Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

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; or they may be closed as FAILED if at least five !votes have been cast in opposition and the proposal has failed to earn more than one-third support. 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 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: 10:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 10:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 10:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose the matching section from the TOC:

Contents

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.

Visual artists

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

Add Sandro Botticelli

Botticelli was one of the definitive painters of the Italian Renaissance. He painted not just The Birth of Venus (listed) but also Primavera and other works.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Very surprised he isn't on there. Artists are perhaps unrepresented compared to other forms of culture. Neljack (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - per Neljack. Jusdafax 09:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add James Abbott McNeill Whistler

James McNeill Whistler was one of most important and influential American painters.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Jusdafax 09:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Caspar David Friedrich

The most important German Romantic painter. He is called as the Europe's first truly modern artist and his works are very famous.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Writers

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

Remove Robert A. Heinlein

The list contains the whole BACH quartet (Bradbury, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein), Philip K. Dick and Ursula K. Le Guin. Heinlein is the most controversial figure. Polish author Stanisław Lem (not listed) is arguably more significant literally. Both Heinlein and Lem have sold more than 30 million books worldwide. Fantasy author Terry Pratchett is not listed, but he has sold more than 85 million books sold worldwide. I would support adding some contemporary North American author: Alice Munro (Nobel Prize winner), Philip Roth, Don DeLillo or Cormac McCarthy.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support The number of modern science fiction writers is excessive. There are genres like horror (e.g. H. P. Lovecraft) that are completely unrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support indeed Pratchett, Lem, Munro and Lovecraft are all better choices. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm not sure "controversial" is the word you're looking for. Maybe he's the least significant, though. pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
2. The fact that he played a vital role in science fiction in the 20th century guarantees the article's vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Agree that Heinlein is vital. Jusdafax 05:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Patrick White

There is now only one writer from Australia, Banjo Paterson. Patrick White is "widely regarded as one of the most important English-language novelists of the 20th century" and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1973.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

There are more important Australian Nobel laureates missing like Howard Florey. Also J. M. Coetzee who is now an Australian citizen is listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Margaret Mitchell

The book Gone with the Wind is maybe more important topic than its author.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support there are other 20th century female "one-hit wonder" authors that are far more well known such as Harper Lee. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Being the author of one well known story is more that can be said of Patrick White, whose works collectively are still not as famous. Nobody in Australia really cares about White at a level for him to be vital although I cannot comment on his status internationally. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Alice Munro

North American writer to replace Margaret Mitchell. Novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote once that Munro "has a strong claim to being the best fiction writer now working in North America."

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support always comes up in English classes at the University, and often in short story collections. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neither as groundbreaking as Juana Inés de la Cruz or Gertrude Stein nor as widely read as Maya Angelou. Those are female writers I'd support adding. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I would support adding Gertrude Stein. In terms of female writers, there are a number of Native American women writers that are excellent, like Leslie Marmon Silko. We need to cut down the emphasis on technology to make room for more shakers and movers like these. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Journalists

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

Musicians and composers

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

Add Ralph Vaughan Williams

Some of Vaughan Williams's works are among the most popular pieces of classical music by British composer.[1] He was important for development of British music and one of the most notable symphonists of 20th century.[2][3][4][5] I found him on my paper encyclopedia, which consists of 5000 articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - A vital composer, per the nomination. Quite surprised this composer is not on the list. Jusdafax 21:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lacks the groundbreaking impact of someone like Webern, Ligeti or Messiaen. While I love RVW as much as the next person, only an idiot would compare him to Shakespeare, and he's not even the next British composer I'd add to the list (probably Henry Purcell would be the best choice). Twentieth-century English classical music is very well represented with both Elgar and Britten on the list. Outside of the UK, I suspect Carl Nielsen's symphonies are probably more frequently heard nowadays than Vaughan Williams's. Cobblet (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose I have to agree with Cobblet that RVW was not particularly ground-breaking. He was a mid-rank composer of a sort that could easily swell this section of the list to 100 if we included them all. In terms of English composers we don't have, I would rank Purcell and even William Byrd ahead of him. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Carl Maria von Weber

An influential composer, vital article in general encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose As Cobblet notes, 19th and 20th century classical composers (and particularly German romantic composers) are already well-represented on the list. Weber is important, but I'm inclined to think not quite as important as the other romantic composers we have. His piano music and symphonies are not heard very often these days. Der Freischütz remains popular, as does his woodwind music, but ultimately I'm not convinced that he warrants a place. Neljack (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes, an important pioneer of Romanticism in German music, and someone I've considered adding for a long time. On the other hand, we already list several other German composers of the Romantic period. Compare our coverage of Romantic art and literature: German romanticism in art is completely unrepresented (if push came to shove I'd take Caspar David Friedrich over Anton Bruckner) and pioneering figures in literary romanticism like Chateaubriand and Germaine de Staël are IMO more important omissions than Weber. Honestly, 19th and 20th-century classical music is already more comprehensively covered than the other arts of the time. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Henry Purcell

One of the greatest British composers.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support better choice than RVW. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose His influence was mainly limited to music in England. Closer in significance to the tier of composers that would include Domenico Scarlatti, Lully, Rameau, Couperin, Corelli and Telemann than the ones currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose It is true that his influence was mainly limited to England. I suppose the same could be said of Elgar, whom we have, but them perhaps we shouldn't have him either? Neljack (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Neither the most influential nor the most prolific of Baroque composers. pbp 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Elgar can at least be said to have led a renaissance of British music, and on an English-language list maybe that's enough to put him ahead of people like Scriabin or Grieg. Meanwhile, the decision to include Gilbert & Sullivan over Weber or Donizetti, or Britten ahead of anyone from Spain or Latin America, can perhaps only be rationalized by this being a list for the English Wikipedia. IMO that's plenty of deference to British composers. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any bias in favour of English-speaking countries. I had been wondering about the inclusion of G & S. Britten is undoubtedly one of the most important opera composers of the 20th century, but then so is Janáček, who we don't have and whose reputation is perhaps even higher these days. Neljack (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Carl Nielsen

A famous Danish composer. Mentioned in my 5000-article encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The least influential of all the composers suggested here. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose A very fine composer, but not quite at the level of importance to warrant inclusion. I'm not convinced we need more 20th century composers. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Jean-Baptiste Lully

An influential baroque composer.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The French baroque composer with the strongest claim to inclusion is Rameau. Neljack (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add György Ligeti

One of the most important composers of 20th century.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Looking at the avant-garde section of the composers list, we have Glass, Stockhausen and Cage. Ligeti seems to me more important than Glass and perhaps Cage, and more or less on a par with Stockhausen. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Vangelis, Add The Velvet Underground

The Velvet Underground spawned the development of punk and alternative rock and should be regarded as one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. Broke new ground in both sound and subject matter. As much as I respect avant-garde classical music and would like to add someone like Ligeti, I don't think you can justify doing that while leaving out such a seminal group in avant-garde rock, which let's face it, has been heard by and has influenced more people. Vangelis is primarily famous for one movie soundtrack and hardly vital in terms of actual artistic influence.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - I agree with the nominators reasoning for this swap. Jusdafax 21:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support for removing Vangelis, although I don't care very much about VU.[6] --Thi (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Directors, producers and screenwriters

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

Add Krzysztof Kieślowski

In 2002 Kieślowski was listed at number two on the British Film Institute's Sight & Sound Top Ten Directors list of modern times.

