothers me, the number of sports not as much. I never voted to remove dressage or show jumping and even if I voted to keep it, it still would've gone as it would've been 5-1. I tried twice to get horse added to the 1000 list and eventually it was. I also brought up domestication of the horse and Horses in warfare in secretariat thread below. I think the domestication article has a chance and is fairly important, I don't think anyone would disagree, only is it needed as we have horse? would probably be the only comment, is it too much overlap? any other domestication articles worth adding? I don't think any other articles exist, only domestication of the dog which redirects to the origin of the domestic dog. Also Thoroughbred and Arabian horse along with pony among nine horse breeds in total are listed in biology, animal breeds. Carlwev 18:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, horse is in the vital 1000, so no real issue there. This is the 10,000. So the question is how many articles. Basically, we have, for your consideration, Horses in warfare, Domestication of the horse, Evolution of the horse and so on. Ponies are not a "breed" per se, but see my recommendation in the biology section to replace two of the breeds with the "type" overview articles. Pony fits that classification. I might also suggest they replace equidae with equus (genus). Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horses in warfare seems like an obvious add since we currently list war elephant—it's pretty clear which is more vital. Domestication of the horse and evolution of the horse are good adds as well, but they should be added along with origin of the domestic dog, which appears to be an article on both its evolution and domestication (it appears in Template:Animal domestication as well as Template:Evolution). I'd also swap Equidae with Equus since Equus includes all the extant species of Equidae, and the extinct species should be covered in evolution of the horse. The WikiProject is also WP:EQUINE, not WP:EQUID! Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely support replacing Equidae with Equus! Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, evolution of the horse is less vital than evolution of mammals or evolution of plants, which are in turn less vital than evolutionary history of life. Malerisch (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open to whatever evolution articles are deemed most significant. Horse evolution is briefly covered in horse, should a decision be made to just include the mammals overview article. The one reason horses are arguably special is their role as one of the clearer examples of progressive evolution from eohippus to the modern equus. But if there is a call that there are no "Evolution of mammal species foo" articles included, just "Evolution of mammals," then no big whoop to me. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick jumbled comment: not to keen of horse collar, something like wagon I was thinking more but seems overlap with cart issues etc, domestication of the horse I like although my gut says some won't like it, again I like horses in warfare, the fact we have war elephant, which I knew but kind of forgot only makes it even more logical to me and a good argument to use in the thread if it ever appears, again arguments I imagine being used are.. well what about Dogs in warfare and Camel cavalry etc etc. (I'm sure general "Cavalry" is among war type articles somewhere BTW). Evolution points about plants mammals etc means that needs a good look at. For birds for example to pick a similar topic. We had things like beak, bird flight, evolution of birds, bird migration, which I thought acceptable as he had over 100 birds so I thought the overview articles were better. But they were quickly removed despite my comments with arguments like, why not evolution of other groups of species, we don't have animal or fish migration etc, why beak we don't have things like antler horn fin etc. Carlwev 17:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit far afield, and the other articles won't be resolved here, (ping me if I should create other requests) but just to say that the horse in warfare has been a far more extensive "technological advancement" than the camel or elephant, both of which were of limited use both geographically and historically, while the horse has had worldwide impact since its domestication. Wagons and carts are transportation significance beyond any one animal (oxen, goats, even dogs pull wagons and carts). The horse collar, however, is of equal significance to the stirrup and saddle as far as horse tack that was of significant technological influence on human life - the collar revolutionized how horses could be used as draft animals - it allowed the horse to use its full strength when pulling things (actually, the collar basically allowed the horse to push instead of pull, read the article to see the details...) Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED

Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dressage and Show jumping

Seven articles on equestrianism is excessive. The subdisciplines of equestrianism on their own are not vital. If their inclusion in the Olympics is what kept them on the list, more popular disciplines like artistic gymnastics, track cycling and synchronized swimming and Olympics sports on their own including shooting sport and triathlon will have to be added using such logic.

This will still leave us with five equestrian articles: equestrianism itself, horse racing, saddle, stirrup and Secretariat. Of these, the first two are clearly vital.

Support

Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that equestrianism is overrepresented. Malerisch (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't have cross-country, the third major discipline. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

The exhibitionary nature of equestrian sports made me think of beauty pageant as a possible addition. The number of countries participating in major beauty pageants exceed many of the sports listed. The winners of the big pageants such as Miss Universe and Miss World often become household names in their respective nations and forge successful post-pageant careers. It also complements bodybuilding to an extent. I don't think one article on it would be overkill. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought they were a bit weak and some other user's comments a while back agreed, but I always thought secretariat was by far the weakest. Also there was thought by myself and at least one other that something like Kentucky Derby and/or Grand National would be better than Secretariat. Something similar to Beauty pageant that was on my mind is Model (people). One last thing Saddle and stirrup were previously under animal transport in tech, not sure there their best place is if we definately want them/ Carlwev 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing secretariat too. I didn't suggest it because he seems to be an American icon. Having said that, there are highly-revered racehorses that have left a similar legacy in other countries. Phar Lap of Australia/New Zealand springs to mind. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought of the Phar Lap comparison too - he's very famous and a big cultural icon in this part of the world - and I agree that Secretariat should be removed. I don't think singling him out as the only horse to be included is justifiable. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the seven articles shouldn't be where they are anyways. Saddle and stirrup, which are used on horses not used for sport as well, should go back to transportation. Secretariat is an athlete, not a sport. There are only four articles on the sport of equestrianism. p b p 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Secretariat is not a person. Broadly speaking, equestrianism is a skill, but we have no "skills" category; so the present arrangement doesn't bother me. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undecided on the location of saddle and stirrup. They are similar to other sports equiipment like ball and transportation technology like wheel and tire. Transport is probably better. Archery, another ancient art turned into a modern sport, is not listed with bow and arrow. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

PASSED

Added Cycle sport and moved Cycling to Transportation after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cycle sport, Move Cycling to Transportation

Cycling is about the mode of transportation in general; competitive cycling is notable enough to be listed separately.

