Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ios2019 (talk | contribs)
242 edits
Ios2019 (talk | contribs)
242 edits
Line 118: Line 118:
Women are underrepresented and Mary is enaugh vital for inclusion here.
Women are underrepresented and Mary is enaugh vital for inclusion here.
# As nom [[User:Dawid2009|Dawid2009]] ([[User talk:Dawid2009|talk]]) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
# As nom [[User:Dawid2009|Dawid2009]] ([[User talk:Dawid2009|talk]]) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
# '''Support addition''' ([[User:Ios2019|Ios2019]] ([[User talk:Ios2019|talk]]) 14:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).


;Oppose
;Oppose

Revision as of 14:15, 23 January 2019

WikiProject iconVital Articles
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles articles
General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5 Subpages

People History and geography Society STEM

Introduction

FA FA GA GA A – Total
December 1, 2007 83 45 90 139 25 690 1022
June 1, 2008 88 46 79 140 25 670 999
December 1, 2008 88 50 72 145 24 682 1014
FA A GA B C – Total
December 1, 2009 82 7 49 586 146 129 999
January 1, 2011 78 8 60 472 255 113 986
January 1, 2012 76 1 76 454 275 109 991
June 29, 2013 88 3 88 450 289 82 1000
October 13, 2013 90 4 92 446 284 83 999
January 13, 2015 90 2 96 417 333 60 998
December 23, 2016 94 2 107 425 355 17 1000
December 10, 2017 91 3 115 392 376 17 994
January 22, 2019 92 4 122 389 380 12 999

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 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. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.

All proposals must remain open for !voting for a minimum of 15 days, after which:

  1. After 15 days it may be closed as PASSED if there are (a) 5 or more supports, AND (b) at least two-thirds are in support.
  2. After 30 days it may be closed as FAILED if there are (a) 3 or more opposes, AND (b) it failed to earn two-thirds support.
  3. After 30 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for +30 days, regardless of tally.
  4. After 60 days it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal has (a) less than 5 supports, AND (b) less than two-thirds support.

Nominations should be left open beyond the minimum if they have a reasonable chance of passing. An informed discussion with more editor participation produces an improved and more stable final list, so be patient with the process.

  • 15 days ago: 12:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 12:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 12:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove Gender

A proposal to add Third gender to level-4 failed here. Together with listing Transgender at level-4, this means that only two genders are vital at this level. So I propose that Gender is removed because it is redundant to Man and Woman, especially at this level. Notice also that Ageing is level-3, while Old age is level-4. And please don't make the argument that we list Sex at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex article is currently listed at Level 3. feminist (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this. I would even suggest gender at level 2, we have ethnic group there, I feel someones gender defines them more than their ethnic group does. Here at level 3 We removed Homosexuality, and added sexual orientation. We have sex at level 3, male and female are only level 4. To remove gender from level 4, but leave man and woman, we would be removing gender and leaving the two traditional genders, the opposite to what we have done with the other areas. We have not excluded sexual orientation, but included one or two individual orientations, we have not excluded sex, but included the two traditional sexes. Why would one want to remove gender, but leave the 2 traditional genders? ...Also the article on gender could include the main aspects of man and woman and may be able to include information about the concept of gender in general that might be out of place at man and woman, not to mention stuff on genders outside the two traditional ones that people perceive to exist or wish to identify as.  Carlwev  14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, Sex is not on the same level as Male and Female. Gender shouldn't be on the same level as Man and Woman, either. However, I like the idea of including Gender at level 2, and will give it more thought. Sex is definitely not a candidate for level 2. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Human sexuality is already on level 2 – I don't think we need gender there as well. The comparison between sex and gender doesn't make sense – sexual reproduction involves only two sexes, but gender is more complicated than that. Cobblet (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I tried to point out with And please don't make the argument that we list Sex at this level. But everyone ignored it, so I tried to argue differently. wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Submarine, Add Spear

