Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

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

Introduction

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

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

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

• 15 days ago: 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 08:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 08:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

• People
  • Entertainers
  • Artists
  • Writers
  • Musicians and composers
  • Directors, producers and screenwriters
  • Religious figures
  • Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists
  • Explorers
  • Politicians and leaders
  • Military leaders
  • Rebels, revolutionaries and activists
  • Scientists, inventors and mathematicians
  • Sports figures

• History
• Geography
• Arts
• Philosophy and religion
• Everyday life
• Society and social sciences
• Biology and health sciences
• Physical sciences
• Technology
• Mathematics
• General discussions

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

People

Entertainers

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

Remove Carl Reiner

Comedians seem way over-represented to me, and I fail to see the importance of this particular entry. One of too many Americans here. Not at all well known outside the States (if known inside?). --Rsm77 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Carl who?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I have never heard of him. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Artists

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

Writers

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

Remove Alexander Grin

There are so many obscure Russians and it's not like we need them. A few alternatives would include notably Fernando Pessoa and maybe others if I think some more. Colette? Derek Walcott? Anyway, must be better choices. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Korney Chukovsky

See above. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Figures more relevant to Russia's literary history we could include are Nestor the Chronicler, Symeon of Polotsk, Ivan Krylov, Vasily Zhukovsky and Mikhail Bakhtin. Cobblet (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add François Villon

Major mediaeval French poet who has become influential on English literature. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Our coverage of French literature is lacking: Rabelais and The Song of Roland are also missing. Cobblet (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Fernando Pessoa

One of the most significant literary figures of the 20th century, known for his poetry and the prose work The Book of Disquiet. Considerably more important than many on the list. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Musicians and composers

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

Remove John Lennon and Paul McCartney

I can see this one being controversial but do we really need to include these guys twice? Take away their Beatles involvement and their solo careers were not *all* that extraordinary. And Imagine (song) is also included in the Arts section. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The cultural significance of these two men extends beyond the Beatles, including Lennon's assassination as a cultural touchpoint in American history, as well as Sir Paul's ongoing presence on the cultural scene. George and Ringo? They are only significant because of the Beatles. John and Paul's significance runs far deeper than that. Lithistman (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose These men are cultural icons in America and around the world. Their music brought a taste of democracy to people living under communist rule in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Their significance extends even further than their music, which in my view would make them vital by itself. However, I would not mind removing the song Imagine if that is what everyone wants to do. It only really depends on whether the most famous song of a musician should be on the list. I am leaning towards no, but I will have to think it through. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We still have a Beatles album and 2 Beatles songs and a Lennon song, I think a print encyclopedia, would more likely have entries for these 2 men before 4 of their works . I don't think we should remove them, not while their works are still present at least, just looks a bit to me to do it that way. Looking back it's odd we removed George Harrison before these 4 works. I wouldn't remove Lennon before "Imagine" for example, the man is more vital than one his songs, I would probably support removing Imagine, and maybe a Beatle work or 2 also.  Carlwev  19:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have thought that All You Need Is Love is a little bit of an odd choice as a song. It is not all that significant - for example it appears at 21 in a Rolling Stone list of best Beatles songs - and several of their songs are more popular - it appears at 10 here on a list of most played songs for the last six months.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We've got "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as well. I don't see how any individual Beatles song is vital, or at least they all seem less important than "Imagine" to me. Maybe a second album besides Sgt. Pepper like Revolver (Beatles album) is a better choice than either song? Cobblet (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Bessie Smith

One of the most popular and best respected singers of her day and still highly respected for her contributions today. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

And Nina Simone is also not on the list. How is Mariah Carey on the list and these two not? There are other modern musicians who really should not be on there.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Directors, producers and screenwriters

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

Add David Attenborough

We have many in the entertainment business, be it music, film or sport, sport in the spot light right now. We have over 100 people among actors, actresses and directors in the film industry, vast majority of which are in the realm of fiction as opposed to facts. When it comes to facts we have a list of journalists, plus some writers of non fiction I suppose. Not only is there no broadcasting person in the realm of nature I'm not sure there is any person on the list primarily known for documentary or factual films at all outside of the news readers and reporters in journalists, apart from perhaps Oprah if you want to count chat shows, I'm aware fiction TV and movies is by far the bigger than factual TV and film, but to have over 100 fiction film people but zero factual does not seem wise of fair representation of on screen entertainment. Also in the general area of entertainment to miss of a man such as this but argue over approx 100 athletes including 13ish tennis players among others. Attenborough is been in his business over 60 years, only just slowing down now in his 80s, I can't think of a bigger name, not only for nature but for fact/documentary film in general, he is a heavily decorated sir with numerous awards and I believe him to have had a large impact on his industry and culture, and a larger impact on the wide area of entertainment in general than many existing people across the several areas of entertainment. I bought him up passing a few times a couple of people said they liked the idea, no one said they didn't so I'll open this now. A long time ago there where 1 or 2 documentary film makers but I removed them as they where fairly obscure and not comparable to Attenborough really.  Carlwev  11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We do have Joseph Pulitzer. Perhaps we can add a few more modern journalists, reporters, television anchors. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Businesspeople

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

Religious figures

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Religious figures 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.

Explorers

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

Politicians and leaders

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

Military leaders

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.

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 José Rizal

Since Gizza mentioned that we have very few Filipinos on the list and we're about to remove Manny Pacquiao, here's a nomination I've had in mind for a while.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Important not only as a leader and then (after his death) symbol in the independence movement, but also as a writer. His impact and stature in the Philippines is illustrated by the fact that there religious sects with hundreds of thousands of adherents that believe in his divinity.[1] Neljack (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Does every nation in the world have to have at least one person on the list? I'm just not sure if José Rizal is vital globally or just in the Philippines. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but the Philippines is a major English-speaking country. If Canada, Australia and Ireland's political leaders get representation, why not the spiritual leader of the Filipino independence movement and one of that country's most notable writers? Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the fact that it's English-speaking are relevant - we should be no less inclined to include important people from China, German or France than those from Anglophone nations. More relevant, to my mind, is that the Philippines is a country of some 100 million people. Nobody is suggesting that we have to include someone from San Marino or Liechtenstein just so that we represent all countries, but ignoring the Philippines would be harder to justify. Neljack (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to understand that detail. I will support the proposal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it's relevant either, but the opinion has often been expressed by some people here that the English Wikipedia should focus more on articles of interest to people who speak English. Whether or not you believe that, my point is that criticism shouldn't apply to this case. Cobblet (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2014 (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.

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

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

Add Emmy Noether

Emmy Noether was a German mathematician who made many contributions to mathematics and physics. She was called the "most important woman in the history of mathematics," and "she is consistently ranked as one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century." This proposal accompanies my nomination of Noether's theorem. Malerisch (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I've nominated her before. She's important enough that a case for her could be made for the level 3 list over somebody like Frida Kahlo. Cobblet (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Sports figures

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

Add Colin Meads

Sir Colin Meads is another name commonly mentioned when discussing who was the greatest rugby player. The rugby historian Lindsay Knight has said: "As a sporting legend Meads is New Zealand's equivalent of Australia's Sir Donald Bradman or the United States of America's Babe Ruth."[2] This is no exaggeration: he is a hugely iconic figure in New Zealand and, indeed, around the rugby world. He has been knighted, he was an inaugural member of the International Rugby Hall of Fame and the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame, and he was voted New Zealand's player of the century in 1999. Neljack (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Oppose Should we include all the world's countries local equivalents of Babe Ruth?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lithistman (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Will have a think about it. As mentioned above, was thinking of Jonah Lomu. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Maunus's question: absolutely, if their cultural significance is comparable to that of Babe Ruth, which can be measured by their impact on the sport and the popularity of that sport. Otherwise why include Babe Ruth? Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Babe Ruth was also the home run champion for many years and was the first major power hitter in major league baseball. We should definitely include the equivalents of Babe Ruth in each sport. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I a sorry but that is a ridiculously naive comment first of all there is no way on earth we could even have a representatve of "each sport"? Secondly, every country has their Babe Ruths in their loal sports, why include the New Zealand "Babe Ruth", but not the Danish) or (Camerounian equivalents? Your logics would lead to a list inhabited only by athletes, most of which noone has ever head of because they revoluutionied some obscure sport or were ery important figures in a global sport in a veery small country. So no we should absolutely not include all countries local eqivalents of Babe Ruth, but only those athletes that are absolutely vital to an encyclopedia in the sense that a person not having head about them could be considered a sign of a "lack of general education", and whch are consequentl the most likely to be sought in an encyclopedia. New Zealands Babe Ruth is not such a topic in my opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rugby's a sport with a global following. Failure to appreciate New Zealand's contribution to the sport and how it's much more significant than Denmark's or Cameroon's contribution to football would indeed be a sign of a lack of education. Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps every major country's contribution to a sport. Still, having a player with the status of Babe Ruth seems to make that player vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Richie McCaw

Plenty of people, including leading international coaches from other nations,[3][4] regard Richie McCaw as the greatest rugby player of all time. He's won the IRB International Player of the Year award a record three times and been nominated eight times in total - twice as many as anyone else. His 90 tests as captain is a record for any nationality. He led New Zealand to victory in the 2011 World Cup despite playing with a broken foot! Neljack (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We do have other current athletes on the list. Rafael Nadal is an example of that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Perhaps in a few years, when he's retired and it's easier to judge his actual place in history. Lithistman (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

It is difficult to assess Richie McCaw's place among the greats as he is still playing. I'm personally a bit reluctant to support adding current players of any game. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Ole Einar Bjørndalen

"The King of Biathlon" is the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time, with 13 medals including 8 gold. He also won a record 39 World Championship medals and 94 World Cup races in a career that spanned more than two decades. He even managed the unprecedented feat for a male biathlete of winning a cross-country World Cup race. He is a massive star in his native Norway. Neljack (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support A better choice to represent Norway than Johann Olav Koss, at any rate. Cobblet (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Bjørn Dæhlie

The man Bjørndalen overtook at the top of the Winter Olympics medal table, Bjørn Dæhlie won 12 Olympic medals, including 8 golds. Also won 17 World Championship medals and 46 World Cup races, making him the most successful male cross-country skier of all time. He would undoubtedly have won more but for a career-ending injury while at the peak of his powers. He is a cultural icon in Norway. Neljack (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Johann Olav Koss

Speed skating is overrepresented on the list (how are speed skaters more culturally significant than swimmers?!) and I don't see how Koss is vital to the history of sport; either of the figures nominated above by Neljack, or pioneering figures like Mensen Ernst or Axel Paulsen, seem like better choices to represent Norway's contribution.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Eric Heiden (whom we have) is generally regarded as the greatest male speed skater, and I don't think we really need more than one man and one woman for this sport. Neljack (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Agree with Cobblet and Neljack. One man and woman is enough for the sport. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Lithistman (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Marit Bjørgen

The most decorated female Winter Olympian, Marit Bjørgen has won 10 medals, including 6 gold. She has also won 12 World Championship titles (plus seven other medals) and 66 World Cup races, both records. Neljack (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• User:Neljack, I'd feel more comfortable supporting your proposals if you proposed some removals (preferably of American athletes). I know some people think athletes is right-sized or maybe even too small, but I'm not one of them. I think it's bad that we have ~150 athletes (and 5 more if your proposals succeed) against only ~450 politicians and leaders. We have more athletes than generals, or than artists! pbp 15:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  pbp, I do intend to propose removals too, since I would ideally like my proposals to be at least neutral in terms of numbers. I tend to think that we need to try to restrict things to a handful of people for each sport (we currently have 17 for soccer, 14 for tennis, and 11 for baseball, for instance). I agree about American sports, but frankly I lack familiarity with them (except, to a certain extent, basketball). So if you or others have any ideas about, say, who is the least vital of the baseballers we list, that would be very helpful! Neljack (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Roger Bannister