Support

Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 13:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I would also list Swimming (sport) and human swimming separately, we only have the sport article at the moment and swimming itself is a disambiguation page. Carlwev 08:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't: swimming is mainly notable as a form of recreation and hardly notable as a form of transportation. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine and makes sense, I don't think I suggested in transport, or did I? I think swimming is important even if you ignore professional/competative swimming. I think general article about human swimming should subsume swimming sport, although I would have both; we have sailing and sailing sport for example. I think it's odd we have swimming pool but not human swimming too. Carlwev 07:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with swapping swimming the sport for swimming the activity. But sailing is a notable form of transportation so I think having two articles makes sense. Cobblet (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much overlap in this. I agree that human swimming could cover swimming as a sport. And sailing (sport) doesn't seem vital to me.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Saddle and Stirrup to transport

They had previously been in transport before, but seemed to have been moved to sports without any discussion. Since horses are saddled for many other reasons than sport, I believe saddle and stirrup shouldn't be in sports, but in transport. p b p 05:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

p b p 05:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds reasonable. --Melody Lavender (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I would move the general article equestrianism to, belongs in sport no more than bike car driving etc. Carlwev 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose:Horses and their equipment are not mere ancient transport. Most uses of horses today - and their equipment - are for sporting purposes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I was probably the culprit. If you're going to move saddle and stirrup you might as well move equestrianism over there as well – the argument is the same in both cases (they're about more than just sport). They ought to go together. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrianism is mostly a sport today, one could argue that proper riding is also an art, but that's more a seventeenth-century viewpoint. What few horses today are not used for some recreational purpose are mostly used for agricultural purposes; a few may be used for transportation, but mostly in the third world, and there, mostly donkeys. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your POV, but third world perspective and historical perspective are just as important as modern western perspective. I have a different view. We list ancient and Medieval weapons, transport vessels, and other machines and tools that are not used today in the Western world or at all. We don't move them to history or remove them, hunting is not listed as a sport although it is possibly more known as a sport today in the Modern West rather than a way of life. But the same I would argue the hunting as a way of life or a way of feeding yourself is more important than recreational. I would also argue the skill/use of the horse for transport, work and war, is more important than its sport value, even if most people no longer use horse and carts today, the horse was immensely important in the past, and had a huge impact on the way humans lived. Carlwev 17:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, equestrianism is the art and science of horsemanship. You could make an equally convincing argument for history or art. I have to say that the horse is still relevant in the modern world and the recreational uses have saved the animal from wholesale slaughter, which was the fate, in particular, for many draft horses. I fear this reclassification runs the risk of the horse, like the buggy whip being relegated as a dead anachronism of history instead of the living, vital companion animal that it is today (in addition to its extensive use in poorer nations, though much of what you discuss is actually work more often performed by donkeys. The stirrup and the saddle were actually even more important for warfare than anything, so there is also a military technology argument to be made. Really, if you want to know what revolutionized the use of the horse in transportation, it was the invention of the horse collar, which changed the way horses could be used to haul plows, making the cultivation of larger fields possible, the hauling of carriages faster and any number of other feats becoming faster and more efficient. Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Massage

Not sure if it would belong in "recreation" or "medicine" area of the list, I lean toward recreation. Massage is pretty significant, known world wide and around for a very long time. I would list topics like this before getting to 12 tennis players and including a race horse etc. Carlwev 20:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 20:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support its addition to recreation. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support please add it to the recreation area.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Bullfighting

Even though it's questionable it was huge in Spain Portugal and Mexico, even more so historically, it has a long history and many different types, and the article covers different types and history going back to ancient times of several cultures, and up to the more fairly modern kind. I think articles like this would more likely appear in a print encyclopedia than huge numbers of sportsman/woman from other sports we include. I cannot imagine a general print encyclopedia deliberately leaving this out but having numbers like 3 figure skaters, 6 gymnasts, 14 tennis players etc. We have articles like Rodeo popular in the US, which is probably similar importance or maybe slightly lower, and is much younger appearing in the 1800's. Bullfighting is described as a sport and an art, it could go in either, but the article seems to treat it as a sport much more, and puts it in sport categories. It would be good to have something not popular in the modern US but other nations and also other periods of history. I wouldn't be opposed to other articles of a similar kind like say Cockfight or even fox hunting. Although questionable they have much more history and impact on society than a modern gymnast, and probably have much more books and general articles written about them I should think. Carlwev 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Timekeeping

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

Colors

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

Society and social sciences

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

Basics

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

Anthropology

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

Business and economics

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

Add Virtual currency

Controversial, I know. But virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, are a new way of doing business. Virtual currency is used to sell both legal and illegal goods on the internet without much of a trace. Virtual currency represents a movement towards one worldwide currency, although it has been less successful of late.

Support

Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose only vital to the extent it is covered by ecommerce. There are so many key concepts being taught to MBA students around the world not in this section, including profit, time value of money, mergers and acquisitions, CAPM, Black–Scholes model, Bond (finance), arbitrage, balance sheet, dividend, Valuation (finance), auditing, depreciation, asset, human resource management, income, private equity, bankruptcy, insolvency, rate of return, cost, productivity (economics), credit (finance), investment banking, forward contract, privatization, franchising, financial market and pricing. Virtual currency is not one of them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's mostly considered a form of investment, even if it's called a currency. Too early to put this on the list - recentism.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DaGizza. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

"Virtual currency is used to sell both legal and illegal goods on the internet" (emphasis added). Black market would be a better article to add to this section. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Econometrics

A crucial article (anyone who is not good at econometrics can not excel in microeconomics and macroeconomics).

Support

as nom. I'm surprised by the fact that it's not included in the Level 4 list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's basically the math behind economics and is vital as such. Most countries have government statistics offices that deal with trying to measure, calculate and interpret the real numbers to make the theories of microeconomics and macroeconomics applicable. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support #BigData #MPP p b p 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the nominator's rationale wasn't expressed very well but econometrics is vital. It complements economic theory by adding an empirical, measurable dimension to the discipline. A basic understanding of econometrics is essential to anybody studying economics. Definitely more vital than the stock exchanges. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 07:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important subdiscipline of economics. Considering the number of subdisciplines mentioned for other sciences economics lists only very few - so I can support adding one, and econometrics is an important one. Arnoutf (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital. Your surprise is not an argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add industrial organization and international economics

A typical beginners' economics textbook first covers microeconomics, then industrial organization, then macroeconomics, and finally international economics, therefore industrial organization and international economics are not less vital than microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first is synomymous with industrial economics, and yes, both are vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add economic system, economic growth, Gini coefficient, Misery index (economics) and Human Development Index

All of them are crucial yet not included in the Level 4 list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital. Would consider Growth and HDI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gini (economic inequality is sufficient) and Misery (unemployment rate itself hasn't been added). Undecided on the others. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Too many nominations in one post, I'd prefer to discuss them separately. Reviewers won't have the time to research so many at once and the likelyhood of passing them all at once is lower. Economic growth is the most vital must-haves out of these.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split p b p 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add scarcity

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one of the very very basic concepts in economics. Things that aren't scarce don't have a price, like air for examples and aren't suitable as merchandise. Absolutely vital. The list would be incomplete without this. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Main motivator of economic behaviors. p b p 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital. Will never support a nomination with no argument or simply the flat statement "is vital/crucial".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add monopolistic competition, oligopoly, oligopsony and monopsony

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't accept each concept as vital; I'd prefer a more over-arching concept. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'd prefer to discuss each one separately. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split FWIW, oligopoly is about the only one of these I'll get behind. p b p 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add externality, public good, information asymmetry