Submarines are no more historically vital than battleships, and less vital than aircraft carriers, both of which aren't listed. The spear is the most-used weapon in all of human history. It deserves to be listed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal. wumbolo ^^^ 12:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. I don't think the simplicity of a spear makes it less vital. An encyclopedia should cover both modern, complex technology and simpler old technology likes wheels and spears. And spears are not just a weapon. Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support removal Less vital than Warship. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support removal (Ios2019 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition Dawid2009 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose both Submarine is more than just a weapon, spear is too simple. RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I am generally oppose addition any weapons and much prefer removing weapons. Currently we list Bow and arrow but we do not have Archery. We do not list Performance art/piano despite fact that Performing arts are at the level 2 and Frederick Chopin is listed at the level 3. @Carlwev: You generally prefer add general articles before people, what do you think about my point? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Plato for Socrates

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given. Cobblet (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
I think that Socrates should be added ahead of Plato due to fact that he is founder of western philosophical tradition and even philosophy before Socrates is called "Pre-Socratic philosophy". He is more interesting for readers than Plato. In my opinion we also should not include all three important Greek philosophers because of in that case we will have bad time diversity. For the same reason we do not have all First Viennese School people. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an earlier, more "foundational" figure in Pythagoras. Why only focus on pre-Socratic philosophy and not Platonism or Neoplatonism? Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Paul the Apostle for Mary, mother of Jesus

Support

Women are underrepresented and Mary is enaugh vital for inclusion here.

  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition (Ios2019 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition --Thi (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition Covered by Jesus Bible and Christianity. Sources on her are less historic and more religious, much of what is "known" or written is from the Bible. The article on Christmas is culturally much more important and prominent. (Or choose festival if we want to be culture neutral.)  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. About 1/3 of the New Testament is attributed to him. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Fact that Mary is covered by Jesus is irrelevant because of Jesus pretty fit among 500 the most important topics, while Mary fit among at least 1000. Currently we have a lot of not historical figures (Abraham, Homer, Confucius) and some of them even are not include to section of people at the level 4. Pryer is at the level 3 and festival is at the level 4 so it logically shows that Mary is more vital than christmas for christian. Beyond that christmas will never be on this list because of easter is offically main celebration of christianity and none other festival is close to easter's level of vitality. Recently christmas is more influencial for popular culture than easter but if you read more about fundamental cults such like Fertility rite or Veneration of the dead, you will find information that folklore always has been more celebrated beetween winter and spring than on winter solstice. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: add Francisco Pizarro and Hernán Cortés, remove Süleyman the Magnificent and Joseph Stalin

Pizzarro and Cortes had very big influencial for expansion of Spanish language. On that basic I think that they were much more influencial for history of world than someone like Joseph Stalin. While we list Vladimir Lenin on this list I doubt that we also need Joseph Stalin. Encyclopedia also should cover Pizzarro and Cortes ahead someone like Simón Bolívar who is probably more vital than Süleyman the Magnificent.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose At this level having Columbus, European colonization of the Americas, Aztecs and Inca Empire is enough. Cobblet (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Unless/until the articles to remove are suggested, this is a non-starter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I gave two suggestions but if someone have better I would be insterested in. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about add Spanish Empire else? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: remove Card game and Board game, add Tabletop game

Card game and Board game are covered by Tabletop game. Tabletop game cover also other games such like cue sports, titled games etc. In my opinion better option is have Tabletop game instead card game and board game because of we have mre cue sports players than poker players at the level 5. Beyond that card game historically is fewer significant than sports such like box etc.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal --Thi (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. wumbolo ^^^ 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Carlwev power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose The fact that card games and board games can be played on a table is irrelevant to the significance of these concepts. It's like saying we should list quadruped instead of cattle, dog and horse. Cobblet (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Even though the article technically covers the others.... I just think table top game is not term used very much. The article is tiny list like, few page views and few other interwiki languages, I just think not many people use the term or would look it up to read or improve the article, even though it is a "parent topic" I think it would be unwise in this case. There was an attempt to have Precipitation instead of rain and snow which failed for similar reasons. One could argue to remove Association Football and add Ball game to "cover" cricket, golf and tennis, but I think this would be unwise and unpopular, probably? other sports are covered by sport, other games are covered by game.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove card game

Reasons above. Card game historically is less vital than boxing and people do not want to add combat sport to the level 3.