Support

1. As nom. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm not going to support this unless someone else is removed from this section. We list plenty of people related to film. Cobblet (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Businesspeople

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

Remove Ray Kroc

McDonald's was removed from the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support And now we're adding it back, so I don't really see the need for both McDonald's and the executive that made it successful. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support the concept of franchising is also something to consider although we're out of space for now. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Larry Ellison

A successful businessman and billionaire, but probably not crucial in this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Not just any old billionaire, he owns a major Hawaiian island. I'm saying he's vital for purposes of the list. Jusdafax 09:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

I have a more generic question about the balance between different groups. It appears to me that the “Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (153 articles)” as a group is under-represented compared to “Musicians and composers (171 articles)”. As a result we are missing several vital names in economics / social science front. Even if we balance these 2 groups by giving each group 162 spots each, we get 9 more names in Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists group which would allow the inclusion of vital names like: Peter Drucker, Daniel Kahneman, Philip Kotler, Franco Modigliani, Michael Porter, John Ralston Saul, Amartya Sen, William F. Sharpe, Muhammad Yunus

On the Musician list the below subgroups seem to be over-represented and may be considered for trimming:

1. American folk and country (8 articles)
2. Blues, R&B, and soul (9 articles)
3. Jazz (14 articles)

- Arman ^(Talk) 03:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me then summarize it in a proposal format. The proposal is to take out 9 names from Musicians and composers (currently 171 articles) and add 9 new articles in Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (currently 153 articles) category to make both categories balanced at 162 entries each. More specifically I recommend to remove:

1. George Gershwin
2. Charlie Parker
3. Otis Redding
4. Joni Mitchell
5. Cole Porter
6. Jerome Kern
7. Tyagaraja
8. Hector Berlioz
9. Anton Bruckner

And add:

1. Peter Drucker
2. Daniel Kahneman
3. Philip Kotler
4. Franco Modigliani
5. Michael Porter
6. John Ralston Saul
7. Amartya Sen
8. William F. Sharpe
9. Muhammad Yunus

Support

1. As nom. - Arman ^(Talk) 08:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Agree with Thi. I feel we should examine each of these singularly. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - One by one, not a mass swap. Jusdafax 20:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not ready to remove Berlioz or Bruckner. Gershwin and Parker seem also important. Some famous jazz musicians are still missing: Count Basie, Coleman Hawkins, Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Ornette Coleman. I would remove Vangelis first. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think first we need to decide if we agree on the proposition that the musician list is currently over-represented compared to Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. Of course every name on the musician list is important and famous, but here the question is whether for an encyclopedia a famous musician is more vital or a scholar who originated / lead / transformed an entire field of study like management or marketing or finance. Arman ^(Talk) 01:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The only suggested addition I think I'd be willing to support without further explanation is Amartya Sen. And I should point out Yunus was brought up a while ago. To Thi's suggestions I would add Bessie Smith and The Velvet Underground – these are artists who can legitimately be said to have made a transformative impact on the history of music, and are much more likely to be known to the average reader than any of the suggested economists/social scientists. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What I am suggesting to address here is a very apparent systematic bias which is so often associated with Wikipedia. Music industry is, after all, an entertainment industry. Compared to that Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (a broad group which also includes economists, business and social thinkers) contribute more profoundly to our life and livelihood. Furthermore, appeal of a musician often tends to be restricted to a specific language, society or era. But a fundamental contribution to a body of knowledge remains relevant for entire mankind for all times. Unfortunately because of the systematic bias in Wikipedia popular topics like "musician" can have higher number of entries on lists like this than more academically important topics of Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. It is not surprising though that a proposal to fix a popular bias will be rejected due to "popular" sentiment against it. - Arman ^(Talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In a general sense, I support a reduction in musicians and an increase in philosophers and social scientists including economists. But I don't support every single removal and addition choice here. I don't believe anybody has opposed the motivation behind this proposal, only the detail.

Some of the suggestions are quite good which I could support but overall they introduce other biases. All of the economists proposed compiled their most significant work in the second half of the 20th century and are therefore very recent. They're also all male. That aside, IMO the most vital missing economist is Friedrich Hayek, considering that he heavily influenced two leaders on the list (Thatcher and Reagan) along with several others in the field. Modigliani is not vital as the MM theorem is not close to vital and even the efficient-market hypothesis isn't on the list. Likewise with Sharpe and CAPM (although CAPM itself has a stronger case to be added). They are no more important than other originators of key financial and economic models like Fischer Black, Myron Scholes and Stephen Ross. Michael Porter has at least created and contributed to many frequently concepts in economics as opposed to one, which makes him a stronger choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Great. I, too, am not particularly fascinated by inclusion or exclusion of any specific name. To see if there is a possible consensus that these 2 groups should be balanced, can we vote that notion first? Then we can have two separate polls - one for the addition of the 9 social scientists and another for choosing the exclusion names from the musicians? Arman ^(Talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there tends to be a bias towards popular culture topics on Wikipedia and that this is an issue in the list. I would be inclined to support some of the proposed removals (but not all - I certainly wouldn't support removing Berlioz, Bruckner or Gershwin), as well as some of the suggested additions (certainly Sen and Drucker). Neljack (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebalancing Poll

Let us first poll the notion: The group "Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists ( currently 153 articles)” should be balanced to “Musicians and composers (currently 171 articles)" in a way to make these groups equally represented.

Support

1. as nom. - Arman ^(Talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think the intellectuals presented above have a better claim to be on the list than the musicians that were simultaneously recommended for removal, so I'm not convinced this proposal is a good idea. I think the concept of "balancing" the two sections is a bit simplistic. There are many philosophers and social scientists on the list not listed as such, e.g. ancient polymaths like Pythagoras or Avicenna, a sizable fraction of the religious figures, writers ranging from Han Yu to Wollstonecraft to Umberto Eco, agitators like Sayyid Qutb, even political leaders like Lenin. OTOH I believe the only musician not listed as such is Hildegard of Bingen. Overall, I'd say we've made a great deal of progress in adding important intellectuals to the list. While I'd like to see more people outside the Western intellectual tradition included on the list, the suggested additions (with the exception of Yunus) don't really help in that sense. I think more meaningful discussions can be had if additions and removals are proposed on an individual basis. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - also per Cobblet. Jusdafax 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

If this poll gathers sufficient positive responses as per norm on this page, we can then have two separate polls for the inclusion and exclusion of the names from the two groups (i.e. 9 topics to be taken out from musician group and 9 topics to be added to the social scientist group.) If we fail to get the positive poll results here, we'll maintain the status quo. Inclusion and exclusion to these lists will still be considered by individual merit of each topic. - Arman ^(Talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Clark L. Hull

There is now 26 psychologists on the list. Daniel Kahneman is probably the next to be added. Hull, a behaviourist psychologist, is important as a historical figure, but his theories are currently out of fashion.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Just because his theories have been disproven is no reason to remove him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Religious figures

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

Remove Menno Simons

Not vital enough.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Charles Spurgeon

Spurgeon is England's best-known Baptist minister, but I couldn't find him from my encyclopedia which has 60,000 topics.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, he is known as the "Prince of Preachers", he is "John Chrysostom" of protestants. --Igrek (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Articles like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Desmond Tutu seem more important to religion than these.  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are more familiar for modern people, but what about 100 years test? --Igrek (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Politicians and leaders

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

Add Robert Menzies, remove John Curtin

As Australia's longest-serving PM (serving for eighteen years), I think that Menzies probably had more of an impact on Australia than Curtin. Menzies even was considered a possible replacement for Winston Churchill.