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though I would prefer to have these listed separately, I will support them all because each and everyone is so perfectly basic and vital. Good research!--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have thought about this before and don't think the major instances of market failure are vital, except for monopoly and maybe the Coase theorem (but probably not). I was the one who proposed to add market failure some time ago here where I also discussed about information asymmetry. There are areas of economics that are not covered by anything except by the economics article itself. I would prefer to add those first. Also I think 100 articles is a good target to aim for in the Business and Economics section. It can possibly go higher but I will need to be convinced. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Split I support the first two. The last one I can take or leave. p b p 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DaGizza: One could also say Economics per se is a subarticle of market failure. :) Information asymmetry plays such a huge role in many areas (contract theory, Principal-agent problem) plus it's meaning is intuitively understood by anybody and as such relevant to so many situations and disciplines. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add government failure

We have market failure but not government failure on the Level 4 list, which is quite strange.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Culture

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

Add high culture and counterculture

Both are crucial topics, however this list does not contain these articles, which is a big mistake.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Add a comma[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Education

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

Ethnology

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

Add Ethnocentrism

Vital concept (we should know here at VA!).--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is indeed a core concept in anthropology and ethnology - and with a lot of consequence in everyday life.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

International organizations

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

Language

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

Add Creole language

An important classification of languages and process more vital than many of the listed languages. Some creoles on their own, such as Haitian Creole, are more widely spoken than these listed languages.

Support

Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good thinking! Neljack (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and would support removing Creole people. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

This is a better article than Creole people, since the people do not have any underlying ethnic unity. The type of language is what unites them. If people are hesitant to add this straight, we could swap it out for the Creole people article. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better because creole language is an important linguistic concept which is by the way not defined by being spoken by creole people. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone? where does it belong?

Rosetta Stone is listed under language, while I understand its importance in deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphics, it itself is a text, should it not be in works of literature, dictionaries are listed there. Or somewhere else, is it a work of art, as there is only one of it? Could it go with ancient Egypt?

This is one of those things that cannot be solved. Honestly, the Rosetta Stone is more important in language than other dictionaries are. I would keep it where it is right now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could be viewed as one of the first texts in several different languages. It illustrates the problems translators and bilinguals have and solve. I think linguistics is not a bad place to put it. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law

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

Add economic, social and cultural rights and three generations of human rights

They are not less crucial than [[civil and political rights], however they all don't belong to the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

These should be nominated in politics and the first one might be covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add women's rights, children's rights and LGBT rights

These articles are vital, however they all are not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ugh. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

LGBT rights redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory, which is a list. Malerisch (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add presumption of innocence, double jeopardy and extradition

All of them are crucial, however they do not belong to the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support all, with presumption of innocence being the most vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital. Would consider Presumption of innocence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Presumption of innocence is redundant to guilt (law) and evidence. Double jeopardy shouldn't be listed before defense (law), criminal procedure or procedural law. Extradition shouldn't be in before public international law or conflict of laws (the latter two articles should take the place of international law IMO). Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DaGizza. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Mass media

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

Museums

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

Politics and government

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

Add Social security

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 13:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blatant omission. Should medicare and medicaid also be aided? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neljack (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

In answer to PointsofNoReturn's question, I see no reason to add articles on country-specific social security programmes. In case it is not clear, the article under consideration here is on the general concept of social security, not the particular US programme of retirement benefits. Neljack (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Neljack. I missed that distinction. I still support the addition. With respect to Medicare and Medicaid, is there an international version for these programs that could work? Or does this addition cover it? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general articles of social security and welfare state are probably sufficient. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the US is not exactly known for its health care and social security system it would make very little sense to me to add medicare and medicaid.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add regulation

I can't believe that it does not belong to the list!

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Believe it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
Oppose Redundant to legislation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Legislation isn't a vital article, though. Should it be? Malerisch (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, statutory law is listed in law which is really the same thing. Statute, legislation and statutory law all have a strong case to be merged with one another. Something like Code (law) is distinct and vital enough to be added IMO. Codes distinguish themselves from the usual legislation in common law nations by covering the area of law exhaustively, which is supposed to leave no room for interpretation by judges or lawyers. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology

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

Add abnormal psychology, behavioral neuroscience and educational psychology

All of them are crucial.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital. I would consider abnormal psychology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maunus. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add social learning theory

A crucial article which is not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Society

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

Add animal welfare and animal rights

Both of them are crucial, however they are not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support only animal welfare, oppose animal rights.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sociology

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

Add Structural functionalism , Conflict theories and Critical theory

These three articles are crucial since they all refer to key social science theories. All beginners' pedagogy textbooks mention these theories.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, vital basic topics in this field, must-haves for the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Completely agree. Neljack (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Modernization theory

Modernization is a frequently heard concept. Many books mention it. And modernization theory is frequently discussed by sociologists. Yet this list still does not have modernization theory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC) fix syntax[reply]
Support Very important. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add symbolic interactionism

A crucial concept in sociology, yet this list still does not contain the corresponding article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 16:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC) fix[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: I am not sure this actually exists anymore. I would consider it a passing trend in the 1970s and 80s.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add macrosociology, mesosociology and microsociology

All of them are crucial, yet this list still does not contain them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Too niche-interest to be vital, IMO. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add social phenomenon

It is a crucial sociological term, however this list does not contain it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC) RekishiEJ (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)! fix[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not vital. This is a term and not a thing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Maunus, the article should probably be merged. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Social issue is already listed in Society and social sciences > Society > Issues. Malerisch (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I din't notice it. Thanks for your mention!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War and military

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

Biology and health sciences

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

Basics

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

Anatomy and morphology

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

Add Mimicry

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good find. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I don't think any specfic type of camouflage is vital. Is mimicry any more vital than countershading or disruptive coloration? Maybe broader types like military camouflage or zoological camouflage are better. I would also support broader ecological topics such as food web. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Mimicry covers species that mimic something else, not only in appearance but also, sound, scent, location or behavior. The article appears to be exclusive to biology, eg not covering military or other human things that camouflage may include. I found it in Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles a list of 699 articles that that encyclopedia thought was most vital for inclusion, and I noticed this was missing from our list; if they place in within a 699 list surely we should have it in a 10'000 list? There may be more articles it has that we don't that may be worth considering. Mimicry appears in almost 50 languages and has over 80 references in English, looks like a vital biology to me.