Support
  1. Support nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Add Swimming

One of the most basic recreation/leisure. It cover also swimming (sport). I think that encyclopedia need this definition at the level 3. Other concept which maybe could be vital at this level is Hiking. It is covered at the level 4 under athletics despite fact that description of the article is more general.

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Important addition. --Thi (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Almost Internationally, and chronologically universal  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
@Rreagan007: Running and walking are vital only in context of human behaviour (in context of sport are rather well covered by athletics). Athletics generally does not covers swimming because of even swimmers have deicaded separate category at the level 4 and at the level 5. So on that basic swimming seems be vital in context sport and in context human behaviour. On that basic I also would be oppose add bath because of bath can be covered by hygiene while swimming does not. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove São Paulo

São Paulo is less famous than Rio de Janerio despite fact that Rio de Janerio is not capital of Brazil. We have bad balance between cities and countries so São Paulo is good candidate to remove it.

support
  1. As nom
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose
  1. Strong oppose It's the largest metropolitan area in the Americas. The list of cities would make no sense without it. Cobblet (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Vitality is not the same as fame or being a current capital. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
discuss

add Central America

I think that this concept from physical geography is enough vital for inclusion here

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think it's needed. Central America is part of North America. I'd be more inclined to add either Caribbean or Caribbean Sea. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Thinking, Either this or Caribbean, region or sea?  Carlwev  15:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also unsure. I can see adding an article for the area between the United States and South America, but am not sure this is the right one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

remove Taj Mahal

How it is more vital than Ganges or even Uttar Pradesh?

Support
  1. As nom Dawid2009 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – On the occasion of comparison between architectural structure vs country in terms of debate architectural structure should undoubtedly be the method used. In terms of thing vs more encompassing thing it depends. But in terms of swap Taj Mahal with Uttar Pradesh... no way. And besides with that, in the archifecture section it wouldn't be the first thing to go. At least Angkor Wat and Stonehenge would fall before it. J947 (c), at 03:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

The Taj Mahal is in the architecture section. It should be judged alongside the Great Pyramids, Colosseum, Great Wall, Stonehenge, Machu Picchu, etc. to which it is comparable. 9 articles is not a lot for architecture. There may be a case for replacing the landmarks with styles but the section itself shouldn't be reduced. The Ganges isn't a bad suggestion since physical geography is a bit weak at the moment but I don't see why Uttar Pradesh could be considered more vital. That would be like replacing the Colosseum with Lazio and the Parthenon with Attica Region. Absurd. Gizza (t)(c) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. Now that we've cut several individual works of literature from the list, the architecture section is due for a revamp along the lines Gizza is suggesting. Cobblet (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Architecture section stands out like a sore thumb compared to the other sections the 'arts'. Support a rework and we possibly don't need 9 sub-articles to cover this adequately at this level. Crazynas t 17:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Americas

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support as it's a historical topic on its own with Europe's early stages of colonisation. Also I agree with RekishiEJ's comments marginally. J947 (c), at 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose No need to list this when North and South America are already listed at this level. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above reasoning. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above reasoning. RJFJR (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. Now that both North and South America are included in WP:VA2, it is sensible to include this here. Besides, some people say that there are only five continents on earth: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Americas, and I think that both North and South America should be replaced by Americas in WP:VA2.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are also people who consider Zealandia as "continent" and we do not list Eurasia already on the list Dawid2009 (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a New Zealander, I've got to say that absolutely no one thinks of Zealandia as a continent (and even was a continent). There's a reason why in the context of when India was apart from Asia experts still referred to it as a subcontinent, and Zealandia is smaller than that anyway. J947 (c), at 19:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swap in Sargon of Akkad for Pericles

Support
  1. As nom (rationale below) Orser67 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - a significant improvement. There are many Ancient Greeks that should be in before Pericles. Sargon covers an earlier era of history which right now isn't covered in the leaders section. Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose not convinced Sargon is vital in a modern encyclopedia. RJFJR (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. While an interesting and important figure, Pericles was just one of many leaders (albeit the most prominent) of a relatively small state. We also already have Alexander the Great from the same general Ancient Greek milieu. Sargon of Akkad, meanwhile, founded the Akkadian Empire, the first ancient empire of Mesopotamia; it's sometimes described as the first empire in human history. He also lived about 500 years earlier than Hammurabi, who I believe is the earliest-living Level 3 political leader. Orser67 (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remove Artificial intelligence

Intelligence and Human intelligence are level 4.