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Menzies did not have a particularly big legacy for such a long-serving leader. I guess he was more of a continuity figure that one who made major changes. Neljack (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Search for Menzies or Curtin in the archives. We've discussed this before. Cobblet (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Military leaders and theorists

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

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

Add Elizabeth Fry

One of the first notable social activists of any kind. Her advocacy and recommendations for prison reform were influential throughout Europe; she also worked to improve the plight of the sick, the insane and the homeless in Englnad.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

FWIW, she's also been on the 5-pound note since 2002, although a new bill featuring Churchill is coming out later this year. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

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

Add Hermann Weyl

One of the 20th century's most important mathematicians.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add John Forbes Nash Jr.

Known for his pioneering work on game theory. His lifelong struggle with mental illness and the famous Hollywood movie depicting his life has made him a legend.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- Arman ^(Talk) 09:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not that important a mathematician – this is like saying Oskar Schindler's vital because he did good things and had a good movie made about him. Nash is nowhere close to the level of Weyl or Paul Erdős or Norbert Wiener or André Weil. John von Neumann is the mathematician who made the most fundamental contributions to game theory – having him on the list is enough. Cobblet (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Sports figures

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

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 Björn Borg Add Gerardus Mercator

Yes he was a dominant figure in Tennis for the late 20th century even though he never won a career grand slam set, but is he more dominant then the guy who came up with the Mercator projection in 1569, which is still used today? Yes his total career match win rate of 82.74% is impressive and the second highest (we don't have number one Novak Djokovic but will Borgs records still be here nearly 500 years on? Joe DiMaggio and his 56 game hitting streak is regarded as the most dominant sporting record of the 20th century and we don't have him listed either. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support remove, oppose add. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose Borg isn't the next Swede nor the next tennis player I would remove. And I don't think Mercator's single achievement is ahead of other what other notable cartographers did like Abraham Ortelius, Martin Behaim, Gemma Frisius and Muhammad al-Idrisi. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Agree that Borg shouldn't be the next tennis player to go - Sampras was much less dominant in a weaker era. Neljack (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm undecided on whether to support this – I think Borg is definitely the most famous of the Scandinavian athletes that we list, and we list the Mercator projection. On the other hand, there's a severe lack of geographers and earth scientists on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Miguel Indurain Add Urbain Le Verrier

We kicked off Lance Armstrong because of his doping but i still feel that he had more influence overall on the impact of late 20th century/early 21st century professional cycling and 4 is more then enough for cycling anyway especially when we do not have the guy who accurately predicted where Neptune was using mathematics which our own article describes as "The discovery of Neptune is widely regarded as a dramatic validation of celestial mechanics, and is one of the most remarkable moments of 19th century science."

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support remove, oppose add. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support removing Indurain. It seems to me that Merckx is definitely vital while the other cyclists are a step down (but very close to each other.) I think we have too many cyclists anyway and would support removing Anquetil as well. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree that there are more important astronomers that we don't have than Le Verrier. And while Indurain is certainly less vital than Merckx, is he less vital than Coppi or Anquetil? I am not so sure. He is the only man to win five consecutive Tours de France, after all. Neljack (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Le Verrier is not the next astronomer I'd add, particularly after we just added the Herschels. I'd suggest Hipparchus. I also don't like adding one-hit wonders when so many scientists with multiple contributions to their field or fields of study have been omitted. Also is Indurain really the weakest choice among the five cyclists? Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

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.

Add History of construction

I noticed that the History of architecture article is a Level-4 vital article, which leads me to believe that the History of construction should also be added to the list of added articles. This article covers all forms and process of construction throughout the history of the world. It needs a lot of improvement but it has potential. --Iamozy (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Iamozy (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too close in scope. Even history of engineering is not listed; IMO it's too close to history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

As mentioned before, the potential overlap between architecture and construction or the histories of them both is present. However both construction and architecture themselves are together at the level 2 vital 100 articles and I don't recall anyone ever bringing up the overlap there, except myself once years ago...but no one replied to the comment. I do think the concept of building....buildings is very important I don't mind a bit of overlap there. Although some are obvious some not, most or all distinctions or categories are man made, (depending who you ask) whether distinction between novel and short story, planet, dwarf planet, minor planet and asteroid, architecture and construction, rock music and rock and roll, etc etc. all of which we list btw.  Carlwev  20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't list histories of such closely related concepts. We don't even list histories of the individual social sciences. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The most vital discipline missing a history article IMO is education. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd support History of education too.  Carlwev  03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

Add Everglades National Park

Large wetland in Florida, an International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and a Wetland of International Importance (only site on all three lists).

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Actually, the article says it's "one of three" locations to appear on those lists, and the citation dates to 1994; there are likely more now (I know of the Pantanal, Danube Delta and Fraser Island/Great Sandy Strait). And IMO the "International Biosphere Reserve" designation is of little significance. I don't think adding a fifth national park from the US should be a priority for us when there are only 15 on the list to begin with. The size of the Everglades also pales in comparison to something like the Pantanal which I think is a vastly better example of a globally significant wetland. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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 Honolulu

Largest city in Oceania outside of Australia and New Zealand. Metro population of almost 1 million.

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose too much overlap with Hawaii. Nearly 70% of people in Hawaii live in the Honululu metro area. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per comments below. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Honolulu is definitely not the next American city I would add to the list; that would be Baltimore. (Of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in the Americas, Baltimore and the Inland Empire are the only ones not on our list.) The US Census Bureau defines Honolulu's metro area as essentially coextensive with the entire island of Oahu, which is home to two-thirds of Hawaii's population. Note that we currently don't include capital cities that contain most of their country's population, and some of these are more populous than Honolulu (Kuwait City, Doha). Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I proposing it as an Oceanian city (not an American one), of which there are only six. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And why do we need a seventh Oceanian city? And why Honolulu over Adelaide, especially when we list Hawaii but not South Australia? Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Honolulu is pretty geographically isolated, so it's a hub for the entire Pacific region (basically the only large city between California and Japan) in a way that Havana could be considered a hub for the Caribbean. Perhaps Adelaide should be added as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

27th busiest US airport and 39th busiest US port hardly qualifies Honolulu for major hub status. Most air and marine traffic between North America and Asia takes a great circle route across the North Pacific and does not come anywhere near Hawaii. Cobblet (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

By Pacific region, I meant the Pacific Islands. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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 Architecture of Africa

This list needs to be more balanced in region. The lack of this article evidently demonstrates the problem.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This article appears to be a list of different styles rather than an explanation of a specific pan-African style. I feel that each style should be added individually in accordance with current practice if it is deemed vital enough. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Presidentman. Still not a fan of Sub-Saharan African music traditions, African art and especially African literature. The continent is too big and diverse and we wouldn't add the equivalent for any other continent. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

European architecture & Asian architecture are currently redirects, however there's an independent article on African architecture. Also African architecture is, to Malerisch's mind, vital (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Ancient_Roman_architecture)--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you follow the discussion in that archive, you would notice that my view has remained fairly consistent over the past few years since I had my doubts about African architecture back then. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Iranian architecture

This architectural style is definitely vital, as this style had been of high level before the Islamization of Iran, and it has influenced Arabs a lot, along with Ancient Egyptian architecture, Architecture of Mesopotamia and Byzantine architecture.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. I've proposed to add it to the list before, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_42#Add_Iranian_architecture).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Great Sphinx of Giza

Very famous statue with famous missing nose.