We do have Camouflage. Although I added it myself years ago, and I think we should definitely have camouflage, I'm not sure where, maybe somewhere else not biology maybe with optics or light or colour? ideas? Camouflage topic includes natural camouflage of animals and plants, military, and civilian/industrial camouflage (eg camouflaging masts in woodland etc). Not 'only' biological, but it does look OK where it is, as mimicry may not include animals not technically mimicking another but camouflaged to blend into sea bed, or tree bark for example. Carlwev 13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article leads despite the similarities, both covers something the other does not, and if anything camouflage is a type of mimicry not the other way round, as mimicry includes similarities including visual appearance, sound, scent, location and behavior. Camouflage is pretty much visual similarity alone, including blending into a background as well as visually looking like another species, the mimicry article I don't think mentions blending into background, unless I missed it as a reader, or editors missed it when writing. I understand that the overlap and similarity may be an issue, but so many species do things like this, I think we need both.Counter-shading etc are just types of camouflage, and cover less than mimicry and camouflage, and could be, and are, covered in camouflage. I do take your points on board. I think correctly informed opposition is better than opposition from slightly incorrect or misleading reasons. I'm not an expert though, I only read the leads and skip read the rest of the articles, if I am the misinformed one, I know look silly. Carlwev 19:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biochemistry and molecular biology

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

Biological processes and physiology

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

Botany

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

Cell biology

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

Ecology

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

Zoology

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

Organisms

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

Remove Clupeiformes and Clupeidae

We have several representatives of the order clupeiformes, like hering, anchovis, sardine.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clubpeidae. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Clupeiformes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Remove Pika

Being a cute little mammal doesn't make pika vital for this list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Erinaceidae

We've got Hedgehog to represent the family.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Salmo

We've got Salmon to represent the species.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 14:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Staphylococcus aureus

Notable bacterium. Known for causing "staph-infections". They are everywhere, mostly harmless, and they are the bacteria that can cause orange stains on things that aren't cleaned regularly. MRSA, an antibiotic resistent mutation of these bacteria, are called "hospital germs" and can be dangerous.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Restructure horse articles

Remove:

Clydesdale horse and Friesian horse

Replace with:

Draft horse and Warmblood

Rationale: While Clydesdale is a popular breed and a GA, and the Friesian is also a currently-popular breed, the broader "overview" articles are more suited to a vital articles collection, as they encompass all breeds within the broader classification and inclusion will be more (um, pardon the pun) "stable." All breeds within the classification are included, not just what is a popular breed this week. Although it is flattering to see GA-class articles on the list, the reality is that an incentive to improve the overview articles is also a good idea; we have horse as a 100o-list vital article and pony on the 10,000 list, so there is precedent for the overview works to be included.

Remove: Standardbred

Replace with harness racing under the sports section.

Rationale: The Standardbred IS the leading harness racing breed, but there are others, notably the Orlov Trotter and assorted Coldblood trotter breeds. A comprehensive overview article is more suitable in this respect. Unlike some of the other breeds on the list, the Standardbred has not been the foundation bloodstock of other horse breeds to nearly the extent that some other breeds have been, though it has been used to improve other harness racing breeds. Montanabw^(talk) 01:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support all of the above, as nom. Montanabw^(talk) 01:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support replacing Clydesdale horse and Friesian horse with draft horse and warmblood per nom—these are indeed major types of horses. I also Support removing Standardbred since it's likely less vital than the American Quarter Horse or the Morgan horse, which aren't listed. However, I just can't support adding harness racing: why isn't it sufficiently covered by horse racing? Malerisch (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the addition of harness racing, draft horse and warmblood. In many countries harness racing is just as popular as horse racing, so I'm not sure about removing the breed that is associated with it. Quarter horse which Malerisch mentioned sounds like a good addition, in terms of breeds we're missing Mustang, and instead of removing breeds, I would not oppose to adding more breeds to horses and also cats. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

@Malerisch:, I'm not that attached to the harness racing article, as yes, a summary ought to be included in the horse racing article, but I threw it in because I felt that I should not suggest removing an article without proposing an appropriate replacement. (I won't throw a fit if you don't add it - if we must prioritize, my proposal for Dressage, above, is one I feel more strongly about) As for the other horse breeds, there are only two breeds ranked as high importance by WPEQ: The Thoroughbred and the Arabian, both of which are on the list. See Category:High-importance_equine_articles. The Morgan and the Quarter Horse are important in America, more so than the Appaloosa, actually (Appaloosa might be on the list just because it's an FA, don't know) but in the rest of the world, they are less so, we could as easily add the Haflinger as an equivalent popular European breed. I don't think this group would add all the breeds WPEQ lists as mid-importance (I think there are over a dozen), but it was appropriate to have the Lipizzan on the list due to its significance in equestrian riding arts, history and so on. I'm actually chatting with Carl and PurpleBackPack about maybe getting WPEQ to give you folks a more coherent list of where our priorities would be for you all to peruse. I've heard that 10-15 horse-related articles might be appropriate, scattered across several subject areas here. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're aiming for 10–15 horse-related articles, I think it would be a good idea to identify which articles are currently listed. I count horse itself, 9 horse breeds, equestrianism, horse racing, Secretariat (which will probably be removed soon), saddle, and stirrup for a total of 15 articles. IMO this doesn't seem excessive, so 15 articles sounds about right. For horse breeds, geographic diversity and historical importance should be prioritized, and the current selection with your changes above should be most of the ones needed. (A swap of Appaloosa with something else sounds reasonable.) Malerisch (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nine horse breeds? If that counts pony, ponies aren't a breed. The breeds are Arabian, Thoroughbred, Andalusian, Standardbred, Appaloosa, Friesian, Lipizzan, Clydesdale. Here, I recommended tossing Standardbred, Friesian and Clydesdale, and proposing replacement articles, but we could just toss Standardbred without a replacement. I think we could also delete Appaloosa (which, by the way I was on the team who brought it to FA, so I'm saying that I'm OK with tossing something I worked on and an FA). Do I need to open a new request on that? Montanabw^(talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I forgot about pony. (Maybe that section needs to be retitled since it's currently "Animal breeds".) You'll have to open a removal proposal for Appaloosa, though. Malerisch (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I don't agree with removing Appaloosa. I would expand the number of horse-related articles sligtly because of their importance in history. Equine anatomy is vital, maybe also Equine conformation and Therapeutic horseback riding. Those two I'd much prefer over horses in warfare. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I was on the team that brought Appaloosa to FA and TFA, so when I say that it's not "vital", I am sincere and not knocking an article ** I wrote much of it! ** What I see is that the list is extremely US-centric. Morgans (full disclosure : I worked on the GAN) are virtually unknown outside North America, Appaloosas are cool, but have small numbers and have not been a significant contributor to any other breeds to speak of. Quarter Horses are immensely popular in the western hemisphere and growing worldwide, but again, they have not gone on to create other breeds. From a worldwide and historic point of view, the Arabian and the Thoroughbred (full disclosure, I am lead editor on Arabian horse and on the team that took Thoroughbred to FA and TFA) are the only modern breeds with sufficient historic impact worldwide to pass that particular test; hence why I suggest adding the "type of breed" articles - warmblood and draft horse - as replacements for others. Ditto Mustang; it's American; see, e.g. feral horse for a better overview. I personally think that harness racing can incorporate the Standardbred, but also major trotting horses of other breeds. But for now, let's take these a step at a time. As for the others, the conformation article is in poor shape, I'd favor Equine anatomy; ditto the therapeutic horseback riding one, it suffers from recentism, horses in warfare is far better and moresignificant. JMO Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on all the GA and FA. The shape that the articles are currently in is insignificant. It's part of the purpose of this list to figure out which articles are supposed to be improved first. Morgans are unknown outside the US, but Appaloosas are known worldwide. Feral horse might be an alternative. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feral animal or feral organism should be in before any particular type of feral animal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED

Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Geranium

The Geranium article covers a genus of mostly weedy plants. Many species in the genus Pelargonium are popular ornamental plants and are commonly referred to as "geraniums" (and these species were previously classified in the genus Geranim). Species currently classified in the genus Geranium are in no way vital. Adding Pelargonium to the vital list might be appropriate (there ought to be room for some ornamental plants, and this is fairly important ornamental genus). The article on the plants currently classified in the genus Geranium is not vital.

Support

Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Add Sugarcane

Sugarcane is the most produced crop and 9th most valuable agricultural commodity in the world Source - FAOSTAT. Similar to cotton, the sugarcane plantations set up during the colonial period led to the migrations of various people from Africa and Asia to the tropical islands of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans and thus played a major role in shaping the ethnic makeup of many modern day nations.

Apart from being the main source for sugar and rum production (both of which are listed), it is a major source of the world's biofuels, which itself provides a greater supply of energy than solar energy and wind power and isn't listed. If there are 80 or so other edible plants on the list, sugarcane should clearly be included as well.

Support

Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI'm surprised by the fact that it is not included in the Level 4 list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 13:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 20:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Sugarcane would fit in even on the L3 list as it stands IMO. I would consider it slightly more vital than soybean and potato for instance (although the alternative would be to remove those articles). Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The L3 list still contains fewer than 1,000 articles, so sugarcane can be added to it without removing soybean and potato.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, lev4 definitely surprized it was missing and no one noticed til now, lev 3 not sure but definitely worth trying and discussing I was thinking about cattle for lev3, we have no food animals only food plants there. Carlwev 13:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Sugar beet

Noticed this was missing too with the talk of sugar, surely vital 10'000 too, look at the article, more vital than many plants bugs and fish we have; we are removing some flowers and butterflies soon to bring numbers down. Carlwev 09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised by the fact that it is not listed in the Level 4 list!--11:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)RekishiEJ (talk)

Oppose

Discussion

Re-add Coccinellidae (ladybug)

The majority of beetles were removed in bulk in one go, I think the Ladybird should stay. Beetles are the most numerous insect, with the most species, and one of the most numerous animals altogether. At the moment beetles are outnumbered in our list by the Flies and also Butterflies/Moths which I will shortly nominate some for removal too. The ladybug has over 5000 species described, they are significant to pest control and one of few insects that sometimes appears in popular culture being books, movies and other imagery etc. I think if the number of insects were to be reduced further, coccinelidae would still fit in. Carlwev 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Major beneficial insect. Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Skipper (butterfly)

I'm no expert but butterflies/moths have 9 articles outnumbering others such as beetles, and the skipper butterfly seems like one of the least vital insects, or organisms in general we have. Carlwev 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Skippers are a less vital family of butterflies than Nymphalidae (not listed), which is the largest family and includes famous species like the monarch butterfly, the painted lady, and the blue morpho. Swapping Pieris brassicae for Nymphalidae might be a good idea. I should note that Nymphalidae was removed en masse here, though. Malerisch (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me we could simply keep Butterfly and remove all the articles on individual species.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Health, medicine and disease

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

Remove Human heart

This article was redirected to heart a month after it was added to VA/E (see here for the merger discussion). Should it be removed? Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing it. If the people who work on medical articles decide we don't need both articles, then we don't need both articles. Surprised that the merge did not generate more discussion though. Cobblet (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the merge stays intact. Cobblet (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cobblet PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the dysfunctionalities within the Anatomy project will keep us from having reliable information on the human heart for a long time. Since we can't possibly list a redirect, let's axe it. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I believe redirects, once discovered, should be automatically removed. I can't think of a single reason why a redirect to an already vital article should be kept on the list. The person removing the redirect can post a message about it on this talk page so the participants of VA are notified. I don't think doing anything beyond that is necessary. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah agree, voting not necessary. also any article that appears twice, if there are still any left? should be a non discussion and fixed automatically along with renamed articles redirects and merges etc. This is even more straight forward than the automatic nesting that we're doing. I suppose it was seen as polite in this single case, as human heart had only just been added, perhaps? Carlwev 13:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Sterilization (medicine)

Common, used all over the world in the old days, and up to modern days, article includes with and without consent. We have birth control, condom and the pill, this also seems vital to me too. I was also wandering about Castration mainly because the article is longer appears in more languages and has more references. However Sterilization covers many techniques and also male and female where as castration primarily covers one kind of sterilization of males, although it also mentions animals.

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 18:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support castration is redundant to eunuch who are just guys that have been castrated. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Obstetrics

Obstetrics includes the midwife side, dealing with child birth itself, and also deals with the pregnancy and post birth as well. I was thinking about suggesting midwife, but Obstetrics includes it and much more, it's a wider article. Care of mothers and babies during pregnancy and birth and shortly after, is pretty standard, common and important part of medicine and health care, in most of the world, even if in a more limited capacity in poorer parts of the world and further back in history as well, all places would have some form of Obstetrics. Carlwev 08:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Carlwev 08:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA crucial article which is not currently included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly more important for the human species than sterilization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. We've all been born, so an issue that affects everyone (grin)! Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add preventive medicine, public health and epidemiology

All of them are crucial, yet still not currently included in the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the mild overlap between public health and epidemiology. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Ophthalmology

Ophthalmology is the branch of medicine that deals with the anatomy, physiology and diseases of the eye, the area of medicine that also includes opticians. We have Eye test listed. I can't help but think this is a little weak, and we should have an overview article. I thought of optician it's better than eye test but it didn't look quite good enough to me, Ophthalmology seems better than optician and much better than eye test. I probably wouldn't oppose removing eye test as a kind of swap, but there are several tests, including blood test and pap test we should be consistent, as they are maybe similar importance, I am unsure of them. We also previously had urine test but I got it removed and urinary system added. Would anyone prefer Optician? Carlwev 20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Health insurance

I'm not sure between placing in medicine, or finance under insurance; leaning toward medicine, but would support the other too. Looks like an important topic to me, look at the article. We have insurance already, but we have several main types of tax in addition to tax itself, having a small number of the main types of insurance also seems to make sense, health insurance seems important. Carlwev 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I would put this under insurance. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support while we have to make room for types of insurance, health insurance stands out as more significant touching medicine, welfare and finance. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Per my comments below. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I can't support this under finance when so many critical financial concepts are missing. In addition to the many articles that I mentioned in the virtual currency proposal above, there are articles such as recession/business cycle, interest rate/monetary policy, government budget and mortgage, which are similar in that they affect the everyday person but are much more vital. If there was another insurance-related article that could be added IMO it would be actuarial science as it is an independent and growing field of study within economics (many universities throughout the world have academic degrees dedicated to it now).