Support
  1. Support as nom. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Biology is underrepresented and technology is overrepresented. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support swap with Intelligence. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Popular topic. --Thi (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. But intelligence should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, I would support adding intelligence  Carlwev  20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

add Martial arts

Martial arts covers combat sport such like swimming covers swimming (sport). Beyond that martial arts it is not only kind of recreation/sport. A lot of societies consider it as part of arts. Capoeira confuse martial arts with dance. Kung fu is a term related with philosophy and many other things etc. When we list a lot of weapons we undoubtedly should have martial arts on this list. In my opinion it is even more vital than soccer. I would add martial arts separately such like tourism, not under sport section. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support  Carlwev  20:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

Request for input on proposed Saudi Vision 2030 section in Saudi Arabia

There's a discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia on including a brief summary of the main economic aspects of the Saudi Vision 2030 program. I've suggested some options for this, which editors here are invited to give feedback on. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Intelligence

Very important topic that should be added at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, even if only because we have Artificial intelligence at this level. wumbolo ^^^ 22:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

If we decide have Intelligence at this level. We should also make room for Wisdom. it is not right when Intelligence is listed among 1000 the most important articles and Wisdom can not be added due to fact we do not have enaugh space. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom is only philosophical, while intelligence is both philosophical and psychological. We aren't Dungeons & Dragons. wumbolo ^^^ 22:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom is a more subjective and strictly human concept. Intelligence is much broader and has application beyond humans--animal intelligence, artificial intelligence, extraterrestrial intelligence, etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sense and Cognition seems be more vital for me. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove Gunpowder

Explosive material at this level is sufficient.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Firearm is also here. wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose While there is some relationship between the two, it's not a very strong one (would you use gunpowder to demolish a building?), and the Tang Chinese invention of gunpowder and the European invention of modern explosives about a thousand years later are independently significant events in the history of technology that are worth treating separately at this level. Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The same as Cobblet.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

remove Soybean

It is less vital than apple and lemon.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Ridiculous. Soy is a staple food in Asia and one of the world's most commercially important crops. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. For vegetarians it is no doubt quite vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. As much as I despise soy, it's a very important crop worldwide. It's most certainly more vital than apples or lemons. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opppose not just because of vegetarians or current commercial aspects but due to the historical aspects --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

remove Walt Disney

Currently we do not list Mark Zuckerberg at the level 4 due to fact Facebook is more vital than he is (depite fact that Zuckerberg had also influence on Instagram and has been chosen "the most influential person of the year" so he should be undoubtedly added ahead of dozen sport figures who are listed a the level 4). Walt Disney is listed at the level 3 while The Walt Disney Company is listed at the level 4. I doubt that in future Walt Disney will be more vital than his creations. By the same way I am also not sure Miguel Cervantes is enough vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. His cultural influence and legacy have had an enormous impact on the English-speaking world and beyond. For example, Disney's animation success had a profound influence on Japanese anime. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: Not sold on Walt being less vital than Mark Zuckerberg now or ever. We're talking THE most influential person in animation and perhaps THE most influential in all of motion pictures. And he also contributed a fair amount in television and theme parks. pbp 05:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have idea what you understood in my comment (If you actually although have read my comment) but I have never told that Walt Disney is less vital than Mark Zuckerberg. I have told that Walt Disney will never be more vital than The Walt Disney Company and I have showed similar analogy to Zuckerberg vs Facebook. The list should not have Walt Disney much more vital personalities (such like Socrates or Hans Christian Anderssen) are missed. I certainly agree that Walt Disney arguably is the most influencial personality of motion pictures but what is sense adding Walt Disney ahead of Socrates or Hans Christian Anderssen? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose even if his namesake company has bad more overall success/impact than the man himself, Walt's major influence on animation and theme parks on general cannot be downplayed. Both of these are more than enough for him to qualify as a vital article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Supremely vital cultural influence, Ford is on the level 3 list and his company isn't. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

remove Alfred Hitchcock

We have four filmmakers despite fact cinematography (as part of art) exist shorter time than architecture and architecture is not represented by people. Hitchcock have much less pagewatchers than Walt Disney and I do not see why we have to add FOUR filmmakers ahead of Lummierre Brothers or Eadweard Muybridge.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support directors are over-represented. 2 is probably enough. Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comment in the discuss section. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Directors are not overrepresented if you look at it as:

  • Chaplin covers silent films/comedy - (yes, he made sound films but it doesn't count as representing them if the majority of his career are silent films)
  • Hitchcock covers drama/talkies/golden age
  • Kurosawa covers foreign film/one of asias greatest entertainment figures
  • Disney covers animated/mainly he is notable for his business anyway

No way should film only be covered by comedy films and animation. Even if it is Chaplin. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove Akira Kurosawa

Same as above. He is not more vital than Bollywood or Cinema of the United States anyway.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support directors are over-represented. 2 is probably enough. Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comment in the Hitchcock discuss section. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

remove Igor Stravinsky, add Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Claude Debussy

If we need one Russian composser it should be Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, not Igor Stravinsky. Tchaikovsky is widely considedred as "Greatest Russian composer of all time". Based on fact that Stravinsky is not the most important Russian composer, I think that Debussy is better choice as one representant of 20th century classical music. He would be the one and the most important French musican on the list. Beyond that if you chack pageviews for Debussy and Stravinsky in foreign languages you clearly will see that Debussy is even more known worldwide than Stravinsky (Debussy has 36 wikidata entires with 5+ pagewievs per day while Stravinsky only 33 does).

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition --Thi (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Tchaikovsky is definitely a more popular composer than Stravinsky, and I'll even acknowledge that I like his music more than Stravinsky's; but that does not make his music "greater" or "more important." You will find many classical musicians with the opposite view, and I think it's fair to say that Stravinsky's music is more intensively studied. Nobody with a more than casual understanding of classical music will deny that his body of work had a revolutionary impact on 20th-century music and is much more innovative than Tchaikovsky's. I can think of any number of 20th-century composers whose music has nothing in common with Tchaikovsky's but it would be very difficult to find one who wasn't influenced in some way by Stravinsky. I could support swapping Stravinsky for Debussy (whose music IMO had a similar impact) but I oppose any increase to the number of classical musicians on the list: they already take up 70% of the musicians. Frankly, I could live with just listing Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose removal --Thi (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose addition. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose We don't need more romantics and we certainly need a modern composer. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Swap: remove Hildegard of Bingen and Sophocles, add Sappho

Hilderald of Bingen is remarkable polymath and one of the most important medieval music figures but she still is not much more vital than Pindar who even is not listed at the level 5. Sappho is greatest female Greek writer of all time and she was very influencial for Pindar who is probably the most important ancient composer. Currently we have two man Greek writers (Homer and Sophocles) and none Greek females. On that basic I think that it would be really reasonable to swap Hilderald and Sophocles for Sappho.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Sappho is infinitely more vital historically then Hildegard in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Sophocles. --Thi (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose removal of Sophocles. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

Add Johannes Brahms

Currently we list Richard Wagner. Due to War of the Romantics I think Johannes Brahms also fit to this list and he is rasonable choice even if we are going to have fewer people on this list and we do not support more additions of people. Johannes Brahms has more pagewatchers than Miguel de Cervantes despite fact that he represnts music which is much less interesing than literature for Wikipedians. Brahms has made really a lot of constribute to music and even his works are enaugh famous. Wiegenlied (Brahms) (it is not the only important Brahm's work) nodoubtly is more famous than Don Quixote (it is the only Cervantes' important work) for average people so I do not see why Cervantes should be listed ahead Brahms for human knowlage.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Again, I oppose any increase to the number of classical musicians on the list. Wiegenlied more famous than Don Quixote? What planet are you living on? Don Quixote's impact on literature is such that even in English we use the expression "tilting at windmills." Cobblet (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

remove The Beatles

The Beatles are important in context of band but not in context of real person. We do not support semi-legendare figures so we also should not list any bands on this list (speciffically when most of members is listed at the level 5 and one member is listed at the level 4). Currently we have two representants of Rock Music despite fact that we do not have any other representants of non-rock popular music. It is not reasonable. I see in which way The Beatles are vital for English Wikipedia readers but currently 40% musicans from this list represent last 100 years. There are many other not listed artistic musicans who have made actual constribute to history of music/musical education so we really do not need two rock representants. Elvis Presley is better choice due to fact that he is more vital than every member of the beatles' band separatly. I think that Louis Armstrong also is more vital than the Beatles due to fact that he has been ranked 5-th on the list of 100 most influencial people from 20-th century[1].