He broke an arbitrary barrier, setting a world record that lasted for all of six weeks. Didn't do much else of note in his career, apart from one Commonwealth Games gold. Never won an Olympic medal. Neljack (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Great runner but not that close to the record now. He simply broke an arbitrary barrier. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support If this is the greatest British athlete of all time then poor Brits.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: When I said "remove some athletes", this is not the guy I meant. The fact is that he was the first to break one of sports' significant barriers. He's without question the greatest British athlete of all time. pbp 15:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: --Rsm77 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose: The time and distance barrier that he broke was arbitrary, based on one system of units, but it was very significant historically, and there will be much occasion by users of Wikipedia to look up Bannister. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Lithistman (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

pbp, I am bemused by your comment that Bannister is "without question the greatest British athlete of all time". I'm not sure whether you are just referring to track and field or whether you mean to include all sports, but even assuming the narrower definition I find this hard to accept. I have seen a number of discussions about who is the greatest British athlete (in the track and field sense), but I don't think I have ever seen Bannister mentioned. Sebastian Coe, for instance, thinks Mo Farah and Daley Thompson are the greatest British athletes.[5] Coe himself is also frequently mentioned. The absence of Bannister is not surprising - as I said, he didn't do much else apart from the 4 minute mile. In contrast, Coe won back-to-back Olympic 1500m golds (and back-to-back 800m silvers), as well as setting 13 world records including an 800m one that lasted for 16 years. Thompson is regarded as one of the greatest decathletes in history, winning back-to-back Olympic golds, three Commonwealth Games golds, and World and European titles, as well as setting four world records. Farah has won an Olympic and two World Champs titles in the 5000m, and an Olympic and World Champs gold (plus another World Champs silver) in the 10000m. He also holds the European record for the 1500m and the English record for the marathon. I fail to see how Bannister can compare to them. Indeed comparing them to him was what led me to propose his removal. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Roger Bannister is significant because he was a transcendent figure who did something that had never been done before, just like we have explorers for taking the trip the first time, even if the trip is done by thousands daily and in fair less time. The breaking of the four-minute mile was one of the most significant accomplishments in sports history to that time. On his career stats alone, Jackie Robinson is probably not in the top 10-15 greatest baseball players ever; he makes the list as a transcendent figure. I doubt anybody would argue for Carl Lewis being a more vital athlete than Jesse Owens, despite Lewis have more hardware AND faster times. Likewise, nobody would say Adrian Dantley was a better basketball player than Larry Bird, even though Dantley scored more points in his career. People rank Dantley below George Mikan even, who only played six-and-a-half seasons in the NBA. They were just six-and-a-half transcendent seasons, because he was the NBA's first superstar. pbp 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Robinson (and Owens) had a genuinely important social impact; Bannister broke an arbitrary barrier. I understand your point, but I just don't think they are comparable. After all, everyone who sets a world record does someone that has never been done before. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The barrier he broke may have been arbitrary, but it has huge symbolic meaning. VA is not based on merit (see Capone and Hitler). --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Arnold Palmer

There are too many American golfers on this list. Palmer has fewer tour wins than Hogan, Woods or Nicklaus. Really, when you think about it, we probably don’t need any golfers other than Nicklaus, Woods, and maybe Gary Player for the international angle. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not the best golfer ever (though still one of the greats), but often tops rankings of the most influential - e.g. this from World Golf.[6] He was instrumental in popularising golf, transforming it from a pastime of the elite into a sport with mass appeal ("Arnie's Army" were a whole new breed of golf fans) and greatly increasing the amount of money to be made in the sport in the process. With Nicklaus and Player, one of the "Big Three". This article from Golf Today gives a good explanation of his influence.[7] Neljack (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per Neljack. Lithistman (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

Remove Sam Snead

Only won seven majors. As I said before, the only Americans we need in golf are Nicklaus and Woods. When America only has a couple dozen political leaders, more than two golfers is excessive. pbp 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
7. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sam Snead won a record of 82 PGA Tour Championships. Just because he is American does not limit his accomplishments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Ben Hogan

Won fewer PGA events AND fewer majors than Nicklaus or Woods. As I said before, the only Americans we need in golf are Nicklaus and Woods. When America only has a couple dozen political leaders, more than two golfers is excessive. pbp 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

#Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Support Ben Hogan and Sam Snead belong to a period when golf had not yet achieved worldwide popularity (Palmer deserves credit for that). Without some massive pioneering contributions from either player, I don't think they can be said to have made a significant impact on the history of sport in general. Cobblet (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose on second thought. Let's have three American golfers. Hogan developed a specific swing that was named after him and published a essential golf book.--Melody Lavender (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Dick Butkus

Tenth American football player in the SportsCentury list, and on his page it says he was voted ninth-best player in one poll and fifth-best in another. There are too many American football players anyway, and nothing tells me he even deserves to be in the top four players.

Support

1. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
2. pbp 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Definitely less vital than Joe Montana. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Ninth best = not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@Cobblet: As a side note, we do not have Joe Montana on the list. Should we add him as a swap with Dick Butkus or an additional swap? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're having trouble getting consensus on adding a second rugby player it's hard to argue that American football deserves four. Cobblet (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (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 Rocky Marciano

There's a glut of Americans in boxing that can best be solved by removing boxers not named Muhammed Ali and Joe Louis

Support

1. pbp 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support As it happens, in light of Cobblet's comment above about the excessive number of boxers, I've been doing some research on all-time pound for pound rankings of them. I'd come to the conclusion that Marciano should go. The International Boxing Research Organization doesn't have him in their top 20,[8] The Ring (the leading boxing magazine) has him 12th,[9] ESPN has him 14th,[10] and the Associated Press doesn't have him in their top 10.[11] He was undoubtedly a great boxer, but not quite at the level to warrant inclusion on this list. Neljack (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Neljack. I want to commend this procedure, which is to look at reliable secondary sources about the topic rather than to trust your own gut. We all have differing personal experiences, and one Wikipedian's lifelong hero and model will be a name about which other Wikipedians say "Who is that?" The best way to refine and improve the vital articles list is to turn continually to specialized reference books as we discuss each subtopic on this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support His undefeated record is impressive but hardly unique – Willie Pep started his career 62-0. Or look at Aleksandr Karelin's 887-2 record in Greco-Roman wrestling: that is dominance. Cobblet (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
7. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

As well as Ali and Louis, I think Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong should remain on the list. Robinson is generally ranked as the greatest boxer of all time (he tops all four lists that I have referred to above), while Louis, Armstrong and Ali are generally between 2 and 4 in some order. Neljack (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2014 (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 Sugar Ray Leonard

Again, a great boxer, but not at the very top. Tends to be ranked behind several boxers we don't have. Ranked 12th equal by the International Boxing Research Organization, 9th by The Ring, 12th by ESPN, and isn't in the AP top 10 (see the links in my comment on Marciano above). Neljack (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support He is prominent in my memory of boxers, perhaps because of what generation I am in, but I commend Neljack's use of reliable secondary sources to sort through the vital topics list. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Jack Dempsey

Very famous, but only defended the heavyweight title four times before losing it to Tunney (who also defeated him in a rematch) - and he announced that he wouldn't fight black opponents, which took out many leading contenders. Ranked only 18th by the International Boxing Research Organization and 16th by The Ring. ESPN and the AP have him higher - 9th and 6th respectively - but still all the lists have boxers who aren't on our list ahead of him. Neljack (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Thanks for pointing to reference sources on this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support If we trim the list of boxing legends we can think about adding legends of other martial arts disciplines. I've mentioned Aleksandr Karelin; another possibility is MMA fighter Fedor Emelianenko. Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Manny Pacquiao

A clear case of recentism. I think it would be very hard to find any credible boxing expert who would regard Pacquiao as in the top 10 greatest boxers ever. This is not to deny that he is an excellent boxer, but we need some historical perspective here. It's hard to argue even that he is the greatest boxer currently fighting - Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has a more impressive record (46-0-0, compared with 56-5-2) against opposition at least as strong. Mayweather's also top of the pound-for-pound rankings (as he has been for several years), even though he's older than Pacquiao.

I realise some people may be reluctant to remove the only non-American boxer on here, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to keep someone on the list who is really nowhere near the all-time top in his sport. We should pursue geographical diversity by improving the representation of sports that have been largely overlooked because they aren't popular in the countries most editors come from, not by insisting on a non-American representative in a sport that is widely recognised as having been very American-dominated. And even if people do want a non-American boxer on the list, there are better choices, such as Roberto Duran and Sam Langford. Neljack (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I agree that the way to refine the list in general is to do as you are doing and to find reference books that take a global view of sports, looking at which sports are most followed (in the English-speaking world, as this is English Wikipedia) and not just to add in tokens to nod to different countries. It ought to be possible to find reference materials on sport that make more clear which sports figures are most notable worldwide, in what sports. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack's suggested replacements look like more vital figures. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support agree about recentism despite Pacquaio being one of the very few Filipinos on the list. Don't agree with the point that vitality changes according to the language of the Wikipedia or the reader. What is "vital" for one of us is vital for the other seven billion of us. The Philippines is an English-speaking country anyway (it's one of two official languages in the nation). Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Mario Andretti

Not a name that pops up in discussions on the best F1 driver of all time, unlike the others on the list (Fangio, Prost, Schumacher, Senna, Stewart) or Jim Clark or current four-time champion Sebastian Vettel.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support agree with adding a motorcycle racer to diversify the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Perhaps motorsports could also use more diversified representation and motorcycle racer Valentino Rossi might warrant a look. Cobblet (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2014 (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.