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support One of the most recognizable sculptures in the history of art and exceptional in many ways, including its age and size. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - Quite vital in my book. Surprised it's not already on the list. Jusdafax 03:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Cultural venues

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

Literature

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

Swap: Remove Dashakumaracharita, add Kathasaritsagara

The 11th century Kathasaritsagara is significantly more famous and influential than the 8th century Dashakumaracharita. Kathasaritsagara also contains early recensions of the Panchatantra in Book 10; and the Vetālapañcaviṃśati, or Baital Pachisi, in Book 12. Even Baital Pachisi itself seems to be more notable than Dashakumaracharita and has generated greater number of derivative works. The inclusion of Dashakumaracharita over such more notable works is very surprising - current article on Sanskrit literature does not even mention Dashakumaracharita.

Support

1. . As nom. - Arman ^(Talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Gone with the Wind

I suggest swapping the author for the book. In 2014 poll Gone with the Wind was the second favorite book of American readers and it has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. The book is both popular and influential in the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not really convinced we need both the book and the film. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. The film is probably more well-known. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Music

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

Remove (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

"Satisfaction" is not that great of a song and not as important topic as the band itself. The Rolling Stone magazine's list of notable rock songs seems to have influenced the list of modern songs.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support the song and album list is indeed very strongly influenced by Rolling Stone's great of all time lists. Nowhere else in vital articles do we rely on one source as much as we do we with modern specific music works, not even the Time 100. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Highly vital. Ranks at the top of rock music songs. Jusdafax 18:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Pet Sounds

There are many other classic rock albums. Listing The Beach Boys is enough.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Cited by Paul McCartney as a major influence, and often listed as the masterpiece of Brian Wilson's career. Jusdafax 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose This is rightly considered a landmark in 20th-century music. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Rock Around the Clock

"Johnny B. Goode" is the best example of early rock and roll.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support The weakest of the rock songs on the list. There's nothing musically special about it – it's just like any other song of the time. It just happened to go viral like Gangnam Style did a couple years ago. That's not enough for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Meets my criteria for vital. An influential hit song at the time and still vital to this day. Jusdafax 18:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove What's Going On (song), add What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album)

There are many famous soul songs (like "Respect" on the list), but What's Going On is also as a theme album, soul music's first "art" album. It has been voted as one of the greatest albums of all time, just like Sgt. Pepper.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back

Rap music is currently represented only by Tupac Shakur. Public Enemy[7] has released only few notable albums, but It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back was very influential. In many rock magazines it has been voted as one of the greatest albums of all time.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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 Argentine comics

Since Argentine comics are one of the most important comic traditions internationally (taken from the lead of the English article), it is weird not to have this article on the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I could support adding Hugo Pratt. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose For crying out loud. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose as per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Really? Argentine comics is vital, though not to the extent of manga and anime, since people in Taiwan read manga much more often than Argentine comics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC) fixed wording

Add Persian art

I think this article should be listed as a vital article, it had a great impact on neighboring regions such as Mughal and Ottoman Empires, and according to the lead section of the article itself, it is one of the richest in the history. Also, it covers important topics such as Iranian architecture, Persian miniature and Persian carpet, currently none of them are covered by this project. -- Kouhi (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Articles about art traditions are very common in encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Art is the most significant and enduring aspect of Persian civilization. Their poetry would come second. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support (We need to include nom as a support too?)  Carlwev  17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Japanese art, Buddhist art and Christian art

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Modern visual arts

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

Remove a fair number of films

Film might just be slightly over-represented, considering that film was nonexistent for the majority of human history.Gonzales John (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It is impossible for WP to cover that portion of 'human history'; so logically it must cover what it can. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Actually, I'd be in favor of adding another 5 or 10. Jusdafax 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Many people may agree with the statement but the proposal is very, very vague. How many is fair number? The general trend over the last few years has been to remove films so the easy pickings are slowly going away. You have to compare it with other sections. Yes music and literature have been around for a longer time but the number of specific musical works from the last 100 years and the number of books from the last 100 years may be similar to the number of films listed in the last 100 years. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We currently list 36 films; a "fair" number to remove would be around 6 to 11. We list more films than paintings and sculptures combined, and they are more important than movies.Gonzales John (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}, my point is that film is relatively unimportant especially when compared to architecture, books, sculptures, etc, all of which are essential to the human race and have been with the human race for quite a longer time than movies.Gonzales John (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with a lot on what you say Gonzales. I proposed film itself to be removed from the Level-2 vital list because it is the only specific art form listed but it failed.

One thing to note however, is that film in essence is just theatre using modern technology. Humans have been acting and role-playing for as long as they have been drawing, telling stories and making songs. Most of pre-modern theatre has not survived because it could not be recorded, copied and distributed as easily as film. It's the same with music where most of the genres, musicians and songs listed are modern and were composed after the invention of musical notation or sound recording even though folk songs were probably dominant for most of human existence. Visual arts and architecture are fortunate in the sense that they are more likely to survive and be preserved over millennia. Literature has survived over thousands of years in literate societies or cultures where oral preservation was very strong but was also lost in parts of the world without these characteristics. My view is that film shouldn't be looked at on its own as part of performing arts as a whole. This doesn't mean I don't support removing some of the weaker films listed though. `Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that 30 films would be a good number, considering that it's a 20th-century genre, unlike art and architecture which get fewer than 40 examples each. But I don't know enough about film to feel comfortable proposing any more removals myself. Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should aim for 30. I work on film articles, and ideally we should aim for ground-breaking key works. I enjoy The Sound of Music as much as the next Julie Andrews fans, but what is its legacy? It's no Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Ben-Hur (1959 film) and Titanic (1997 film)

These two films are jointly holding the record of highest number of academy awards. Movies of much less importance are currently listed (e.g. 8 1/2, Mirror etc.).