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Hey Jude, let it be. #bandsarepeopletoo Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose they're a highly influential group of people who are among the best-selling musical acts ever (if not the number one highest). Beatlemania, anyone? As Cobblet said, bands are people too. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose One band to represent bands is good. The Beatles are the music phenomenon of the 20th century. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. They are too important culturally not to list here. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

References

  1. ^ https://www.ranker.com/list/time-magazine-100-most-important-people-of-the-20th-century/theomanlenz

remove Global Positioning System

It is not eaugh vital at this level and it takes space for many other more important articles such like Travel, North Pole, South Pole, Exploration etc.

Support
  1. As nom.  Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom, and I don't think we should be U.S.-centric. wumbolo ^^^ 22:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I disagree – this is one of the most important human achievements of the 20th century. I understand that the Poles arouse the imagination of some people but for me it is much more essential that this list cover revolutionary advances in technology. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swap
  1. Swap with Satellite navigation. GPS isn't the only satellite navigation system. There's also GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
  1. You're welcome to suggest adding exploration, but I don't mind the fact that we've chosen to list tourism and transport rather than the less focused concept of travel. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You consider transport/tourism/esploration as part of travel. Even despite fact travel is at the level 4. It is reasonable to we try add travel in future ;) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add Goddess (or remove God)

Currently we have Deity and God at this level but we do not have Goddess. Add God ahead of Goddess it is such like add male ahead of female. I would prefer add Goddess because of religion is strongly underrepresented. Recently wew have removed theism despite fact it cover polytheism and monotheism, and these two concepts often were nominating here.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. This is inaccurate; God (male deity) is the article about the male deity. wumbolo ^^^ 22:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition; Neutral on removal. There is obvious overlap between God and Deity, so removing one might be okay, but I don't think adding goddess is necessary at this level, as "god" can be masculine or gender neutral. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

swap Ritual for Tradition

Ritual it is the same level of vitality hat cult or festival. Tradition is much more general and important concept.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support addition. National anthem is at level 4, and probably other similar items too. wumbolo ^^^ 09:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal I don't mind adding festival or tradition but ritual is a basic human behaviour and object of study in anthropology, and traditionalism is just one of its many aspects. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose removal. Of upmost importance in every social science. If Ritual is removed, it will be cited as a reason not to ever add Rite or Rite of passage to level 4. I don't see how Prayer and Meditation are more vital than Ritual. wumbolo ^^^ 09:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Ritual is, in it's basic means; a object of several studies and, a primitve right in itself. Rekonedth (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Would like to keep ritual and feel tradition is too vague. RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

swap Ship for Maritime transport

Maritime transport is more vital than ship because of transport is at the evel 2 and Vehicle is at the level 4. I am also generally oppose additions of more types of ships and weapons.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose sometimes the most prominent specific example is more vital than the general category. Nobody goes to Google or Wikipedia and searches for "maritime transport". If a person wanted to learn about ships and boats, they would type in "ship" or "boat" respectively. The number of page views, page watchers and language versions all attest to the greater importance of ship than maritime transport. Gizza (t)(c) 07:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Recently we have removed password due to it is covered by Authentication despite fact "Nobody goes to Google or Wikipedia and search for "Authentication""
    There is a much larger gap in pageviews between ship and maritime transport compared to password and authentication [1]. Password gets about 21% more pageviews while ship gets 254% more views. And that proposal was about removing one of the two articles instead of swapping one for another. I wouldn't necessarily be against swapping authentication for password at that level but don't support both. Also ships/boats are still the primary form of maritime transport whereas passwords are declining in usage in many situations where authentication is required, being replaced by biometrics like fingerprints and other factors. Gizza (t)(c) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Gizza RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