Relative prominence of soccer vs. Big Three American sports

We seem to be nearing a consensus that there are too many American athletes on this lest. To me, a large portion of this seems attributable to the relative prominence of athletes of the sports of baseball, basketball and American football. Baseball and basketball are big in the United States, Canada, Venezuela and the Caribbean, but take a backseat to soccer elsewhere. American football is played almost exclusively in the United States and Canada. Yet, baseball, basketball and American football have 25 athletes (18.6%) on this list; and 23 of those 25 are American. Soccer has but 17 (12.6%) on this list, and 16 of them aren’t American (it is widely played and followed globally). As such, the combined athletes in baseball, basketball and American football should probably be 10 or less. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football

1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I think we should have some ceiling number, and ten is fine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support There is a whopping US bias in sports, it needs to be reined in. The claim that baseball is popular in Latin America etc. is false, they are occasionally played but have hardly any relevance at all in the general sports picture they are not broadcast or followed. These are par excellence American sports tailored to an American audience, and fueled by American media. Any importance they have outside of the US is due to local US fetichism. In Europe for example Handball is at least as popular as Basketball yet has zero representation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Too many athletes period, and too biased towards Americans. Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support the general principle and reduction. Maybe not quite as low as 10. It will depend on the what the consensus is for the total number of sports figures. I don't know how a proposal making the number of US athletes proportionate to their worldwide popularity and impact on wider society is "anti-American" any more than the current relative under-representation of the rest of world is motivated by anti-Asian, anti-European, anti-African sentiments, etc. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football

1. I know it's outdated and has its biases, but I still find ESPN's Top North Americans of the Century an interesting reference point. Leaving out the Canadian hockey players, the top 25 Americans (your suggested figure for this list) include six baseball players, five basketball players, and three football players, as well as Jim Thorpe. That over half (15/25) of America's most vital athletes should come from these sports sounds about right to me, so I think ten would be too few. The glut of Americans on our list isn't just in those sports: it's also obvious in boxing, golf and tennis. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose as a blanket rule. What we should do is what Cobblet suggests here, that is turn to a reliable reference book and figure out what the overall world notability (in the English-speaking world, as this is English Wikipedia) is for various sports figures. The plurality of users of English Wikipedia live in the United States, and many of the other users of English Wikipedia live in the "inner circle" of countries where the majority of residents are native speakers of English. If we use published reference books and authoritative professionally edited online resources that serve the English-speaking world as guides (this goes for all topics on the Vital Articles list), we should be able to achieve consensus about how to refine the list so that it is maximally useful for our fellow Wikipedians and all readers of Wikipedia. My experiences differ from everyone else's, and I say nothing here about how Spanish Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, or Hindi Wikipedia should be edited, but for English Wikipedia let's turn early and often to reference books and professionally edited specialist websites to guide our editorial decisions about what to add and what to remove to level 4 of the vital articles project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose What everyone seems to forget is that many of the American sports leagues are popular in other countries. For example, baseball is played in Japan and Latin American, American football is adapted to Canadian football, basketball is popular in Europe, and hockey is played in Canada and Europe. These American leagues are simply the top level of their respective sports. It would be illogical to remove players in these leagues for players that are not as good in other leagues. Not to mention that many of these players in these leagues are not American. With respect to the other leagues, we should keep the best American players and then add in other players from around the world. A mass deletion of Americans would simply shrink the list and make it less comprehensive. In other words, if you want to remove someone from the list, propose someone in return. Being an American does not make a person less vital, and if you want to remove Americans from a certain tier, others should also be removed that are at the same tier of their sport. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose for reasons stated well above. Also, there seems to be some anti-Americanism driving some of the decisions on these proposals. Lithistman (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Cobblet:, considering that list (which BTW is also available at SportsCentury, the obvious next step is to nominate any 20th century figures who are off the list, or way, way down the list, for deletion. You are correct that there is also a glot in boxing, golf and tennis. I just nominated Palmer for removal and I'm going to follow that up with Hogan and Snead. Could you tackle the boxing glut? pbp 22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably nominate Marciano and Sugar Ray Leonard for removal, but I'll think about it a little more first. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Marciano it is. I was thinking of him too. pbp 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @PointsofNoReturn:: I think 130-some-odd athletes is too many in relation to everything else we have on this list, and I am perfectly comfortable with the list of athletes being shrunk to 100 and 30 people being added somewhere else. While basketball is played in Europe, it's not anywhere near as big a deal as a) basketball here, and b) soccer in Europe. Also, while we have two non-American baseball players, we don't have a single non-American basketball player or Canadian football player, and we probably shouldn't, as the most talented of they wouldn't make the top 10 all time (Consider that there are no Canadian footballers in the SportsCentury top 50). pbp 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Purplebackpack89: Honestly, I am quite fine with the amount of sports figures that are on the list. The 134 sports figures currently on the list is comparable to all the main sections of the list of people. Some sections have fewer people simply because there are fewer people in those fields. For example, explorers only consist of 30 people because there were fewer explorers in history. Meanwhile, the politicians and leaders section has 473 people on the list. The number of sports figures we have is a fair amount considering how many people we have in other topics on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @PointsofNoReturn:, So you're saying it's OK to have as many athletes as religious figures, even though religious figures have been around for a much longer period of time, and are of greater global importance than athletes? pbp 01:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
      • "there were fewer explorers in history." Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I support an overall reduction of sports figures to 100. 100 out of 2000 people is still a lot when you consider that it is just one of many branches of entertainment. These people only cover about 150 years of history as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Except that sports figures are one of the most vital types of entertainers. The fact that they cover 150 years of history does not mean the number of them should be reduced. I am quite content with the amount of the athletes present on the list as of now. To be honest, I would rather have 200 athletes on the list because that is how vital they are to the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I guess we can agree to disagree. I believe that individual entertainers themselves are generally not that vital let alone those connected to sport. The other issue with the sports figures list, is that they invariably only deal with professional sports. Sport can vital as entertainment or a recreational activity, something you do or play instead of watch on TV. For instance, rock climbing is vital while no rock climber would be vital. IMO, the fact that sports biographies can only be vital from an entertainment perspective only also weakens their case for inclusion. I think that if the meta:Gender gap didn't exist or was reversed, we would be seeing a lot more fashion designers and models among other sorts of people listed, probably at the expense of sports figures. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Frankly I'd support a massive reduction in the number of athletes on the list. IMO, either they'd need to have immense dominance in a sport (and more so than say Michael Jordon or Mohamed Ali - IOW, I doubt that we could find a dozen meeting that criteria), or having some major influence or innovation in the conduct/execution of their sport (again, only a handful of possibilities), or a major non-sporting influence on their sport or world (a handful of people like Jesse Owens). Athletes who are merely good at there sport, even for a fairly long time, or merely setting ordinary records, are simply not, IMO, that important to the world. Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If there were only 25-30 American athletes, who would they be?

I think it’s time to throw a hand grenade in the athletes section. The way I would go about it is to remove all the American athletes, who will still constitute over 40% even if the presently-proposed removals passed. I think we should remove all the American athletes, and then only add back 25-30 of them. So that’s gotten me thinking about which they should be. I’ve only come up with 11 so far: Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, Jack Nicklaus, Billy Jean King, Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, Babe Didrikson, and Jim Thorpe. Any thoughts on the others? pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on 25-30 American athletes

Support proposal to remove all American athletes and add 25-30 back as needed

1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lithistman (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think 30 American sports figures is about right. I prefer the more conventional method where we discuss which people should be removed instead of removing them all and then asking who should be re-added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the conventional method is best. But to comment on your list above I don't think Billie Jean King is a shoo-in by any means. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe Montana and Jerry Rice should also be on the list. Otherwise you are leaving out American Football completely. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

American Baseball Players

There are too many American ballplayers. Considering that it is mainly played in the US, I would support removing four ballplayers from the list of 9. I will be proposing four separate removals in the next few days in order to balance the list a bit more. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support removing at least five. There should be fewer baseball players than cricketers or basketball players since both those sports have greater international popularity (baseball is no longer an Olympic sport for this reason). Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PointsofNoReturn, that sounds good. I'd been thinking that baseball could do with some trimming too. Neljack (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Good call on culling baseball. pbp 13:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Satchel Paige

Only Jackie Robinson is needed to represent the struggle of African Americans to join Major League Baseball. Satchel Paige played in the Negro League, but did not do as well when playing in the Major Leagues. Satchel Paige is only 63rd on Sportscentury's list of the top 100 North American athletes.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I'm not sure his accomplishments stand out that much when compared to Rube Foster or Martín Dihigo. Contemporary political leaders of the African-American community like W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey are missing; I don't think Paige should be listed before them. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Being a good player is not the criterion to apply for encyclopedic vitality. We cannot and should not include all the best baseball players, but have to weigh the sports against each other and prioritize. The criteria by which we should prioritize is educational value, how well known the topic is, and how likely someone is to search for it. I dont see paige making it under either of those criteria.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Surely the reason that he wasn't as good (though still pretty good - he was an all-star twice) in the Major Leagues is that by the time he was allowed to play there he was 42 - the oldest rookie ever. His greatness rests on his exploits in the Negro leagues. And they should not be dismissed as second-rate leagues. Obviously they weren't fully representative of the strength of American baseball, but then neither were the Major Leagues. As quickly became evident after integration, the standard of play among African-Americans was very much up there with that among white players. And Paige did play in exhibition games against top Major League players, who seem to have been unanimous in acclaiming his greatness. Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Bob Feller and Dizzy Dean all said that he was the best pitcher they'd seen or faced.[12] [13] The Society for American Baseball Research voted him the greatest player in the history of the Negro leagues.[14] He was also extremely popular, drawing huge crowds. Paige seems to me to be more vital than several other baseball players on the list - for instance, Cy Young (the only other pitcher on the list - not counting Babe Ruth), who rarely makes the top 10 of lists of greatest MLB players. Neljack (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, entirely per Neljack. Lithistman (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Cy Young is the greatest pitcher of all time. He should be on the list. Satchel Paige did not play much in the Major Leagues. He was a great player, but not great enough to be vital on a global list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Other players who are in the running for "greatest Negro League player" are Oscar Charleston and Smokey Joe Williams. Paige does seem to be more famous though. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Journalists

Swap: Remove Studs Terkel, Add Bartolomé de las Casas

Terkel was an American oral historian who doesn't even seem that vital in the context of American historiography. (American historians, feel free to rebut.) In his place I nominate probably the first and one of the most influential historians of the Americas, Bartolomé de las Casas. His polemic A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies was widely distributed and influenced the passage of the New Laws prohibiting the slavery of native Americans, although their effectiveness was short-lived. Translations of it were read by Spain's rivals in Europe, providing fodder for the Black Legend. He remains controversial in Spain but revered in Latin America, having inspired Simon Bolivar and other revolutionary leaders. To quote Britannica, "the modern significance of Las Casas lies in the fact that he was the first European to perceive the economic, political, and cultural injustice of the colonial or neocolonial system maintained by the North Atlantic powers since the 16th century...."

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support This is a very good proposal. Las Casas is surely a far more important figure than Terkel. The journalists section is still heavily weighted towards the US. Neljack (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3. 'Support I didnt suggest adding Las Casas because I am the main contributor to the article. But I am happy to support this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, is Bartolomé going into historians? I thought of suggesting Studs before for removal  Carlwev  21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I should mention for completeness's sake that we list three other US historians (McCullough, F. J. Turner, Tuchman) and no historians from Latin America. And if somebody more knowledgeable about historians wants to take a look at who we've got there, it seems to me that there are some odd choices in there – who are Charles Oman and Samuel Rawson Gardiner and why are they listed ahead of somebody like Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay? Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I imagine Bartolomé should be listed as a historian, yes. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

History

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

Middle Ages

Swap: Remove Salic law, Add Solomonic Dynasty

More than half, specifically 71 out of 135 articles in the Middle Ages section relate to Europe. It makes sense that Europe has the biggest section in Early Modern History since that was when the Age of Discovery, Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred. Even there it makes up a smaller proportion of total articles (35 out of 87). But the Middle Ages section needs some serious balancing.