Support

1. Support as nom. - Arman ^(Talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Ben-Hur for sure. I'm not necessarily opposed to Titanic, but am swayed some bit by Betty Logan's comments, so I will decline to support for now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - Two very deserving films for this list. Jusdafax 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Ben-Hur is hardly the pinnacle of film-making and when you think of films with long-lasting influence it is hardly a Citizen kane or Gone with the Wind. I think it is too early to consider Titanic as yet. It could be a forgotten film in 20 years. We shouldn't mistake popularity for importance. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Betty. Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

The members on the Wikipedia community should not be swayed too much by their personal opinion on creating lists like this. We should follow some recognized benchmark (if available) to evaluate which names to be included and not. The criteria for inclusion in the list here is not how classy the film is per opinion of the Wikipedia community, but how notable the film is for the reader of an English language encyclopedia.

The 2 names suggested above are the record holders for the highest number of academy awards won by single films. Granted Academy Awards do not cover the entire universe of films - but still to date they remain the most recognized authority to endorse the quality of a film. The recognition received by these two films should be enough to add them to any list of "Notable" films - especially ones which lists 20+ other films anyway. Arman ^(Talk) 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Academy Awards are handed out a year after the films are released. They are hardly a good indication of long-term impact on the genre. Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of Arman's comments. It's not just about "long-term impact on the genre". A film's importance can——and should——be judged on both quality and familiarity to the reader. That being said, I do agree with Betty in this case that we need to look at each film relative to their point in time, which is why I'm on the fence about Titanic. Ben-Hur, on the other hand, has remained notable even though it premiered almost sixty years ago. It's probably more recognizable to the average reader than, say, Un Chien Andalou or Rashomon. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I for one have watched Rashomon but not Ben-Hur. Just sayin'. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove The Mirror (1975 film)

Highly regarded, as many films are, but I don't think it's been as influence as some of the other films on the list and it isn't as revered as much as something like Solaris (1972 film).

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  10:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Filmmakers have rated The Mirror as one of the 10 best movies of all time. --Thi (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

• @Thi I am sure they have, but there are many films, hundreds even that have been rated as one of the ten best ever. Just look at Sight & Sound to see how many films there we don't have here. Being rated among the 10 best ever doesn't seem to be a tight enough criteria in itself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Art films sublist consists of two articles. Tarkovsky is the most influential Russian filmmaker since Eisenstein and The Mirror is his key work. Tarkovsky is one of the greatest filmmakers and The Mirror one of the most beautiful films of all time. In this list it is comparable to D. W. Griffith's The Birth of the Nation, Ingmar Bergmans The Seventh Seal and Stanley Kubricks 2001. --Thi (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Un Chien Andalou

Likewise, highly regarded but hasn't really shaped the medium.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove The Gold Rush

OK, Chaplin was a genius and if we could include only one filmmaker among the vital topics I would choose him, but why The Gold Rush over The Kid, or Modern Times, or City Lights. Collectively they comprise an astounding body of work, but I don't think the justification can be be made for just picking one of his films.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support removing The Gold Rush. City Lights and Modern Times can be added. --Thi (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - A vital film that influenced filmmakers. Jusdafax 03:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Dr. Strangelove

Brilliant film, one of my favourites, but it simply hasn't shaped the medium on the same scale that something like 2001: A Space Odyssey has. If we were recommending films to watch I would include it (probably more so than 2001), but I would stop short of calling it essential.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not the first film I'd remove. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Breathless (1960 film)

An influential film of the French New wave, so essential for discussing the French New wave, but a vital film topic? We don't have Bonnie and Clyde (New Hollywood). We don't have Room at the Top (Brit New Wave).

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove La Dolce Vita

In the same boat as Dr Strangelove: a key work of 60s film, but not as revered and as influential as Fellini's 8½.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support One Fellini film is enough. (Again, compare the authors that have more than one work listed.) Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Very well-known film, even if not that influential cinematically. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose very influential in the larger cultural context, if not necessarily in cinema. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Intolerance (film)

In the same boat as Dr Strangelove and La Dolce Vita: if you are going to go for a D.W. Griffiths film then you choose The Birth of a Nation, which was profoundly more influential and carried far greater cultural resonance.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Again, one is enough. Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - As the article notes, this film was influential. Jusdafax 03:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Rashomon

Like Dr Strangelove, La Dolce Vita and Intolerance, Kurosawa's signature piece is The Seven Samurai.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove The Sound of Music (film)

Like I said above, I actually like this film. How can you not fall in love with 16 Going on 17, but including it on this list is a joke.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose I feel that many of these nominations from this user are from a refined cinematic and artistic perspective, and not necessarily from the POV of the average reader. I agree with the nominator that "It's [The Sound of Music] no Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey", but it still remains very popular today. There was an entire 2-hour special on ABC devoted to its fiftieth anniversary as well as modern-day televised adaptations in both the US and the UK. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Presidentman and the discussion below. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

OTOH, that is a valuable perspective to have, and one that is sorely missing from so many of the discussions on this page. Here and elsewhere on the list, I think one has to strike a balance between what is well-known to the public and what is important to specialists in the field. Wikipedia is used by both kinds of people. Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• To address the point above, in the context of my nominations I am coming at it from the position of how important a film was in shaping the medium. I am not against popularity, hence why I have not nominated Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and Star Wars for removal, and I nominated Stagecoach for addition below. They are more populist works than artistic works, but they remain key works in the medium. The Sound of Music was immensely popular but so was Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park etc. Where do we draw the line? On the other hand I have nominated critical darlings like The Mirror, Un Chien Andalou and Breathless for removal, because despite being revered I don't regard them as key works in cinema. I think we should be trying to bypass box office success and critical reverance and focus on key, landmark films. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• • I agree with both points. However, I feel that if films such as this one were removed, it would tilt the "balance between what is well-known to the public and what is important to specialists in the field" in favor of the latter rather than the former. When adjusting for inflation, The Sound of Music is the fifth-highest grossing film of all time. I think at that point you have to consider a film so popular that it necessitates inclusion transcending whatever value it may hold to the genre as a whole. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Add The Jazz Singer

The first talkie. I am surprised this is not already on the list. It is impossible to discuss the evolution of cinema without discussing The Jazz Singer. A second rate film, a revolution in the art form.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. pbp 23:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support great suggestion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Articles like History of film and Cinema of the United States are more essential than second-rate melodramas. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Triumph of the Will

I expect this to face opposition, but documentary film-making is not represented on the list of films, and Triumph of the Will is basically the Citizen Kane of the docu-film.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Extremely influential in terms of both propaganda and film-making. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Support key film of one of the most innovative directors of the day (albeit in service of an evil regime). A relevant alternative might be Olympia (1938 film) which documents the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Less influential for directing movies but probably more influential for filming technology, e.g. it introduced filming techniques still in use to record sports events. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Jusdafax 05:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Just boring. --Thi (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Stagecoach (1939 film)

No Westerns are currently included on the list, and they are an important part of American cinema. It is to American cinema what The Seven Samurai is to Japanese cinema. If it's good enough for Orson Welles to watch 40 times, it is good enough to be on this list.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - per nominator. Good nominaton. Jusdafax 05:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per nominator's comments below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Buffalo Bill did so much more to create and influence the Western genre across all media than what Stagecoach did. Not convinced that this should be listed ahead of acclaimed Westerns like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

@DaGizza There is more to Stagecoach than just the mythology of the Old West; it influenced the very grammar of the genre. John Ford is probably among the top 3/4 American film directors and Stagecoach is easily his most influential film, even if some of his later films (such as The Searchers) surpassed it in quality. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a good film (and Once Upon a Time in the West is even better) but the Spaghetti Western was a shortlived phenomenon while Stagecoach essentially created the template for the genre, similar to the effect that Psycho had on the horror genre. Here are just some of the musings you can dig up on Stagecoach:

DGA: Paul Schrader (American Gigolo), who introduced Stagecoach explaining aspects that make the film a real game-changer: its revitalization of the Western genre, its elevation of the genre to serious adult drama, and the creation of the Western’s prototypical hero in the form of John Wayne.