This might be better under medicine but still don't know why any type of insurance is singled out. Life insurance, home insurance and vehicle insurance are just as common. I will probably oppose this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to open threads for the topics you mentioned. I was already contemplating life insurance and mortgage myself, most of the articles you suggested like recession seem very like decent ideas, I may open some myself. Carlwev 10:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to have a broader discussion on quotas or at least targets for different sections within the Society section and the list more generally, including Business and Economics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 15:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add gynaecology

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

'oppose mostly redundant with obstetrics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add andrology

Support

as nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

'Oppose Not even a major field of medicine. This is not vital by a long shot.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Physical sciences

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

Basics

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

Add peer review

An absolutely crucial article which does not appear in the Level 4 list.

Support

as nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given. Plus we recently discussed this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add funding of science

An absolutely crucial article which does not appear in the Level 4 list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I doubt any other encyclopedias have an article about this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Government spending is not vital and neither is the 20 types of government spending. Research and development is the article closer to being vital although I don't think that is either. The only article worth a shot is fiscal policy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Measurement

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

Astronomy

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

Chemistry

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

Earth science

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

PASSED

Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale

If other hazard scales like the Richter magnitude scale, volcanic explosivity index, Fujita scale and forest fire weather index are not listed, neither should the hazard scale for hurricanes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malerisch (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I don't think the Beaufort scale needs to be listed either. Malerisch (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'll nominate it as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Beaufort scale

Same rationale as removing Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. There is simply not enough space to list all major hazard scales as vital. Not all major hazards are even listed yet.

Support

as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Malerisch (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 07:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rwessel (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Other hazard scales can be seen in Category:Hazard scales, there are a fair number. Probably shouldn't have one or many of them. Carlwev 07:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add more geological periods: Permian, Carboniferous, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian

We have the subdivisions of the Mesozoic era (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous). We also have the Permian–Triassic extinction event, even though we don’t have the Permian period, or for that matter any of the periods of the Paleozoic Era. I’d be open to the removal of the extinction event to make room for these. If we can have 170 articles devoted to the last 200 years of world history, we can have six more articles on 250 million years of Earth’s history

Support

p b p 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Permian and Cambrian only I'd like to see a proposal to increase the quota of this section before I support adding the other periods, particularly when Paleogene and Neogene have similar cases to be made for them, as do the Precambrian eons. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I think these are important encyclopedic material, I would personally keep the PT extinction event, the event that ended the dinosaurs reign among other species, changed the world, seems more significant than listing 10 dinosaurs separately and individually. I also think Cambrian explosion to be very significant, and worthy of the list, I would support that too, in addition to Cambrian itself. May open that one myself if no one else does. Carlwev 12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Pleistocene

Support

Support p b p 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Too close in scope to the Quaternary in general. IMO this type of redundancy should be avoided where possible. Frankly I don't think the Holocene needs to be listed either. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: and other Epochs also; per Cobblet, seems to be that we should have all the periods, but few to none of the epochs, save perhaps for the present day. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cobblet and Montanabw. There is a lot of overlap between Quaternary and Pleistocene. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Are you supporting this yourself? Carlwev 12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir. Good catch! p b p 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

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

Add point particle

A crucial concept in physics, however the list lacks this crucial article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Linear motion

A vital concept mentioned by many junior high school science and physics textbooks, however the list lacks this vital article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add circular motion

A vital concept mentioned by many junior high school science and physics textbooks, however the list lacks this vital article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add centrifugal force

A concept more commonly heard than centripetal force, however the list does not contain this article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose This article was just removed less than a month ago. Malerisch (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add ideal gas, real gas, equation of state and equation of state (cosmology)

All of them are crucial physics articles, however the list contains none of them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ideal gas only Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add fictitious force

A crucial article about classical mechanics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add reaction (physics)

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Covered in Newton's laws of motion. Malerisch (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Technology

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

Agriculture

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

FAILED

Not added 3/4-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 agribusiness, free range and intensive animal farming

All of them are crucial. but not listed in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support agribusiness p b p 22:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support agribusiness. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and would also support the addition of animal welfare --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose: the first might be worth discussing separately, perhaps in conjunction with adding something like organic farming, or local food movement, but the other two are narrow in scope and also do not mirror one another in terms of POV balance, they have differences. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lots of agriculture related topics that would come before these. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Animal welfare needs to be listed before free range husbandry. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agribusiness is just the agricultural industry (although looking at the businesses individually rather than collectively). Now that consensus has seemingly shifted towards not adding many industry articles, I can't support some at the expense of others unless they stand out for a particular reason, which is not the case here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most obvious omission in the agriculture section is horticulture notwithstanding the inclusion of gardening and garden (maybe the latter can be removed to make room). Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horticulture might be a good idea. Also, perhaps, animal husbandry if it's not in there already. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animal husbandry is listed along with domestication, breed, livestock and hay. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 poultry farming

It is the parent article of free-range and intensive animal farming.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A unique, major type of farming. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given. We would have to add a lot of specific unique types of farming.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Computing and information technology

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

FAILED

Not added 2/3-5 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Fortran, COBOL, BASIC, Pascal, C++, C#, Perl and PHP

They are all frequently used by programmers, and {{Programming languages}} contains all of them. However this list contains none of them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support BASIC and C++, and neutral on the rest. p b p 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose We are missing post and lintel, structural analysis, transport phenomena, airfoil, artificial cardiac pacemaker, control system, operations research, computer-aided design and technical drawing – and all we can think of is to add more programming languages. It's like there's nothing else to engineering besides software. Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet. I think the most underdeveloped section is medical. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Carlwev 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unlikely that more than one or two programming languages can be considered vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've been through this, and we've decided on *not* having a bunch of programming languages. In any event, I'd offer a straight oppose on all of the individual languages, except for Fortran, and that might be a reasonable addition because of its historical significance. But unless we're going to have Lisp and Algol too, I'd still oppose Fortran. Rwessel (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think you're completely underestimating the importance of programming languages. I don't think I have to mention how vital new media are and that they're everywhere. NSA wouldn't be in the news without programming languages. The code written in these languages is here to stay, for a long, long time. An ancient program could cause unpredictable problems in a few hundred years. Code is not just written for the moment or for a few years. Programs are constantly updated, see software maintenance (very needy article). C++ absolutely has to go on the list because it's one of the most widely used programming languages. And then at least Fortran, which is used in scientific modelling, has definite vitality potential. If the argument is that there is no room, then let's make room (geography, biology).--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we don't have room. It's about whether we should prioritize adding things that could potentially be around for a few centuries over things that have actually been around for that long. New languages, paradigms and technologies could easily make any number of current programming languages obsolete. While we do still list Morse code as vital, does that topic carry the same significance as it did a century ago? Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 computer case