France alone has 8 articles while Africa in total has 7. There are no articles in relation to East Africa. I picked Salic law as the lowest hanging fruit in the France subsection as it is far less influential than other bodies of law listed such as the Corpus Juris Civilis and Napoleonic Code. The House of Solomon was the longest lasting dynasty within the Ethiopian Empire. It began in the 13th century and lasted well into the 20th. Well known figures part of this dynasty included Menelik II and Haile Selassie.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support the removal and the motivation behind it. Oppose the addition: we already list History of Ethiopia, and the history of Ethiopia from the 13th century to 1974 is the history of the Solomonic Dynasty. To me this is too much overlap: I don't think it would be a good idea to add Monarchy of Thailand in addition to History of Thailand either. I was going to suggest the Ajuran Sultanate (a mercantile empire that lasted four centuries, saw frequent conflict with its neighbours and Portugal, and left a significant architectural legacy) as a significant East African polity not covered on the list (we don't list History of Somalia). Cobblet (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Modern history

Add Arab–Israeli conflict

The first of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. I won't vote on these right now since I'm just starting a general discussion, but the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, is included. Would it be fair to say that if one of these articles fails to be added, we should remove it from Level 3? Malerisch (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

User:Melody Lavender has just added this to level 4. Do we still need to !vote on this? Personally I think it's quite an obvious omission. Cobblet (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sold on it at Level 3 but is clearly vital on the expanded list even when you consider the overlap with Israel-Palestine. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Opium Wars and Unequal treaty, Add First Opium War and Second Opium War

The article on the two Opium Wars has been merged with the articles on the two constituent wars and is now a disambiguation page. These were the first wars that resulted in unequal treaties, and so did the Boxer Rebellion and the First Sino-Japanese War; since of all these events are listed (as are many of the treaty ports themselves) I don't think we need to list the concept separately.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support removing Opium Wars and both the additions, Oppose removing Unequal treaty. Unequal treaties were critical to the imperial domination of China by European powers. It is more than simply the two opium wars. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support except for the removal of unequal treaty, which I oppose per PointsofNoReturn. There were also important unequal treaties with Japan and Korea. They had a very big impact on the history of East Asia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support except I too am not 100% sure at this time on removing Unequal treaty although I admit it is borederline, not tip top importance.  Carlwev  12:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

If people want to keep unequal treaty I have no problem expanding our coverage of the late Qing Dynasty, although it does rather neglect events that have less to do with Western imperialism (say, Dungan revolt (1862–77)). Cobblet (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

Bodies of water

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

Land relief

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

Add Mount Fuji

Emblematic for Japan, no other mountain has as much cultural and religious symbolic significance. It might not be as geographically significant as other mountains on the list but geographical importance should not be the only criterion. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support even though "no other mountain" is certainly an exaggeration. I'll propose other swaps later. Cobblet (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Iconic. Huge cultural significance. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, definitely, seems more vital than the highest peaks of Oceania, Australia, Hawaii which we have.  Carlwev  19:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Also, I agree with Carlwev, though perhaps we should leave at least one peak in Australia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support There definitely aren't any mountains in Australia that are comparable to Mount Fuji. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Well there is Uluru, but that is listed as part of Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Parks and preserves

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

Countries

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

Regions

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

Cities

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

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.

Comment: I am taking the liberty of putting up a number of proposals simultaneously. They have all been on the "Vital articles" talk page for months. I would anticipate that the vast majority of these buildings are so obviously of vital importance that their names alone are sufficient. Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I believe the architecture section can definitely be expanded to 50 at the very least. It is underrepresented compared to other forms of art as the list currently stands. However, I can support only a few of the proposed additions below if any. With the exception of Fallingwater, the scope of the suggestions is extremely narrow. They are limited in terms of geography (Western Europe), time (Middle Ages - Renaissance) and purpose (not only religious but all Christian). Churches and cathedrals are already very well represented on VA. Chartres Cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris, St. Peter's Basilica, The Kremlin (parts of which are cathedrals]] as well as church and cathedral themselves are all currently listed. Other civilisations with great architectural traditions are represented by one article or none at all. There is one Hindu-Buddhist temple, no mosques, nothing from Mesoamerica, one Chinese palace (nothing else from East Asia), one mausoleum from South Asia, nothing from Sub-Saharan Africa, and one article for South America.

I was thinking about proposing a different set of articles when I looked at this list and saw the gaping holes within it. The articles I had in mind included Tikal Temple I/Chitzen Itza, Kiyomizu-dera, Great Zimbabwe, Persepolis, Potala Palace, Alhambra, Petra, Moai and Christ the Redeemer among others (the latter two probably fit better under Sculpture). Even with regards to Western Europe, adding a castle instead of another cathedral would improve the architectural diversity of the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer more broader topics on this list, rather than individual buildings. That being said, I like the Alhambra proposal, as a very distinct and notable mix, as well as WHS. --ELEKHH^T 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gizza's and Elekhh's points. However, Petra is listed under History and Moai is subsumed by Easter Island. I proposed Chichen Itza once. I'll have to read up more before I !vote on the proposals below. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to expand the architecture section, we need to contract some articles from the list. I would support removing some biological species from the list to make room for more articles in the arts section. There are way too many biological species on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to take a broad view here. As Cobblet, has pointed out, the selections, including my proposed additions, are weighted towards Western Europe and Christianity. On one hand, many of these great buildings are still present, fully functional, very well documented and beyond doubt among the greatest buildings. However, I suspect to many, the great cathedrals all look pretty much the same. I think what we need to do is define some categories and weight them.

It might be appealing to try to balance things regionally, but this simply doesn't work. Australia is a geographic region the size of Europe where the architecture of world significance starts and ends with the Sydney Opera House. Italy, on the other hand, is a small country in which there is a single city that contains 1. the two most significant Ancient Roman buildings, 2. the best extant examples of Early Christian buildings. 3. Romanesque buildings which we are not even going to think about. 4. The supreme masterpiece of the Renaissance, 5. several incredibly innovative Baroque buildings 6. Important Modern buildings which are not going to make the list. In other words, a least three buildings on the list: Colisseum, Pantheon, St Peter's Basilica, are within a mile of each other, yet they are not a "precinct". This imbalance is unavoidable. Like Rome, Florence, London and the region around Paris, for historical reasons, are weighty in terms of architecture.

I don't know how you go about balancing the cathedrals and other great churches of Europe against the buildings of other regions. In the case of the great churches, we have huge buildings, many of the World Heritage Listed, form a cohesive, changing architectural sequence where the styles have been the subject of much study. On the other hand, many of the marvellous temples of South East Asia, and much of the architecture of ancient south America was simply eaten up by the jungle. Among the temples of South East Asia, how many are innovative architecturally?

Looking at this a different way: the Parthenon requires listing. Experts on Greek architecture define three separate styles, dependent on the details. But overall, an Ancient Greek temple looks just like an Ancient Greek temple, regardless of whether it has Doric, Ionic or Corinthian capitals. Is this more or less difference than the difference between a Byzantine church (centrally planned, with five domes), a Romanesque abbey (long, cross-shaped, with round arches, barrel vault and flat buttresses) and a Gothic Cathedral (with huge traceried windows, ribbed vault, flying buttresses)? Some are going to say "All three are Christian churches." However, they represent types where architectural innovation was highly valued. Geographically, the balance of these innovative buildings is weighted. France just happens to have a really significant number of Medieval churches of the highest order. England is not far behind. Germany specialises in Romanesque, but then there is Cologne Cathedral (Gothic).

Mosques. There are two main types, domed and hypostyle, and some of the larger mosques have both characteristics. The buildings (traditionally) generally have similar forms in terms of the shapes of the arches, the type of dome, the nature of the decoration. Some are based on the great Christian building Hagia Sophia. In general, innovation was not of as great importance as in European Medieval, but there are some notable exceptions such as the hypostyle hall of the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba.

Looking at the Baroque period, London has St Paul's Cathedral, Vienna has Karlskirche, Venice has Santa Maria della Salute, and Rome has Sant'Agnese in Agone. They are all important. St Paul's dominates and is the symbol of its city (and the nation) in a way that the other three are not.

Then we have domestic architecture. And Government architecture. Do we need one of the great Town Halls of Belgium? What houses what palaces? what state buildings?

In the Orient, what are the stylistic differences to be seen in countries where maintaining the design formulas was closely linked to religion and often more important than design innovation?

I suggest we add more buildings to the list below, and then try to reconcile them, in terms of date, style, innovative qualities and region. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you've identified the important questions we need to address. I have two things to add:

1. Obviously Italy's played a vastly greater role in the history of architecture than Australia. If people are wondering what a geographically "balanced" list might actually look like, perhaps a good first point of reference is the Table of World Heritage Sites by country: specifically, it's the cultural heritage sites we're interested in. But consistent with their mandate to encourage preservation efforts, UNESCO prefers to list sites where such efforts are being taken, and this naturally favours developed countries. We have no such mandate and this criterion shouldn't apply to our list.
2. I gather that Western art historians tend to emphasize the significance of innovation in design. Other cultures may stress other factors more strongly, e.g. perfection in craftsmanship, the ability to realize a preconceived ideal, or in the specific case of architecture, the harmonization of a building with its surroundings. Western values shouldn't be used to assess the work of other cultures. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add: Wells Cathedral

Wells Cathedral, unlike the early Gothic cathedrals of France, and its English contemporary at Canterbury, (late 12th-century) has completely broken away from any hint of the Romanesque architectural origins. It is the earliest building to truly embody the Gothic style, and in achieving this, a succession of architects have been extremely innovative in the development of architectural form. The west front is regarded as the greatest demonstration of synthesis of the plastic arts (i.e. architecture, architectural carving and figurative sculpture) in England.

Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. I agree with Amandajms rationale. Especially the facade is unique (as described in the nomination's rationale: combination of sculpture and architecture) and makes it more important for the architecture section than Canterbury. Melody Lavender (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

On the other hand, either Canterbury Cathedral or Lincoln Cathedral would be a suitable alternative. Both are exceedingly fine buildings, and Canterbury, of course, has the greatest historical significance, for at least three reasons.

Add: Canterbury Cathedral

as an alternative to Wells Cathedral. Of enormous architectural variety, with every part important; and of the greatest historic important as St Augustine's church, the mother church of the Church of England, and the major pilgrimage destination in the UK.

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) as an alternative to Wells

Oppose

1. Oppose. We dont need more English churches. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Chateau Chambord

The most important Renaissance palace in France. Set the standard for later chateaux.

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose France is already represented by Chartres, Notre Dame and Versailles. Why not choose El Escorial or Wawel Castle? Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose The list will become too big if we add the most important building of every major architectural style (in this case Renaissance) of a major country (France). Hundreds of articles could be added on this basis. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I have added El Escorial or Wawel Castle, as well, not "instead". Amandajm (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gizza: I believe we should include one or two of the most important buildings of every major architectural style, but not for every country. I think Chambord is a good choice. Melody Lavender (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Add: La Sagrada Familia

Gaudi's unique basilica in Barcelona

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support If there is one piece of architecture in Spain or Catalunya that people are likely to know this is it. If there is one piece of modern architecture in Europe that people are likely to know besides the Eiffel Tower this is it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There are many historically important Spanish works of architecture to choose from, from the Aqueduct of Segovia to the Alhambra to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. I'm not convinced this is the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Cobblet, as a work of Spanish architecture, La Sagrada Familia has just one tiny advantage over the three that you have named; it is, in fact, Spanish. The Aqueduct of Segovia is Roman, the Alhambra is Islamic and the Guggenheim is by a Canadian. Amandajm (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Excepot that La Sagrada familia is Catalan.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "Spanish" as in "in Spain". Anyway, El Escorial too seems like a stronger choice. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that by 20th century architecture where the individual style of the architect is highly relevant, and where the architect is notable for his whole oeuvre rather than a single building, including the article about the architect is probably more important. In this case the question is whether Gaudi is so important that among the 10,000 most important articles there should be two about his work. I'd rather have more 20th century architects on the list (i.e. Tange, Piano, Siza). --ELEKHH^T 09:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Add: El Escorial

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't believe El Escorial is comparable to the palaces already listed. There are many other palaces that have an equally strong case for inclusion including Pena National Palace, Mysore Palace and Potala Palace. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add: Karnak