Images Journal: ...arguably the most influential Western of all time, Stagecoach.

Classic Film Preview: Greatest Western of all time? Most influential Western? Archetypal Western? Stagecoach (1939) may be all three, depending on your point of view.

Joesph McBride: Stagecoach is for most people the archetypal Western

Fred Landesman:Since 1939, Stagecoach has been a reference point for anyone who has worked within the genre, as a picture either to be emulated or reacted against ... John Ford's Stagecoach is not just a classic in the annals of Hollywood; it is also a milestone in both the art and science of motion picture production ... Stagecoach revolutionized the Western. It defined Western archetypes and created a new frame of reference rich in irony and sophistication ... [It had] more influence on the genre than probably any Western before or since ... Stagecoach was the picture that changed everything.

So while I agree there are other Westerns out there that perhaps measure up to Stagecoach in quality, I don't think there is single film in the genre that has been as influential. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well said, thanks. Jusdafax 09:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters

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

Remove Bugs Bunny

I suggest swapping Bugs Bunny for Looney Tunes.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support A reasonable swap. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support: Though I wish that this and Looney Tunes were a unified proposal instead of two split proposals. pbp 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Bugs Bunny is a cultural icon of the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Hermeneutics

Now that we have statutory interpretation, is it fair not to include this article, which is closely related to that vital legal topic?

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Has nothing to do with judicial interpretation. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Religion and spirituality

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

Specific religions

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

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.

Remove Jehovah

Might as well open this since two others have suggested the swap with Yahweh.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Iamozy (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It's still commonly used today (see e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses or this online hymnal). Plus, it has an important historical usage no matter how incorrect it is. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Bigfoot

Probably the most famous cryptid in North America, has counterparts such as the Yeti in Nepal, the Yeren in China, and the Yowie in Australia. We already have Nessie, Europe's most famous cryptid.

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose One cryptid is plenty. Is Bigfoot really more vital to one's understanding of the culture of the Pacific Northwest than Portland, Oregon? Cobblet (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

@Cobblet: I would say Bigfoot is indeed more important than Portland because it has spread out across the country through many variations (see e.g. Skunk Ape or Fouke Monster). Plus, as I stated in my original argument, there are non-American cryptids who are large, bipedal, hominid creatures as well. There is obviously a lot of interest in Bigfoot because there is a 40-page Category:Bigfoot compared to just 14 pages for Category:Loch Ness Monster or 19 pages for Category:Unicorns (not counting sub-categories), which are both listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"There are other cryptids like Bigfoot" is not an argument for specifically adding Bigfoot: reading about Bigfoot is not going to help me understand what the Yeti is. The only thing the size of a category tells you is how zealously some Wikipedia editor's gone around tagging articles that may or may not be related to that subject. If you don't accept that, then Category:Portland, Oregon has 19 subcategories and at least 500 pages within those subcategories, so I guess that makes it over 10 times more vital than Bigfoot. If you want to gauge reader interest, this might be a better indication of that. Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Would it make sense to add cryptid, rather than more individual examples of such? I'm not sure where, though, Loch Ness Monster is listed under Mythological creatures in Philosophy and religion, there *are* religious/mythological aspects to at least some cryptids, including bigfoot. Rwessel (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If Bigfoot isn't added, I would support adding cryptid. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyday life

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

Clothing and fashion

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

Color

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Color 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.

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 Root beer, Cappuccino & Latte

Now that some people say that energy drink should be removed from the list for the former two ones I proposed are unlikely to be listed

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't feel like coffee needs to be expanded upon, and I'm not sure about the necessity of root beer either. I also don't understand the logic behind the nomination. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Iamozy (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

• We don't even have different varieties of beer and wine. Perhaps we should test if there is consensus for those before we add varieties of soda and coffee. pbp 13:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Hot dog

Anything important about hot dogs is already covered by Sausage, which is already a Level 4 vital article.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Jusdafax 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Sausage and sandwich are enough. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Although hot dogs are indeed sausages (I didn't know this fact until this July!), hot dogs are still crucial at this level since a lot of non-Westerners consume them and hot dogs are a symbol of the U.S.A, hence the article about hot dogs should still be listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Noodle

Anything important about noodles is already covered by Pasta, which is already a Level 4 vital article.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Excuse me, but it's the other way around. Instant noodles, ramen/lamian, chow mein, pho, pad thai, pancit, idiyappam and spätzle are all examples of noodles that aren't pasta. I would say the first five of these are about as significant to their native cuisine as pasta is to Italian. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose pasta is a type of noodle. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet. pbp 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

I guess I didn't read the articles carefully enough since I presumed that ramen etc. were included in pasta. Is there any support for removing pasta, then, since that seems to only apply to Italian cuisine? --Iamozy (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think pasta is at least more vital than bacon or Parmesan cheese. The things I'd really like to remove are entrée and main course, which make about as much sense to me as listing tooth brushing and dental floss in addition to oral hygiene. How many people still eat full-course meals on a regular basis? Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So maybe eventually. I agree that parm could go, but bacon is at least eaten all around the world and isn't limited to a specific type of cuisine. I also agree with the removal of meal courses. --Iamozy (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Add sports drink and milkshake

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sports drinks are useless. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Sports drink is as vital as energy drink IMO, which was recently removed per discussion. Milkshake even less so. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose not vital subjects --Iamozy (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Sorbet and soft serve

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Too specific. pbp 13:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Soft serve is just one of many types of ice cream, and definitely not the most vital IMO. Sorbet does not seem to be as vital as any of the other dairy products already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose not vital subjects, no reason given for adding them. --Iamozy (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add cream

We have butter but not cream, which is illogical since cream has been frequently consumed as well.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. pbp 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not a fundamental culinary ingredient the way butter is. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Champagne

There doesn't seem to be consensus to add varieties of coffee, ice cream or soda to this list, but do we feel the same way about varieties of beer and wine? I'm nominating what I consider the most widely-known variety of wine to test this.

Support

1. pbp 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too specific. But maybe we can add sparkling wine --Iamozy (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

With the removal of lemonade and energy drink, 13 of the 20 drink articles listed are related to alcohol, which is already very high. Alcohol seems over-represented compared to non-alcoholic drinks and other recreational drugs. Is champagne any more vital than cappuccino, green tea, cigar, cocaine, MDMA or hookah? Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cappuccino, green tea, cigar, cocaine, MDMA should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not hookah which is the most common recreational drug/drug taking method in many parts of the Middle East and adjoining areas? It has its own subculture unlike some of the drugs I mentioned. Gets more page views too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Main course and Entrée

No one seems to like these. Partly covered by dinner. Not as much to write compared to dinner, lunch and dessert. Just courses of dinner. We list specific cuisines like French, which sometimes have these courses. We list restaurant, which is a place one would often be served different courses formally...Also covered by meal.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Obvious example of Western bias. These are even less vital than dish (food), which is at least a universal concept. Most people in the world do not take meals one course at a time. Cobblet (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support removal of both. --Iamozy (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support entrée, oppose main course per pbp. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
7. Support removing both. Dinner covers this. Jusdafax 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal of one of them: I think we should have exactly one of Main course and entree. We don't need both. pbp 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Both should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Family and kinship

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

Household items

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

Add Housekeeping

Basic human activity.