A crucial article about computer hardware which should be added to the list a.s.a.p.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose The box the computer comes in is really about the least significant thing I can thing of in terms of computing. Except perhaps the power cord. Yes, you need both, but they have darn little to do with computing. Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no rationale given. Clearly not more vital than toilet paper or toothbrushes which also does not need to be on this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add x86

An article about the most commonly heard instruction set, however it is not included in the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose No single ISA is really that important. Yes, x86 is very common (although certainly not the most commonly implemented ISA - ARM and several of the smaller embedded ISA would via for that honor), but there is little particular about x86 that impacts the evolution of computing technology. Had IBM picked a 68K in 1979 for the PC, we might well be all using 68Ks in our desktops, and talking about Motorola instead of Intel, but nothing would really have changed. Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add ASCII, Universal Character Set and Unicode

Support

as nom. I'm surprised that all of them are not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think articles on standards are very vital and we are missing them in many areas. I was thinking of suggesting at least ASCII myself. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not vital at all. That we have a consistent character set encoding across many platforms is certainly handy (look at all the difficulties users of EBCDIC system have with data interchange), the actual encoding is really quite arbitrary, and has no real impact on anything. Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your surprise is not a valid criterion. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Rwessel: You're right, just like any standard, the encoding itself is actually arbitrary. The purpose of standardization is to eliminate the arbitrary use and make communication possible. Just think if all our computers would be using different systems we could not communicate. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics

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

Engineering

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

Industry

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

Infrastructure

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

Machinery and tools

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

Remove Worm drive

I usually like keeping or adding tech articles more than others here, but looking at worm drive article listed with gear and axle, I found the gear template box which I've added below under discussion. Looking at this template box, it appears worm drive is one of many types of gear article, and although it doesn't look like the least notable it doesn't stand out as the most vital either. Articles like Transmission (mechanics), Differential (mechanical device), Belt (mechanical) are missing but seem more important than worm drive; in fact half the articles in the box look at least of equal importance to me. Also what are peoples opinions on adding any of the articles I linked? Carlwev 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: When my first reaction is "WTF is a worm drive?" and upon review it appears too specialized to be vital, articles like gear and axle would be, so I'd support those. Open do discussion about other car parts - is there any sort of overview article about engines and such that would encompass belts, transmission, etc...? Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

See gear template box for comparative articles.

Add File (tool)

Pretty vital and universal tool, we include the other tools like saw hammer screw driver, etc. We also include lists of other related objects like musical instruments, some of which may be slightly less vital. Files have been used throughout history apparently since bronze age times, and continue to be used up into modern times today, and all over the world in woodworking and metalworking and other industries. They are more used more and seem more vital than some other tools we include like worm drive and machete and at least as important as others like pitchfork and hoe (tool) etc. Carlwev 18:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Carlwev 18:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Media and communication

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

Add mechanical television, analog television, digital television, terrestrial television, pay television and IPTV

Since television is many people's pastime, it is more important to them than radio broadcasting. And terrestrial television is not less important than cable television.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given. Television is vital, all its historical manifestations are not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add typography

A crucial topic in printing which does not belong to the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given. Plus this field is of only historical relevance. Redundant with printing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Medical technology

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

Military technology

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

PASSED

Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 horses in warfare

As others have recently stated, it is a more vital article than war elephant and a significant number of the weapons listed.

Support

Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 17:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The article is a GA and a solid overview. Also rated A-class by MilHist project. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jucchan (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

It's important to note that horses in warfare is partially covered by the listed chariot and cavalry in particular. There are still uses of horses in warfare which are not covered by those articles such as artillery. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article is particularly comprehensive as to the horse itself (cavalry nowdays includes tanks and helicopters too), and indeed, artillery, reconnaissance, archery, etc., many aspects not covered in technology or tactics-specific articles. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this article is better for an overview. If elephants can have one article in warfare, horses can have three. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FAILED

Not added 1-5 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 carbine, submachine gun and sniper rifle

These are as important as musket, rifle and assault rifle. Also sniping is considered crucial by armies around the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose sniper rifle. Sniper is already listed in the War and Military section. The skill and marksmanship involved in sniping is more vital than the rifle used to do it. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fail to see why guns should be so vital. If the list were complete and we had a decent sociology/medical/pharmaceutical section, I might consider adding different gun types. But currently, I think the military technology section is too big, and there are army-related articles in other sections as well. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Military technology is bloated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per too much detail. Better to recommend solid overview articles. I would think that a solid overview of firearms or military small arms would be a better choice. Montanabw^(talk) 07:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Navigation and timekeeping

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

Optical technology

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

Space

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

Textiles

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

Add Rayon

Rayon is a widely used fiber and has been used as replacements for both silk and and cotton. It's also unique in that it's a semi-synthetic fiber.

Support

Support as nom. --Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Transportation

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

Mathematics

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

Basics

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

Add tetration, imaginary unit and imaginary number

tetration is interesting and not unimportant, and imaginary unit is as important as -1. Imaginary number is the opposite of real number. Therefore they all should belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support imaginary unit and imaginary number, Oppose tetration. Tetration is only mid-importance in wikiproject mathematics. PointsofNoReturn (talk)
Support imaginary unit and imaginary number, Oppose tetration per PointsofNoReturn. Jucchan (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support imaginary unit and number. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support imaginary unit and number.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add mathematical notation and mathematical beauty

These two are crucial mathematical topics, yet this list does not have them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support mathematical notation. Understanding the symbols that represent mathematical expressions and ideas is vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose mathematical beauty. This is more a topic about beauty/aesthetics than mathematics. Adding it would mean many other types of beauty such as aesthetics of music can be added as well. If there is one particular type of beauty that can be added IMO, it is physical attractiveness (human beauty) because it has far broader implications on society. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not crucial. Probably very few encyclopedias would even have these topics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Summation

The key operation in series, and as such, is widely used. Jucchan (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good find. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add Square root of 2

Probably the first discovered irrational number.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose and?.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Pi seems to be discovered first, whether or not you take the earliest suggested date or the latest proven date, not that that makes √2 any more or less vital though, and it's still probably one of the first, even if not "the first". Carlwev 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add cube root

It is as crucial as square root, yet it does not belong to the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I fail to see how it is as crucial, even the importance rating on the article is listed as Low. nth root suffices. Jucchan (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Redundant to nth root. p b p 22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add foundations of mathematics

This article is crucial, however it is not included in the list.