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The World Heritage site is called Thebes, which is already listed. Karnak is a part of it.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Redtigerxyz and Cobblet. I can support a swap with either Luxor and Thebes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Obviously this is a very important site, but in view of Gizza's comments regarding Ur I guess it's important to point out we already list Luxor, Thebes, Egypt and Valley of the Kings. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would support a swap with Thebes, Egypt. I don't think there is a good case for having Thebes on the list - it's mostly about the modern city (or at least it's conceivable that it will be some day, as of today the article is not well developed). Karnak is the most important part of Thebes for architecture and history of art. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Literature

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

Add Panchatantra

I suggested this in a discussion now archived. It received a positive response. I will repeat verbatim what I already said. The Panchatantra is a great example of a collection of non-Western legends (but which later influenced folk tales in Europe, the Middle East and much of Asia). To quote a referenced part of the Wikipedia entry on Panchatantra, its range extends "from Java to Iceland". Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Doubtful about this I have been reading a lot about the history of India over the last four years. I checked this article immediately after it was nominated, and it seems that the historical claims in the article don't take into account the transmission of Greek culture into India with Alexander the Great and the successor Greek kingdoms of Central Asia. Nor does the article, sources and all, really show much current influence from the story collection. This appears to be a historical curiosity among the 6,843,363 articles on Wikipedia more than a vital top-10,000 level 4 article for the project. Perhaps going back to the archive of the previous discussion may illuminate the considerations that have so far kept this article off the top 10,000 list. I also just checked the popular page rankings on the relevant WikiProject pages, and this article, with its modest number of pageviews, is nowhere to be seen on those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder how many works of world literature have enjoyed such widespread dissemination so early on. I'm not sure the Four Great Classical Novels of China are appreciated by a worldwide audience and yet we list all of them individually (as we should, of course). How do those compare in terms of number of page views? Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

With regards to page views, I believe it is problematic to put so much faith in it on a topic such as literature, particularly ancient literature from a non-Western country. It is an area strongly affected by bias and topic area. The page views for the likes of A Game of Thrones and Harry Potter dwarf American and British classics let alone a collection of non-Western fables one and a half thousand years old. I don't think many people here will consider them vital though. Even within ancient Indian literature, an article like the Kama Sutra is about seven to eight times popular for obvious reasons, despite it having a far more smaller influence geographically throughout most of history. It also doesn't help that the Panchatantra is non-controversial in a political or religious sense, which usually gives articles a boost in the popularity stakes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Music

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

Add Guns N' Roses

Member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, influential band that sold over 100 million records on a global level, and one of the groups that revived hard rock in the late 80s/early 90s.--Retrohead (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I thought of them earlier but never suggested anything, they are fairly worthy and have a chance at getting in, but I don't think they will, I may be wrong though. If we have a band like that, bands like Fleetwood Mac and Eagles (band) have sold more, have a large status too and are also in the rock and roll hall of fame as well. Other musicians of similar status could be Bon Jovi, The Carpenters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rod Stewart, Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Genesis (band) and many many more. We removed Genesis and Eagles already btw. Off topic... Oddly we also have the Fleetwood Mac album Rumours (album) (although I just noticed it goes to Rumours), but we don't have Fleetwood Mac, this has always bugged me.  Carlwev  11:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Piano: a percussion instrument or a string instrument?

String instrument

1. I always thought it was a string instrument According to the article on the piano, it is classified as a chordophone, so I would leave it in string instruments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Percussion instrument

1. The strings on a piano are struck, not plucked, therefore it is a percussion instrument. pbp 01:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. It is generally considered a percussion instrument, and that is all that should matter for us. While you can construct a perfectly reasonable argument for classifying it as a string instrument, we should go for how it is usually classified, not our own personal opinions. Neljack (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Tapping his guitar doesnt make Joe Satriani a percussionist. The article state that the piano can be considered either, which means that it is arbitrary and thus insignificant in which category we place it. I have no opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oversimplification is a leading cause of Wikidrama. If we really want to solve the problem instead of engaging in pointless argument, I suggest we do what musicologists do and use the Hornbostel–Sachs system to classify instruments. Cobblet (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus and Cobblet. It is a waste of time to dwell on this. The most important question is what is vital. The only time when the question where a vital article should be listed is relevant IMO is when "like" articles are not together, making it difficult to compare like with like. For example, there are companies in the business section and technology section. These dispersed articles should ideally be compared against each other. In this case, regardless of whether piano is listed as a percussion or strings instrument, it is easy to compare it with the other instruments. Its position within the list hardly changes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Internationale and Dixie (song), Add National anthem

There are too many individual songs listed and not enough general topics on music. Anthems, like flags, are important state symbols, but I don't think we need specific anthems any more than we need specific flags. I don't think the Internationale is more vital to one's understanding of socialism than unlisted topics like cooperative or planned economy. And the implication that Dixie's more vital than The Star-Spangled Banner is downright terrifying.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We had the US and UK anthems before but they removed without discussion as "unfair" to other nations, anthems are important and the overview article is decent and could be seen as fairer than including one or 2 individual anthems. We also list flag but no individual flags.  Carlwev  19:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Dixie most certainly should be removed, I could see a case for retaining The Internationale because of it's trans-national status. Rwessel (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose People are interested in knowing about specific songs, not general categories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose the removal, Support the addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

First, national anthem should cover examples of specific anthems and discuss them in detail if they're important. And even if you believe specific songs are so important, I don't think these are the most vital anthems (let alone songs) to know about, ahead of La Marseillaise or God Save the Queen, or other songs strongly identified with particular countries/cultures like Waltzing Matilda or Sakura Sakura or Hava Nagila. How many such songs do you think we should have? Cobblet (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed a problem, and I think I would at least vote support to remove Dixie, and perhaps also Internationale though its social and global influence is of course far greater.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely support removing Dixie, I don't see the need for National anthem on the list. The problem with Internationale is that it is a left wing hymn and we don't have a right wing equivalent.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont see why that would be a problem, vital articles doesnt have to be fair an balanced. We include what is vital to know and what isnt we include. I guess we could include "Deutschland Uber Alles" or the Horst Wessel Lied if we absolutely wanted a rightwing "equivalent", but I am not sure they are as vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Stardust (song), Add Singer-songwriter

Stardust is not really up there with other songs on the list. Singer-songwriter is hugely important. I think of it as a genre myself, though the article is not particularly written that way. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Performing Arts

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

Swap: Remove Monologue, Add Peking opera

A monologue is just a dramatic device. It seems a weak article and we don't include more fundamental literary devices like metaphor (I don't think we should either). Peking opera is a rich theatrical tradition, with considerable visibility in the English-speaking world. Whether it belongs in performing arts with musical theatre or in music with opera may be a question. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Visual arts

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

Modern visual arts

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

Fictional characters

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

Philosophy and religion

Philosophy

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

Add Modernism

2nd out of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. As Cobblet mentioned, there is overlap between Modernism and Modern art, although the article describes Modernism as a philosophical movement. Would it be fair to say that if one of these articles fails to be added, we should remove it from Level 3? Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support To answer Cobblet's question, I think they are sufficiently distinct to both warrant inclusion. Modernism is a very important cultural movement, and I think it is clearly vital. Neljack (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Modernism is about the arts in general (despite what's written in the lead, philosophy is only mentioned tangentially in the body of the article); modern art deals specifically with the visual arts. Do we need both? Cobblet (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Postmodernism

3rd out of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Whatever you think of it, undoubtedly of major influence in a variety of academic and cultural disciplines. Neljack (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Postmodern art (the article focusing specifically on the visual arts) is not on the list either. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Golden Rule

4th out of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support As the article shows, an idea that is present in a huge number of religious and philosophical traditions (not just Christianity, which I suspect many people in the West associate it with). Neljack (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Taught to my class when I was in Kindergarten. Seems like an important rule regardless of religion or nationality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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.

Everyday life

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

Add Personal life

6th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. This article is also on Level 2. Malerisch (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Personal life is currently listed on Level 2 as well which makes it part of an elite group of 100 most vital articles. I don't think it is that vital. It is a fairly recent concept coined by anthropologists. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Family and kinship

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

Cooking, food and drink

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

Household items

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

Sports and recreation

Add Cheating

We are poised to add Doping in sports to the list, but we seem to be missing the overarching concept of gaming the system. pbp 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cheating is more than sportmanship. It is one of the biggest concepts worldwide and should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Shouldn't cheating in sport be covered under sportsmanship? Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. oppose Cheating is just any illicit circumvention of established rules. It is not a coherent topic, because it depends on the social context in which rules are being broken whether sport, marriage, games, exams, etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Agree that sportsmanship is the general term, having noted the discussion below. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Cheating mentions other things, not just within sports but, exams and relationships, and could also mention, other games, like card, board, video games, gambling, and feasibly some other dishonest activities or crimes, anywhere where one could break written or non-written rules. Not that that means we should have it any more or less.  Carlwev  13:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Timekeeping

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

Colors

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

Swap: Remove Brightness, Colorfulness and Hue, Add HSL and HSV

We should list the article on the colour models rather than their individual components.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Speaking of colour models, I think we should list both color model and the most important one (RGB color model). I also thought about swapping out cyan and magenta for CMYK color model since these colours have no real significance other than being part of that system; but it seems a little weird to list either the colour model or its colours when colour printing (their only major application) isn't on the list and could probably cover the concept. Thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what we need is Color theory. --ELEKHH^T 13:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, I see is already listed at Arts. --ELEKHH^T 13:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Society and social sciences

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

Move Race (classification of humans) from Anthropology to Sociology, Social status

Race is not today considered to be primarily a biological category, there is discussion of its status as a possible biological category but everyone agrees that it has a significant social significance. I think rather than having it as the odd extra article in the anthropology section it makes sense to move it to the other categories describing social groupings. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support but I think you're referring to the subsection under Society. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Maunus knows this topic well and does much responsible article editing on related articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support the move. Other than that I don't think the concept is vital. It should be removed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Extremely vital concept socially. Race has been a deciding factor on how humans treat each other. It is less important biologically because all humans are the same species. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• @Melody Lavender:, why don't you think this concept is vital? Yes, it's a social construct, but a VERY important social construct. pbp 14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89:, the important article in that respect is Racism, not race. Race is a concept that is vital to racism, not to VA/E.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Melody Lavender:, how can you have the concept of racism without the concept of race? pbp 17:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89:What I'm trying to say is that racists base their discrimination on the perceived existence of races. Most serious scientists don't think human races can be defined. That's why we are moving it out of anthropology, of course. We all agree that Racism, for the purposes of this list, is vital, it's on level 3. So we have covered the issue. There is no need to give this obscure theory more room. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think race is a very vital concept both for social science and for peoples lives. Whether it is objectively real or not is less of an issue. Ethnic groups also are not objectively real but they have a significant impact on how we live our lives. More importantly an encyclopedia that does not have articles on both race and racism would be seriously amiss.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe at this level the topic is covered by racsim and ethnic group. I'm not saying I'd delete it from Wikipedia, but I'd remove it from the list of 10,000 most vital articles. 100,000? Maybe. There are other topics that are competing for this space. I'd rather have Quantum superposition on this list than Race. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm with php and Maunus on this one. Race is vital IMO at this level. Not as vital as racism but racism is listed on the more exclusive 1000 list. Removing race but keeping articles like ethnic group, caste, gender and social class will create a huge anomaly. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Move Ethnic group to Sociology, Social status

Basically the same reason as above.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support A bit odd (but not at all unusual for the list) to put ethnic group in a different category than the list of ethnic groups, but I see why you'd want to keep race and ethnicity together. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Maunus rationale.
4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Yeah, there is some slightly weird divisions of topic. I think that probably instead of having separate entries for society, anthropology and ethnology they should be merged and then there could be subsections. Right now the anthropology section has only 5 entries and all the disciplines bread and butter is in the Culture and Society sections. Perhaps a single social sciences section could work with the main disciplines at the root and then subsections for the groupings of different concepts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Business and Economics

Add Fishing industry

8th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. However, as Cobblet pointed out, Fishing is already in the Industry section. Malerisch (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I think I'd support adding fishing industry and recreational fishing in addition to the parent article, or even in place of it. Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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.