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
2. per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Sexuality

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Sexuality 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 Bundesliga, Nippon Professional Baseball

Second (NPB) and sixth-largest (Bundesliga) leagues by attendance (more than La Liga, UEFA Champions League or either auto racing league). Additionally, Germany and Japan are traditionally major powers in their respective sports (association football and baseball).

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2. All.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Attendance figures might not be the best way to compare the popularity of different leagues – that's constrained by the size of the stadium/venue. TV/broadcast audience would be a better measure but global statistics for each sport are not so easy to come by. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Stages of life

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Stages of life 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 Yamaha Corporation

Since this conglomerate has been quite influential (lots of people ride Yamaka motorbikes, use Yamaha musical instruments or attend Yamaha music classes), this conglomerate is no doubt vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Everyone owns a zipper made by YKK: does that make it vital? Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Haven't formed an opinion (probably won't support), but I disagree with the comparison to YKK. At least, motorbikes, musical instruments and audio equipment are all individually more important than zippers. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The point is that influence is not just about how many people use a certain company's products. We've previously removed Procter & Gamble. Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proctor & Gamble, Nestlé and McDonald's wouldn't look out of place in a list of companies that is still slanted towards the automotive and IT industries. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Add McDonald's

This company has franchises in 119 countries and serves 68 million customers. Besides being the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, it is a heavyweight advertiser and operates a massive charity organization. It has also played major political roles throughout history (see History of McDonald's). It's been the subject of many movies and at the center of several major controversies. The Golden Arches have become major social/economic/political symbols.

Support

1. Support as nom --Iamozy (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  07:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

A kind of swap for the businessman who ran it for a while. Balancing the companies, presently heavy with internet, computer, tech, cars. An international company, more so than Walmart. More people probably eat McDonald's than some other food and drink we list. etc  Carlwev  07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Culture

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

Education

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

Remove Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania

Not the most important Ivy League institutions and one could argue that other non-Ivy League institutions such as Georgetown or Stanford are more vital to the U.S.

Support

1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Cornell University is quite well-known to non-Americans, while University of Pennsylvania is famous for its quantitative geography and so on, hence both are vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnology

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

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.

Law

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

Add Trademark

Been brought up a couple of times while discussing copyright infringement and counterfeiting. We list intellectual property and the other two main types patent copyright. Seems more important topic than some companies we have etc, I think it fits in well.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose intellectual property is very well covered compared to other areas of law. The most vital legal articles currently absent from the list IMO are conflict of laws and criminal procedure (most of civil procedure is covered in lawsuit). Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

There is also an unlisted article, that is quite similar, and looks like it's of comparable importance, brand, might open that soon too. Maybe? maybe under advertising? or here?  Carlwev  15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're concerned with how well intellectual property's represented relative to other areas of law, this is probably the place to draw the line. Brand can cover this and trade dress. Cobblet (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As Gizza said in the discussion on brand, it's much more of a marketing and economic concept rather than a legal one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Add procedural justice

A definitely vital concept.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I understand why this might fall under law based on the definition, but the body of the article doesn't really relate to law. Due process would be more appropriate for this concept from a legal perspective. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose a subtopic of procedure and administrative law and therefore redundant to them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Mass media

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

Add Television in the United States

U.S. television programming is an important part of American culture and also one of the most popular forms of entertainment worldwide. General article is better choice than listing many examples of tv shows.[8]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. U.S. TV news and television dramas are quite influential on earth (though nowadays BBC News & RT are as influential as CNN), hence TV in the US is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC) altered the rationale

Oppose

Discuss

Remove I Love Lucy

Lucille Ball is listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd rather remove All in the Family if I were going to remove a sitcom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose The TV show is more important than the actress herself. I would support a removal of Lucille Ball instead. --Iamozy (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that there should only be one. But what reasons do we have to conclude that an article on Lucille Ball is more essential than I Love Lucy? --Iamozy (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For one, her biography consistently gets more page views than the article on the show. Cobblet (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove The Jack Benny Program

Old radio and TV show, not very well known worldwide.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Meet the Press

I prefer general articles about journalism (History of American journalism).

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd rather remove 60 Minutes if I were going to remove a news program. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Tom and Jerry

I think that Looney Tunes is better example of cartoons, then we don't need separate article for Bugs Bunny.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Iamozy (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

I feel like we should have representation of the animators, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Having two biographies may or may not be too much. Their studio/company Hanna-Barbera can't really be added when Disney is the only studio here, other much bigger ones are missing. Or a cartoon, like Tom and Jerry, Scooby Doo or Flintstones.  Carlwev  15:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Looney Tunes

I suggest swapping Bugs Bunny for Looney Tunes.[9]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support as a swap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Support: Though I wish that this and Bugs were a unified proposal instead of two split proposals. pbp 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove The Tonight Show

Johnny Carson is listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support So what if it's the longest-running talk show? Do we list the world's oldest TV network of theatre company or opera house? Age by itself is hardly a good criterion for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The longest-running talk show in the world, definitely more vital than All in the Family or Gunsmoke. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove All in the Family

Much of 70's popular music remains popular, but TV shows look dated.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Gunsmoke

Maybe it's overrated[10] and the public remembers the western movies better.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support although I believe it was the longest running program at some point --David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove 60 Minutes

It's hard to tell the difference between news programs because I don't watch any.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Frankly I'd rather list investigative journalism. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Pioneering show in terms of investigative journalism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose-- agree with above two. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Presidentman. I'm not sure what those links overly critical and cynical of television journalism in general have to do with 60 Minutes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose --Iamozy (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm sorry DaGizza. I removed the humorous and the political links from nomination. They were pointless. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Psychology

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

Remove Oedipus complex

Rejected theory, not supported by empirical data.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support not essential as a theory or phenomena. --Iamozy (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose: regardless of whether empiricists have rejected the theory, this theory had a huge historical influence, including in literature, that goes far beyond science. We are not going to take out Freud or psychoanalysis even if these things have fallen out of favor. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per David Tornheim. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Me too.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose per David Tornheim. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

What suggests that Oedipus complex is a vital piece of information for an encyclopedia to cover? I don't think there really is a sound case that this theory shaped literature. What historical/societal influence are you talking about? Besides, there is far too much overlap if Freud and psychoanalysis are already in the list. --Iamozy (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Society

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

Remove Varna (Hinduism)

Articles Caste and Caste system in India (and Dalit) cover this topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support while these articles aren't identical, the overlap among them is too great to have four articles on the topic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Sociology

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

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.

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.