Support

as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Algebra

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

Add resultant

This topic is crucial, however this list does not have resultant.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resultant is crucial to algebra. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Field theory (mathematics)

This article has been a redirect to field (mathematics) for over a month now, which is already on the list. Malerisch (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cobblet (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carlwev 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Calculus and analysis

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

Add infinitesimal

Though the math Wikiproject only rates it mid-importance, it is not less crucial than infinity, and all high school math textbooks mention it!

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Discrete mathematics

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

Add Union (set theory) and Intersection (set theory)

Two fundamental operations in set theory, and thus, also in mathematical logic. Jucchan (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add model theory

A branch of mathematical logic.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add proof theory

A branch of mathematical logic.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Geometry

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

Add Parallel (geometry) and Perpendicular

Some of the most basic ways to describe lines. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Basic terms do not necessarily make for vital encyclopedic topics. Compare right angle, acute angle, obtuse angle, equilateral, isosceles, scalene, divisor, remainder, denominator, numerator, greatest common denominator, lowest common multiple, slope, intercept, local maximum and minimum, inflection point, radius, diameter, circumference, centre, centroid, circumcentre, incentre, orthocentre, sine, cosine, tangent, cosecant, arcsine, hyperbolic sine... I hope you get the idea. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Rectangle

Possibly the most commonly used shape. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Triangles are everything. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cobblet. Circles are also far more vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If we're planning to add all of these 4-sided shapes, I think quadrilateral should be included. Malerisch (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding quadrilateral but there are too many special cases of quadrilaterals to list any of the specific ones IMO. Apart from square which has many unique properties. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Parallelogram

Common basic shape whose properties are applicable to fields outside of math. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Trapezoid

Common basic shape, can also be used to approximate definite integrals. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Cylinder (geometry)

Common basic shape. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Next you'll be telling me that rectangular prisms are "possibly the most commonly used" solid. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Cylinder is a disambiguation page I'm guessing Cylinder (geometry) must be the article intended. I have changed the thread to that, if I was wrong please alter. Carlwev 05:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to supporting cone instead as conic sections are a significant field of study within mathematics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conic section is on level 3, but just because it happens to be possible to derive them from slicing a cone does not make cones vital. Quadrics would be a more vital topic. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Hexagon

Common basic shape, one of the shapes that is widely naturally occurring. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Again, common and vital are not synonyms: just because every DNA molecule in every cell of your body is in the shape of a helix does not make helix a vital article. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Quadrilateral

A more general term that encompasses squares, rectangles, parallelograms, trapezoids, and others. We have square, but not quadrilateral. This is as if we had Right triangle but not Triangle. Jucchan (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add hyperbolic geometry and elliptic geometry

Though they are all sub-fields of non-Euclidean geometry, I still regard them vital.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Other

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

Add mathematical model

A crucial article which does not belong to the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add operations research

A crucial article which does not belong to the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per first half of nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Key component of industrial engineering. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per second half of the nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add recreational mathematics

A crucial article which does not belong to the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Far more important forms of recreation aren't listed. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cobblet. Also overlaps with puzzle. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do agree that it doesnt belong on the list. But not that it is crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add Euclid's theorem

A crucial article in number theory which does not belong to the list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Add future of mathematics

I'm not sure whether to put this proposal to the other sub-section or to the basic sub-section, so I put it here.

Support

as nom. Though having no other language editions, this article is still crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose No reason given as to why this is crucial. Why do we need a 'future of' article? Future of science, future of life, future of technology, etc. aren't listed either, and they don't even exist on Wikipedia. Malerisch (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Malerisch. I'm surprised that the article meets the WP:Notability guidelines. At first glance, it looks like something that might violate WP:Original research but maybe there are just enough reliable sources on the topic. Anyway, borderline notable is not vital. The only related article that is possibly vital is future studies. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Probability and statistics

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

Add Mode (statistics)

One of the main ways to represent central tendency, arithmetic mean and median, the other two, are already on the list. Jucchan (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose While mode *is* one of the three classic measures of central tendency, it's actual use is pretty rare, unlike median and mean. Rwessel (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm leaning towards support. Mode is probably better than the general central tendency article. I'm also wondering if skewness or statistical graphics have a shot. Probably not skewness. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add statistical significance

A crucial term in statistics, yet the list still does not contain this article.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support more than just a term. Statistical significance is more than just a hunch, it has a real mathematical definition and you can calculate it. Basic concept. Good thinking. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

I feel that this is redundant to statistical hypothesis testing. Edging towards oppose. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add correlation does not imply causation

A crucial article in statistics which is not included in this list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose This is not even a topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Again this seems to be redundant to correlation and dependence. There are a few paragraphs dedicated to this idea in the parent article. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add infinite monkey theorem

A crucial article in probability theory which is not included in this list.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had a hunch that this is just the kind of article people are looking for in an encyclopedia. And there, I looked it up and it ranks 1120 in Wikipedia traffic, that's a movie-star ranking. Absolute must-have. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose That it isn't included in the list or that you think it's crucial doesn't make it so. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are thought experiments ahead of this in vitality. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, lol. Seriously, this is getting absurd.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Melody Lavender:, I don't mind the use of page views when comparing like-for-like (same time period, geography/nationality, and topic area or content) but otherwise it will lead to ridiculous results. Human penis size, Fuck and Female ejaculation are even more popular than infinite monkey theorem. Does that make them vital? (Anal sex is also more popular but I can at least see a case for its inclusion since oral sex is on the list]]). Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add meta-analysis

A frequently used research method.

Support

Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is vital. Not covered by anything in the statistics section as well unlike some of the recent proposals. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

General discussions

@@ Line 1,487: / Line 1,487: @@
 #'''Support'''[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 21:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
+;Oppose
+;Discussion
+===Remove [[Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack)]]===
+We have talked before about cutting modern music works. Here's a start. This is more notable for sales than critical acclaim. I think having the Bee Gees on the people list is enough to cover this.
+;Support
+#'''Support''' as nom. --[[User:Rsm77|Rsm77]] ([[User talk:Rsm77|talk]]) 13:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
+;Oppose
+;Discussion
+===Remove [[All You Need Is Love]]===
+With the [[Beatles]], [[John Lennon]], [[Paul McCartney]], [[I Want to Hold Your Hand]] and [[Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band]] on the list, the Beatles are fairly well covered even if this is removed. It seems a bit of a funny choice to me anyway, as there are several more critically acclaimed or popular songs like [[Strawberry Fields Forever]], [[Let It Be]], [[Eleanor Rigby]] or [[Hey Jude]].
+#'''Support''' as nom. --[[User:Rsm77|Rsm77]] ([[User talk:Rsm77|talk]]) 13:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 ;Oppose