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

Add Orthography

Suggested as better than punctuation when I opened add Punctuation which was not added in the end. Orthography, "the methodology of writing a language including rules of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation." includes punctuation and more, so is a wider article, with nearly 170 articles for language this may deserve a place.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Having common orthographic conventions is crucial to communication. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support as a topic that pertains to all human languages with writing systems. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose and Writing, and Writing system.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

My only reservation with adding this is that there's substantial overlap with writing system. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Brahmic scripts

7th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We've previously swapped out the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet for the respective script families. Should we do the same here and remove Devanagari? Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I will support swapping it with Devanagari. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Devanagari

Complementary to the add proposal above.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. It dates back to antiquity and was especially notable in ancient Greece. Rhetoric, grammar, and logic were the original core elements of a liberal arts education and are still valuable skills today. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Rwessel (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Law

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

Add Law of obligations

Currently this section is rather biased towards common law, as opposed to civil law, systems. We have common law concepts like tort but no civil law equivalents. The law of obligations is the branch of the civil law that covers rights and duties arising between private individuals - both voluntary and involuntary, so it occupies the areas covered by both tort and contract law in common law systems. It is one of the most important branches of law in a civil law system. Neljack (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Add Custom (law)

Along with legislation and case law (which we have), one of the three main sources of law. Neljack (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Family law

One of the oldest and most important areas of law. Since time immemorial the law has been regulating marriage, divorce, children, etc. Laws in this area have major social consequences. Historically they have played an important role in upholding and maintaining patriarchal structures. The article is terrible, but that is neither uncommon with vital articles (unfortunately) nor a disqualification. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I'm not sure how one of the most ancient areas of law, which is examined in most legal traditions (including religious law) and has dedicated courts in many parts of the world, could be considered "non-core". Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Family law is a non-core area of law. Core subjects such as procedural law and conflicts of laws are currently missing. Family law is on par with commercial law/companies law, environmental law, labour law, immigration law and tax law at the very least.

The concept of family and articles relating to it such as marriage and divorce are obviously vital and are all listed. The legal aspect is only one part of familial relations along with the social and psychological aspects. These articles when written well will cover everything including the legal aspects. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are aspects of marriage that might be better covered by an article on family law than an article on marriage: how different cultures look at domestic violence, for example. We have a number of topics related to family law that we could consider removing, like civil marriage. We list civil union and domestic partnership but not same-sex marriage – wouldn't the broadest treatment of the subject be same-sex union legislation? Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the study of law today (in common law jurisdictions at least), family law is indeed generally not a core subject like contract, property, criminal law, etc. But this is not a reflection on its lack of importance - rather it is a reflection on its specialist nature. The legal regulation of family relationships and personal status has been regarded as immensely important for hundreds, even thousands, of years. Think of the enormous impact it has always had on countless people at a person level. Think of the immense social, political and religious significance that has been attached to issues in family law regarding marriage, divorce, children, etc. Neljack (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the study of law and to a lesser extent the practice of it in common law jurisdictions. I understand that the practical impact of family law on the day-to-day lives of ordinary people is more important than some of the areas that I mentioned above. I still think general articles on procedure and commercial law and distinct articles on public and private international law/conflicts (they are currently bundled together in international law) should be in before family. But I will change positions if there is consensus to significantly increase the number of articles in the law section, which I think can be reasonably argued. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass media

Remove eBay

I'm not convinced that eBay is one of the most vital websites to include in this list. On Alexa (which Wikipedia uses), it currently languishes at the 24th most visited website. E-commerce is also already listed. Yahoo! or Baidu (China's Google) are better choices if a replacement is needed: they're ranked as 4th and 5th.

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Closer in vitality to something like Netscape than Google. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I'm not convinced that we need more websites than newspapers. The internet is rather new, after all, whereas newspapers have a much longer history of influence. Neljack (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Alexa ranks are not really an argument for putting something on the vital article list. Alexa may provide a hint at which sites we should take a closer look. The sociological and economical impact of eBay is and was enormous and incomparable. This may only be visible from a historic perspective in the future for most people. But market failure is one of the biggest problems mankind currently has. Market failure is the driving force behind political disputes, poverty, etc. - some even think it's a relevant factor in crime. Places like eBay open a perspective to improve market access (for sellers) and work against market failure. eBay has grown beyond the dingy online store where antique dealers and ordinary citizens sell their old stuff. Much of the merchandise sold is already new, and more or less the same as in any shopping mall. If you have ever thought more deeply about eCommerce, opening a store, marketing an invention, you might be starting to grasp why eBay is one of the sites that is probably going to have a lasting impact. Also, don't forget that eBay is the main success factor for PayPal, a fully owned subsidiary of eBay which is significant for all kinds of transcontinental payments, not just eBay sales. PayPal might win the battle against duopolists Visa and Mastercard. If you try to filter out the tech hype surrounding the internet, and try to accept a more sober perspective, Google pales in comparison to eBay. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a famous quote from one of the founders of eBay that he had the intention of creating the perfect competition market. EBay may reach lasting notability because of that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, we currently list Monopoly but don't list perfect competition or competition (economics). I wonder if that can be improved. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would add competition (economics). I am not as sure about perfect competition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Failry significant but looks like this is going no matter what I do, but I must say we have twice as many tennis players than websites, which still bugs me. I also think one video game Pong looks odd, we should maybe list a few or none at all, maybe Tetris and Pac-Man are just as deserving? TV shows looks questionable too, we have Monty Python and Monty Python's Flying Circus we have Gunsmoke I would maybe prefer simply Western (genre)? plus other issues.  Carlwev  12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The double-listing of Monty Python is a really nice catch: I say we remove the TV program and keep the comedy group. Your comparison between tennis and the internet isn't quite complete: besides the players, we don't list tennis equipment or tournaments. Besides specific websites, there are plenty of internet-related articles listed under Tech. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We've currently allotted space for 2000 biographies. I don't think that's unreasonable but it does mean that the vitality standards for people are lower than other topics. The people at WikiProject Football and Baseball will probably consider articles on teams like Manchester United and the New York Yankees to be equally, if not more important than the best players. But the current quotas mean that no sports team has a chance at getting in. I think there's no point comparing a biography section with a non-bio section for that reason. And even though tennis isn't as important as the internet generally, the tennis players cover a greater span of time. The internet in its modern shape and form is still quite young. Roger Federer has been playing professional tennis for a longer time than Twitter has existed (he had already won 7 Grand Slams when it was founded). Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We make the quotas, we can change them. I'd prefer to have teams for team sports instead of individual celebrities. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Melody Lavender: I think you bring up some good points for discussion, but from my perspective, these types of economic arguments need to be backed up by numbers. On that note, I looked up the gross merchandise volume (indicating the total value of sales) for eBay and two other e-commerce giants—Alibaba Group and Amazon.com—in 2013. By all accounts, Alibaba is the biggest company out of all three, with a GMV of $248 billion (source, see intro and bar graph on GMV). Amazon.com trails at ~$100 billion while eBay lags behind at $76.5 billion (source, which is also corroborated by the graph). I'll let you put that number in perspective for yourself, but if you're looking to nominate an e-commerce company, Alibaba's the right one, not eBay. I don't think PayPal is that significant since like you said, Visa and MasterCard dominate the industry at the moment. I'll leave the debate of Google vs. eBay to someone else. Malerisch (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Museums

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Museums, 18 for the list of topics in this category.

Add National Palace Museum

Most visited museum in Asia [15] after the Palace Museum in Beijing (Forbidden City is already va-4); 4.5 million visitors in 2013.

Support

1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The most important museum in the Sinosphere. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support There is an interesting story behind how the museum's collection got there in the first place. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Rijksmuseum

Large collection of Dutch Golden Age painting (already va-4) and largest collection of works by Rembrandt (already va-3/4); 2.2 million visitors in 2013.

Support

1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Frankly I don't think we need any more museums from Europe and the US: we should be looking to diversify this list from a global perspective. The Egyptian Museum and the Museo Nacional de Antropología are the kinds of museums I'm thinking of. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some global spreading is preferred, but in the end, the museums that are most important should be on the list, despite their locations. – Editør (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Naturally. But a list of "the most important" museums in the world in which every museum except for the American Museum of Natural History displays Western art is making a radical statement about what's important. Of course some museums listed do more than just that, but the Rijksmuseum and Van Gogh Museum are not such museums. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The concept of a museum is probably a Western thing. However, the Rijksmuseum has many historical objects on display and their Asian pavilion is dedicated to Asian art, so it is definitely not only Western or only art. – Editør (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that pavilion seems to be small and only a recent addition. The National Museum of Korea or Tokyo National Museum have to be better choices to represent Asian art. Cobblet (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We could add those museums. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Van Gogh Museum

Largest collection of works by Vincent van Gogh (already va-3/4); 1.4 million visitors in 2013.

Support

1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We have at least two paintings by Van Gogh on the list Sunflowers and Wheat fields. Maybe swap those two for the Museum? --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But the visual arts topic shouldn't be stripped from all Van Gogh paintings. The Starry Night is also a vital article, by the way. – Editør (talk)

Maybe two museums in Amsterdam is too much anyways. Of the two, Rijksmuseum and Van Gogh Museum, I believe the Rijksmuseum should be the vital article. I hereby withdraw this nomination. – Editør (talk)

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 Philadelphia Museum of Art

Eight American art museums is a lot and some of these are not so notable. The collection of the Art Institute of Chicago is at least as outstanding (I think it's much more so) and it isn't on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support – Editør (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Agree with nom. too many of the same thing, if visitors is anything to go by, only 800k pre year compared to 4.5m for the National Palace Museum, which thread just opened.  Carlwev  11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Fair enough. At some point we have too many American museums. Almost every major city has an art museum, but that does not not mean that every major city's art museum should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'd nominate the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum for removal since we've recently added Fallingwater to represent Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural achievements – the actual collection inside the museum is similarly less than the cream of the cream. It could be argued that FLW does deserve to have two of his buildings on the list: but it's tough to make that case when the Architecture list remains as pithy as it is. That being said, multiple listings of works by authors and musicians are common. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be an okay addition. The question is whether we put this article in the art section or in the architectual section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add National Gallery

The National Gallery is the 4th most visited museum in the world, behind only The Louvre, the British Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. If needed, this could be swapped with the Tate Modern, which was established almost 200 years later, is also in the UK, and had 1.5 million less visitors. We're not exactly lacking in modern art museums, either. Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Psychology

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

General comment on psychology topics

I've been reviewing the vital articles project criteria, the list of 100, the list of 1,000, and the current proposed level 4 list. I've also been looking at WikiProject Psychology's assessment task force page, and have left a notice on the project's main talk page to let other Wikipedians interested in psychology know about this current effort to expand the vital articles list. I'll be digging into authoritative reference books, textbooks, and practitioner's handbooks about psychology to make various article addition or swap suggestions in the next several days. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's always good to have people who are knowledgeable about a subject area! Neljack (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Aphasia and Sleep (or move those articles to appropriate subcategory of Biology and health sciences category)