Add Bald eagle

National animal of the United States, probably better-known than golden eagle (though I would argue to keep that article).

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

See Golden eagles in human culture. The golden eagle is arguably the only bird of prey that's culturally significant on a global scale. If the American flag or anthem or the White House aren't vital articles, being the national animal isn't a terribly convincing argument for vitality either. Compare Andean condor or African fish eagle which are culturally significant to the continents they live in, but are also not quite as globally notable as the golden eagle. (If I had to add another bird of prey to the list the Andean condor would probably be it – it's not a second eagle, and apart from its cultural significance, it's also known for being the heaviest bird capable of flight.) Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I could support this as a swap with eagle. Eagle, like hawk and vulture, is a common English word describing some types of birds but it is not a monophyletic group. The bald eagle always has very high page views (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Popular_pages). Even taking into consideration the high percentage of English Wikipedia readers hailing from the US, the numbers are impressive. We could also add Accipitridae or Accipitriformes. There are birds listed with a more limited geographic range and less cultural value. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Add Hypotension

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support While I see Cobblet's reason for opposing this, we list hypertension, so why not hypotension? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by blood pressure. Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

User:Presidentman, that's a false equivalence. Hypertension is a medical condition that increases one's risk for other cardiovascular diseases and is something that needs to be actively managed: people take drugs for it, change their diet, exercise, etc. It affects about a billion people. Hypotension is not even considered a medical problem on its own. It's not a legitimate comparison. Cobblet (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Asperger syndrome

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support, we list some slightly less common conditions, over 30 million people world wide and is thought to be underdiagnosed, more people have this than the listed Down Syndrome, for example, according to articles.  Carlwev  19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Seems to be pretty common these days. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose but I would support adding Autism Spectrum Disorder, swap for Autism --Iamozy (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

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.

Add La Niña

We have El Niño, why not La Niña as well?

Support

1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose One is enough. Cobblet's suggestion also works. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd recommend swapping El Niño for El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which covers both phases of this weather cycle. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Physics

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

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.

Biotechnology

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

Computing and information technology

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

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.

Remove Transhumanism

I never heard of this, even though I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering. Never heard of this "technology". AI would be more appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Definitely not technology, just a minor ideology. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Ideologies belong in a different category, and this one wouldn't even be considered vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

Add Ventilation (architecture)

We list less deserving things among tools, rooms, building types and other places. It deserves a place distinct from HVAC as ventilation can be designed and used without an HVAC, in simpler, cheaper or older designs in buildings and vehicles. HVAC covers its use in modern multipurpose systems but not single systems in older building (as well many new too) But we also list heating and air conditioning (components from HVAC) separately already anyway.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Is a slightly lower-level overview of a topic that already has a higher-level overview article listed really the single most important thing that's missing from the Technology section right now? What's an article that deals specifically with ventilation and not with heating or cooling even supposed to talk about anyway? Ductwork? Chimneys? Fans? Are those things that can be covered together coherently, or are we better off adding those individual things instead? The article as it stands right now deals with none of those things – besides some stuff on standards, everything else duplicates what's covered in HVAC, only it's more poorly written here. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dams

We have 4 different dams on this list. Do we really need any of them?

1. Aswan Dam
2. Hoover Dam
3. Itaipu Dam
4. Three Gorges Dam

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These are engineering marvels that have had a profound impact on the economic development and ecology of the regions surrounding them. Cobblet (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Machinery and tools

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

Media and communication

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

Add remote control

If we are including individual programming languages and things like computer mouse, it seems fair we should include the devise many people have been using for decades longer to control a range of devises, TV and entertainment devises, toys like cars, as well as some use in industry, military and space as well. Was in two minds picking from this and radio control, but this seems a bit better shape, and a bit wider including radio infrared and things like motion sensor and voice control too. We seem heavier on computer tech than other media broadcasting, even though some other things are a bit older and maybe more common often universally used.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support I have long noted the inconsistency between the articles in computer tech and the lack of the equivalents in other areas. This is one such instance. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I wouldn't mind removing computer mice, but at least those are fairly complex devices to design and program. Remote controls are trivial by comparison. Cobblet (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

We seem heavier on the computer side of tech, covering both devices and general techs of the same area. In other areas the articles Videocassette recorder, and Television set crossed my mind, although they seem unnecessary; we do however individually list the computer displays computer monitor and touchscreen.  Carlwev  21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The other big inconsistency I see is having blog on the list when news article is not. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.

Algebra

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

Calculus and analysis

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

Discrete mathematics

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

Geometry

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

Probability and statistics

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

Other

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

General discussions

Propose 'Formerly listed as Vital Article' template for Talk pages of delisted articles

Just as we mention former Good Articles with such a template, I suggest a template for articles formerly included here on any of the four lists. This template would be included on the Talk page of such articles.Jusdafax 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I can understand this, and it kind of makes sense. However to become a featured or good article, I believe there was always a procedure and requirements the article had to meet, even though they may be more difficult now than the past. Some articles that have been listed in this project get added through voting, then removed through voting, like potato chips among many. Some get added without voting by new comers, then usually removed. Some are removed due to article mergers/deletions. Some become, or always were, redirects to something else with the same meaning, or encompassing it (like baby and infant). We kind of removed all lists, but previously had many listed. Some articles were added ages ago before discussion, and were listed for ages, then were removed with or without discussion. These articles perhaps should never have been listed, they were added with no discussion, and when suggested for removal got huge unanimous support for removal. We have listed many many very non vital articles like Halo (optical phenomenon), relish, Wilco, Erewhon, Be Without You, Kevin Costner, Shania Twain, Bay of Pigs, American–Antarctic Ridge, lava dome, Victoria Land just among many many more. Among lists, redirects, early odd listings, etc Which would we include, and which would we not, as a "former vital article". I feel maybe it would be awarding a status to an article that doesn't deserve it, that just happened to be listed because early editors wanted to fill this space quickly, while there are some articles that have never been listed, but been suggested got much support, but only just failed to get in by one vote, sometimes more than once, there are several of these, David Attenborough and Gothenburg are examples, never listed, nearly got in, although I'm sure all would agree they are more vital than American–Antarctic Ridge which has been listed. Former good article status informs users that said article no longer meets the requirements but with a little more work users may be able to get article listed again. Informing users an article was listed here before but was removed doesn't mean they can work to make the topic more vital once again.

For these reasons, I don't know if I'm keen on this, perhaps if the criteria had set guideline, but I don't know. Which articles would we include, and which not?  Carlwev  18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What would be the purpose of doing this for several thousand articles? Like Carlwev said, there was a time when anyone could put whatever they wanted on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As Carlweb and Cobblet say, being a former vital article is not a guarantee of the article being almost vital. There were some ridiculous articles listed here. There still may be a few remaining. Celtuce is the one that sticks out the most in the mind. I also remember seeing office supplies before I was active here. Making a list of all of the former vital articles could be useful, perhaps. You can compare the removals with the current articles and get a feel of which former articles were wrongly removed or which current ones fit better in the former list and need to go. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I quite like Gizza's suggestion, and reading the other comments, would prefer it to the original proposal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You guys are welcome to start maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed again. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Doing so now! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)