swap Fishing for Hunter-gatherer

Fishing is not vital at the same level what martial arts or football. At the level 3 we should cover more important concepts such like Hunter-gatherer, exploration, travel, eventually nomad etc.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't have any objections over Hunter-gatherer being inserted into vital article list. Fishing is, and will be a important virtue in classification and survival in many aspects. It's the activity which was performed way back from several millennia, it shouldn't be swapped. Having own processes, uproot of problematic degradation of nutritional value, cultivation and subsequently making it a tradition. One couldn't think of living without it; forget about replacing it rather supporting addition. Rekonedth (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Rekonedth RJFJR (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I don't have any objections over Hunter-gatherer being inserted into vital article list - hmmm. If we try list Hunter-gatherer we will have more chances to add Farm at this level. And if we list farm we will do not need list some animals (for example pig) which are historically more important than dozen people (listed here) who make constribute to society. Adding more general articles instead specifics (such like animals) keep more space for other needed articles. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Major depressive disorder

It is just as vital as other common mental disorders.

Support
  1. Support As nom. Mstrojny (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support As per nom. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Per nom. And I have also my doubts article about Mojor deprerssive disorder should be ahead of Psychiatry or Neurology. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Dawid2009's point about related articles that are more vital that aren't currently listed at this level is convincing to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

This is already in the list. RJFJR (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

swap Mount Everest for Seven Summits

Seven summits recently/currently in context of exploration certainly are not less vital than north pole + south pole (compare famous of Junko Tabei and Reinhold Messner with Ann Bancroft and Marek Kamiński). Also moutaineers recently are more often regarded as "National Geographic" person of the year" than polar people ([2]). Mount Everest probably is not enaugh vital when we do not list Coral Sea which is the biggest sea in the world (or Australia (continent) as part of Oceania). Mount Everest very vital is generaally only in context of Seven Summits than in any other context (there are other mountains which are not less vital than Mount Everest). Article about seven summits can give imagination to human knowlage about world such like covering dozen cities at this level but I am not sure how important is Mount Everest outside fact that this mountain is very famous. Wikiproject about mountains is much larger than any other wikiproject related with phisical geography (deserts/forests, etc) and is nearly big such like wikiproject related with cities so I think that article about seven summits wuld reasonable for addition to cover littly more mountains. If we decide list Seven Summits we will have informations about some other vital mountains. For example currently we list Lake Victoria but we do not list Kilimanjaro. Other complex article which maybe is reasonable at this level is Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (What do you think about swapping some buildings for styles and Seve Wonders of the Acient World?).

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal of Mount Everest. No single mountain should be vital at this level. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal reluctantly. It is the tallest mountain in the world, so if any single mountain is vital at this level, it would be this one. However, I don't think any single mountain merits inclusion at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition of Seven Summits. As purely a mountaineering topic, it's less vital than mountaineering itself, which is very far down the list as far as vital human activities go. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose addition of Seven Summits. --Thi (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose addition Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
I would suggest add exploration. Moutanieering is not needed when we also have tourism what also is littly similar. Seven summits is something more reasonable to human knowlage than Mount Everest. Also moutanieering historically is not more vital than all not listed sports/activities related with recreation at the level 4. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add Spanish Empire

Spanish language it is second the most important language in western world so Spanish empire also should be vital at this level. It seems make no sense that we we include Simón Bolívar ahead of Spanish Empire. Encyclopedia with Bolivar ahead of Spanish Empire is confusing and dissapointing encyclopedia.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss

add Filmmaking and Cinematography

Both these articles are enaugh vital at this level. Performance art does not cover Filmmaking and film is listed at the level 2. Vitality of Cinematography is comparable to vitality of Photography and vitality of Animation.

Support
  1. As nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Saying things are vital doesn't make them so. Film plus a handful of filmmakers is enough. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose covered by Film. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss

I could see potentially adding one of these, but do we really need both at this level? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a lot of overlap. RJFJR (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Drama

If we are going to list Comedy at this level, then we should also list drama. It used to be on the list, but was removed because of concerns that it overlapped too much with Theater and Tragedy. The article on tragedy has since been removed, and the articles on comedy and drama are both much broader than just covering those subjects within theater.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles&oldid=879804839"