Now that I've had more time to check reference books, and especially the WikiProject assessment pages of WikiProject Psychology, I'll begin making a lot of recommendations of adding, removing, or moving articles currently proposed under the psychology subcategory of the proposed 10,000 articles list for level 4. The article Aphasia is inherently a topic of human medicine (pathological loss of ability to speak) and is neither a top priority nor high priority article for WikiProject Psychology. Aphasia is listed as a mid-importance article by WikiProject Medicine. Aphasia is not really a topic of the discipline of psychology, and it is far more likely that a medical doctor, rather than a professor of psychology or clinical psychologist, will have adequate reference materials to improve that article. The medicine category currently lists more general medical topics as topics that are just being added at level 4, so maybe Aphasia doesn't belong on the vital articles list at all. Sleep is plainly a topic of huge importance, and it is already a level 2 (list of 100) vital article, categorized under "everyday life." But sleep is also either a medical topic (if considered from the human point of view) or a biology topic (if considered from the all-animals point of view). The current article Sleep is currently primarily focused on human beings (as the article makes clear right at the beginning) and is designated as top-priority article for WikiProject Psychology and a mid-priority article for WikiProject Medicine. (That wasn't my decision, and I might reverse those priorities as to those two projects, given the importance of medically reliable sources for articles on topics like this.) Sleep is also a top-priority article for WikiProject Neuroscience, which makes a lot of sense. My overall suggestion is to remove Aphasia from the 10,000 list entirely and move Sleep to a category that will better match the expert attention it will need to become a good article and then a featured article, one of the subcategories in the Biology and health sciences category main category. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support removing aphasia and moving sleep. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support The field that cares most about aphasia is actually neuroscience; studies on aphasia led to the birth of neurolinguistics as a discipline. (Broca's area and Wernicke's area are classified high-importance to both neuroscience and anatomy.) But neuroscience itself isn't even on our list right now (let's discuss this below), and I suspect that there are much more important articles related to the history of medicine that we're missing (germ theory of disease?), so I'm OK with removing aphasia for now. Cobblet (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support the removal and move - the nom makes a convincing case. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Move pbp 22:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Move sleep. For now I have no opinion on Aphasia. The medical section is much to small. We would have to see this in proportion to a decent size medical section. Also, the list doesn't cover neuroscience well, I've mentioned it before and see it mentioned here. We should have neuroscience and maybe it'll fit there. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Move both. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Should we add cognitive science or neuroscience to the list? Where should they go? Cobblet (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I thought sleep should be in with life and biology at all levels before, if this is successful are we going to move this at all levels? would be logical. Not 100% sure on removing aphasia. it's borderline, in case anyone doesn't know it was only added this January, (see here) but opinions can change and it may go anyway. How about sleep disorder what do we think of that? covers several conditions, effects many people.  Carlwev  19:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Society

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

Add Job

5th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. This particular article is on the Level 2 list as well, so it should probably be added. Malerisch (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Thanks for finding all of the missing articles. Most of them will probably be added but it gives us a chance to reassess these articles at Level 4 and the higher levels. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, stub need improving, overlaps with employment, would employment be better at 100 level? also overlaps kind of with business there kind of.  Carlwev  17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@Carlwev:, I would swap employment in and job out at the higher levels, or at the very least remove job from the 100. From an individual and personal perspective, job is the more important concept. From a broader social and economic viewpoint, employment is the more important concept. As a result, there is far more scholarly literature and sources on "employment" than on "job". The former will always have a better article than the latter.

Actually job only seems to be included at the 100 level because it is a very important part of our lives, not because of its encyclopedic vitality. If you picked up a very small encyclopedia which only contained 100 articles, you wouldn't expect one of the articles to be about "jobs". An article on economics maybe. Maybe another on business or trade at most. And you probably won't find an article on employment considering the breadth of topics that have to be covered and the limited space to discuss them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

Targets

The target for "Biology and health sciences" is 1500 article and as at 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC) we are 14 articles under the target. The current target for "Health, medicine and disease" is 250 and we are at 216 (36 under) at the moment. The de facto target for "Organisms" seems to be 1000 and we at 998 right now so 2 under. This leaves "Other Biology" where the target is 250 but we're currently at 267 and therefore 17 over.

I went through the other biology list and think that it will be very difficult to find 17 articles that aren't vital bearing in mind that some of the less vital articles could be swapped for articles not even included yet. It may also be a challenge to find 36 more vital articles related to health. I propose that the health target number be reduced to 225 (still means we're 11 under), formally state the organism target as 1000 and therefore increase the other biology target to 275. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Organisms could most likely be cut by another 100 articles – look at the fish, birds, butterflies and animal breeds. Many vital medical signs are missing, as I pointed out in an old thread. There are entire fields of medicine like epidemiology/public health or physical therapy not present. We have no medicinal drugs besides penicillin and morphine which I originally put in as an alkaloid under Biochem, but on second thought fits better in the Medicine section. I'm sure a medical professional could think of more things to add. Cobblet (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Tangential to the changes in the target itself, but what do people think about moving the articles listed underWikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Biomes, 27 to the ecology section of the Biology sub-list? There is some in maintaining the status quo; I can see people wanting to find mountain, lake, forest and desert listed close together (but I also wonder whether topics like moutain and lake are more appropriate for the Geography sublist). If biomes were moved, there are a few other articles in other sections of the Physical Sciences that maybe should go with them (e.g. coral reef and oasis seem more relevant as biomes than as landforms). Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Like you said, biomes and other geographical features could be organized in a number of different ways, but I don't mind the current setup. Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it will be helpful to reduce the number of psychology articles (I will be providing suggestions about that over the next few days) and I would support increasing the number of biology articles correspondingly. Right now, I think the psychology target number is too high, and the biology target number is evidently a bit too low. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of organisms

The list of organisms is massive. Surely we can reduce it. I'm not sure that every variety of insect is needed since I doubt many people know them. This list needs a large amount of removal. We currently have 994 organisms, which I think is way too much. I am creating this section to see how many people share my sentiments. If you support it, you support mass removal of organisms from the list. I would also decrease the quota for organisms. How low is the subject of this discussion.;

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Tentative Support see comments below. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Tentative Support After all, no one is advocating that any of the articles be removed from Wikipedia. The issue here is whether there are really almost 1,000 distinct classification categories, organisms, and breeds that are among the 10,000 most vital topics on Wikipedia. That seems rather unlikely to me, even though I have looked up articles about animals and plants during the last year on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. We need room for subjects like health: we have no, and I mean no, human anatomy section and we virtually ignore that pharmaceutical science exists). Compared to other sections, the organism section is way too big. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The number of organisms can drop to 900 but not lower than that IMO. Whatever the agreed outcome is, it shouldn't be rushed like the mass removal of regions from the Geography section. And there shouldn't be any inverted voting rules as there were then. Removals require 5 supports and a two-thirds majority. They don't require 5 supports to be "kept".

As to where to cut, the sections on fishes, birds, some parts of mammals and animal breeds contain the largest bloat. Possibly a few plants as well. The insect section isn't that big when you consider that there are millions of species of them, they represent more than 90% of all animal life and occupy incredibly important ecological niches. The fact that many people don't know much about insects is irrelevant. Vital articles are about what people should know, not actually know. Various lists of WP:Popular pages already exist. It is important to ensure that the most visited pages are well written, adequately references, free of vandalism and the like for reasons other than vitality. Vital articles serve a different purpose and there would no points making it a replica of those other lists.

I'm still not certain that the insect section needs to be so large, regardless that they are 90% of animal life. I honestly think the species section could be cut by a few hundred, but I am not sure exactly how to do it. I also do not want to do a mass deletion without thought, so we will see where this leads us. The actual species to remove could be discussed later. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The health section and other biology sections can have their quotas increased once the removals take place. It will depend on how much is cut but their quotas probably won't need to increase to the extent that organisms is decreased. The remaining space may be allocated to history, art, society or maybe somewhere else. The society section currently has a lot of space for further additions. In the history and art sections, I can see plenty of articles that are far too specific to be vital. Then again in respect of history, moving the "history of" topics has pushed the number up and there are significant holes in its current coverage. We don't need to decide now I guess. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of not very vital stuff presently in the organisms section, but there are vital things missing. In balance, there's probably more unimportant organisms listed as vital than important organisms not listed. The organism section could be reduced, this should be an incremental process, not a hack and slash of the current list. It would be nice if editors more familiar with other groups of organisms got involved in the process here. Plantdrew (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That is true. All I know is that we do not need that many insects on the list. Just because insects are the most common type of animal doesn't mean they are the most vital. In fact, its the opposite. I would want to take insects off the list first, then from other lists. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to invite a few people with all-rounded expertise and knowledge in zoology to the discussion. Insects and other arthropods play many critical and niche roles in the food web. If many other animals were to disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow, it will be sad but life will move on from a anthropocentric view. If any of the insects were to disappear, the consequences would be catastrophic. Ignorance does not mean something is non-vital. Neither are animals that are large in size or aesthetically pleasing automatically vital. In any case, a hasty mass deletion of articles when every section except for chemistry and earth science is under target is pointless. We'll end up having to do 20 swaps to bring back the articles that shouldn't have been removed in the first place just like with regions and geography.

The best approaching in removing articles for all organisms is to remove the overlap. If we have a family or some other higher rank along with for example 5 species in that family, we can remove either the family or some of the species. I would definitely not remove both. And I would be hesitant in removing something that doesn't have overlap.Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's not overinclude at level 4. Per the thoughful discussion by several editors above, it is duplicative to list multiple taxonomic levels for the same organism, so that we have an article for an obscure organism, and then five articles above that for the genus, family, order, etc. that includes that obscure organism. I think it will be easy to achieve trimming the current organisms list by 100 entries if we keep in mind that all the organism articles have infoboxes that show their place in current systems of taxonomy, so that readers can always trace up the hierarchy from an organism article to find a genus, family, etc., and for the most part can also rely on hypertext to trace from any family to any included genus, and from any genus to all the species that have articles on Wikipedia, and so on. So for the 10,000 articles of vital articles project level 4, we can afford to be a little more selective, focusing on articles on "a list of subjects for which Wikipedia should have corresponding high-quality articles," serving "as a centralized watchlist to track the status of Wikipedia's most essential articles." I'll nominate some organism subsection articles for removal after checking biology reference sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of organisms for removal

As before, as we discuss the level 4 list of 10,000 vital articles among the 6,843,363 articles on Wikipedia, we can keep in mind the vital articles project goals of serving "as a centralized watchlist to track the status of Wikipedia's most essential articles." The list of organisms articles currently includes articles on topics down to specific breeds or varieties and up to very broad classification categories, including classification categories that are not generally known (or looked up) by the general public or accepted by scientists. I've thought for a few days about a procedure for trimming the list. If an organism article is a vital article, someone must have occasion to look it up, so I'd expect the term that forms the article title to be in the index of a major biology textbook or in a "college" dictionary of the English language for general use. I'd also expect an article that belongs in the level 4 list of 10,000 vital articles to have article traffic statistics that at least put it in the top 40,000 or so (in round figures) of Wikipedia articles by number of visits. And I'd wonder who will work on updating it, or if there are even reliable sources for improving the article, if the article has been at stub status for a long time. I'm checking the American Heritage Dictionary new college edition 1980, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1988, Biology by Brooker, Widmaier, et al. second edition 2008, and Campbell Biology ninth edition 2011 (other members of my household passionately study biology) and the article page view statistics and identifying articles for removal to trim the list. Of course your comments and suggestions are very welcome as we proceed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Basics

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

Add Invasive species

We currently list many examples of pests and weeds but have none of pest, weed, introduced species or invasive species. I think we should improve our coverage on this significant ecological issue. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support This should go under ecology. Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Symbiosis

Seems important enough at 10'000 level, in biology I think the bugs and fish being removed can make way for articles such as these. We have Parasitism, which I believe vital, symbiosis is a decent article and also an overview covering mutualistic and Commensalism, which are mildly important in themselves and at the moment aren't covered by anything except by Ethology (study of animal behavior). We have Endosymbiotic theory, the theory that mitochondria, chloroplasts, and other organelles came about through symbiosis of separate single cell organisms, as they normally have different DNA to the main organism. If we have this article the overview looks like it makes sense too.  Carlwev  11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Neuroscience

A significant interdisciplinary field of study currently missing. It expands on Brain and Nervous system, both of which are listed at Level 3. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Cell biology

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

Animals

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Animals 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 Pentastomida, Entognatha, Opiliones

These minor biological classification categories don't show up in standard undergraduate biology textbooks that include many other categories, and they don't appear in standard English dictionaries. The page view statistics show that these are not top-10,000 articles for the Wikipedia project by reader interest.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support removing pentastomida and entognatha. Oppose removing Opiliones: they are one of the more abundant arachnids and are not among the most obscure organisms we've currently got on the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support The inclusion of more general categories that they are part of (e.g. arachnids in the case of opiliones) seems sufficient, IMO. Neljack (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Notodontidae, Sternorrhyncha, Tortricidae, Pyralidae, Lymantriidae, Nepidae, Pieridae, Branchiopoda, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Plecoptera, Arctiidae, Noctuidae, Heteroptera, Amphipoda, Caddisfly, Tettigoniidae, Gerridae, Sphingidae, Reduviidae, Antlion

Other editors asked for a review of the many "vital" articles mentioning classification categories of arthropoda, including insects. These minor biological classification categories don't show up in standard undergraduate biology textbooks that include many other categories, so they are apparently not central to the understanding of biology categories deemed necessary by the authors of textbooks for biology majors. The page view statistics show that these are not top-10,000 articles for the Wikipedia project by reader interest. These articles will still be visible among the 6,843,363 articles on Wikipedia as articles wikilinked from other articles, as all are targets of many wikilinks from infoboxes and article text.

Support

1. Support as nom. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC) edited to add: but keep Tettigoniidae--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support If they are not important enough to be mentioned in biology textbooks, I don't see how they are important enough to be included on a list of vital articles in a general encyclopedia. Neljack (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Tettigoniidae, Reduviidae, Caddisfly and Amphipoda, since these are large families/orders (Tettigoniidae species outnumber true crickets seven to one, for example) and they're not that obscure (I don't need a biology textbook to tell me what a katydid is). Support removing all the rest. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Remove Oriole

Among many other things for which we can't be thankful enough, User:Malerisch has updated all our classification tags. Oriole is now a disambiguation page and I don't think either New World oriole or Old World oriole is significant enough to be on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The other disambiguation page I found was Opium Wars under History, so feel free to nominate that as well. Malerisch (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Nematomorpha and Onychophora

Two fairly small (<400 species) and non-notable phyla.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Let me think about this. I've just taken a look at the biology textbooks I have at hand. Sometimes clades of life have important taxonomic relationships with other clades, and I would hate to use species count (which is probably an undercount for any clade with small individual organisms) to overrule the opinion of biologists as to what categories are vital. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

By all means. I'm not a zoologist so my understanding of which taxa are important has obvious limitations. I should be more careful and say that I only think these are organisms I doubt many people have heard of. I'm pretty sure katydids are more generally familiar, for example, and many people are OK with removing them. Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Sea spider

A class containing over 1300 known species, but none of them are particularly notable.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support because the clade is little mentioned in biology textbooks (which I think is the more important rationale than number of species in the clade or notability of individual species in the clade). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Ground beetle, Rove beetle, Weevil

Beetles, which comprise almost 25% of all animal species and 40% of all insect species, are now glaringly underrepresented on the list after we took a hatchet to it some time ago. The three largest families of beetles (>40 000 species) deserve to be on the list (technically that should include Curculionidae (the true weevils), but since that taxon is disputed I've nominated the superfamily of weevils in general).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Is Coleoptera on the list? That should be enough, as is for biology textbooks. The first two terms proposed here are not attested in reference books and not familiar to most people who will ever use Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

To quote what User:Plantdrew once said here, "there are 3 general ways an article on an organism might be vital: evolutionary significance, ecological significance and human significance". Even if you ignore human significance completely, beetles are underrepresented due to their ecological and evolutionary roles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding human significance, weevils are notorious pests (e.g. the boll weevil), and ground beetles can be both pests and beneficial insects. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Britannica a reference work? It's got both ground beetle and rove beetle. If you google either term you will find plenty of websites that use these terms, even educational websites intended for a young audience. Coleoptera redirects to Beetle. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Aulopiformes, Beloniformes and Osteoglossiformes

Three relatively small fish orders (<300 species each). Beloniformes is already represented the flying fish. The most notable species in Aulopiformes is Bombay duck but we already have an example of an Indian food fish in ilish and could consider adding catla if we really needed a second one. The most notable species in Osteoglossiformes are the arapaima, which is on the list; and Asian arowana (but if we need an Asian pet fish the most obvious choice is koi, which I've nominated below).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support This anticipates a suggestion that I was going to make. In general, order-level classification categories (readily identifiable by the -formes word ending) are not vital for the project, unless the category appears in a standard first-year biology textbook for biology majors (as these do not). I'm taking care to check standard reference works for all my recommendations about biology articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Osmeriformes, Add Smelt (fish)

The order is again not very big (~300 species) and I think the most notable family it contains is a better choice for the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Both parts of the swap make sense. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Myliobatiformes, Rajiformes and Eagle ray

I don't think we need these subdivisions of Batoidea (the rays and skates). In particular the eagle rays are already represented by the manta rays.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support It's a rare order that needs an order-level classification category article on the 10,000 vital articles list. The organisms list needs trimming (not least because some significant organisms need to be added to it), and this is a good place to start. I'm following along from my office with biology textbooks at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Freshwater hatchetfish, Add Koi

We removed tetra recently so the bar for inclusion of pet fish species is set pretty high. I don't think hatchetfish make the cut, but koi ought to for their long cultural significance in Asia; they're recorded as far back as the Western Jin dynasty, 1700 years ago.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Sprattus and Thunnus, Add Sprat and Tuna

Swapping the genera for the common names in English; the latter are unsurprisingly much better articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support A helpful suggestion with a sound rationale per WP:COMMONNAME. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support tuna for Sprattus, I think I support Thunnus too, but neutral on Sprat for now.  Carlwev  20:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Chondrostei, Catostomidae, Cobitidae and Hillstream loach

Not particularly significant taxa (<250 species). Chondrostei are represented by bichir and sturgeon; the other three families belong to Cypriniformes which is on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support As usual, I base support on consulting reference books rather than on species count, to be sure to take into account taxonomic or ecological significance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I agree that we shouldn't place too much weight on the number of species and that consulting reference works is a good approach. Neljack (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Seems right, we have to lose some fish and I trust Cobblet's and WeijiBaikeBianji's research.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Carassius, Add Silver carp

The Crucian carp is fairly notable as a farmed fish but the silver carp is more significant in this regard, ranking second in tonnage (behind the grass carp) and third in economic value (behind the Atlantic salmon and grass carp) worldwide in 2012.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Barbus, Common bream, Tench and Burbot

Fish that have some notability as food fishes and are popular among anglers, but the list already includes Esox and catfish (and the wels catfish is also listed separately) and species like brown trout, rainbow trout, grayling, walleye or Micropterus seem like better choices not currently on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

For this kind of suggestion, I think it is helpful to check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages list to see where reader interest lies, as the actual pageviews of thousands of Wikipedia users may give us a better reality check than the personal experience of a dozen or so active editors on this page. Does anyone have any reference books about this particular topic (ichthyology) at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Page views can be helpful, but I try not to rely too much on them as there's so much fluctuation over time. For example, menhaden (an article I seriously considered nominating as a swap somewhere) languished at 284th in popularity among Wikiproject Fishes articles a year ago, spiked to 2nd around the end of last year, and is currently sitting at 11th. Why the sudden intense interest, I have no idea. And then there's the question of just how seriously page views should be taken as an indication of vitality. Blobfish has been consistently ranked in the top 50 for the last four years: do you consider the world's ugliest animal (as determined by online polling) to be vital? Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that these and the other species I alluded to in the nomination are fishes mainly familiar to a Western audience. We're very selective when it comes to including notable food fishes from other parts of the world (Nile perch, pomfret, Pacific saury or either of the major Larimichthys species aren't listed; really the only examples we have are milkfish, ilish and grass carp) and we should be similarly selective when it comes to these. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Bonefishes, Bowfin and Tarpon

Again, these have some notability in sport fishing but we have better examples like marlin and swordfish.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Elopomorpha

Not sure why we need this particular superorder when none of the others under Teleostei are listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Agreed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  12:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I can't quite follow the rationale. Maybe some of the other teleostei should be listed. I had a quick look and the American eel and the European Eel (edible endangered species) might be worth including or swapping for this.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Muraena

The Romans considered it a delicacy, but they also considered Otala lactea a delicacy; that doesn't mean we have to list either one of them.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I don't think it's vital, and not for biting, we don't have articles like Insect bites and stings, snake bite, shark attack, Dog attack etc  Carlwev  12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. With all the species I've never heard of on the vitals list I'd hate to remove a famous fish that is in the news sometimes (for biting people). --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd be open to swap this out in exchange for moray eel. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did consider that possibility, but if we're cutting katydids and daddy long-legs I don't see how moray eels are any more notable. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Gar, Add Coelecanth

Gar and bowfin are examples of fishes with primitive characteristics and are grouped together in the Holostei for that reason. But surely the archetypal example of an ancient but still-extant fish has to be the coelecanth.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Flathead mullet

Mullet is already listed and flathead mullet does not rank that highly in terms of worldwide production (something like pollock/Alaska pollock would be a better choice).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support This is an easy call with Mullet already listed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Yes, mullet is quite sufficient. Neljack (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  20:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support

Oppose

Discussion

That's all for now. All this reading on fish is making me hungry. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

☺ -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Gecko

We are refining the animal and pant list, reptiles like garter snake are in, as are the numerous fairly unknown butterflies, other insects and fish species and families/genus. Reptiles have less than mammals birds fish and insects, geckos are of interest to non specialists and also studied due to their gripping or sticky feet.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support One other notable type of lizard we're missing is iguana. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Mole (animal)

I think moles are significant enough to be included, known, and sometimes hated for great digging ability, good senses despite near blind, and notorious pest to some, we have the family Talpidae but the mole itself may be more appropriate. My only first negative thought was Talpaidae interlinks to more languages but the ones I've checked translate to mole anyway, maybe many other languages don't have separate articles for the two.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support' PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Prefer a swap for Talpidae since that family's other members don't look vital. If English has common names for animals that other languages don't have, we shouldn't switch to an unfamiliar taxonomic rank just to maintain some sort of artificial "consistency" between Wikipedias. It's natural and expected that different languages work differently. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Domestic pig

We have Pig (vital, but largely about the genus) and we have wild boar as a type of pig, so we should also have domestic pig. Domestic pig is long article and links to many languages many that translate to simply "pig". I think we should include this seeing as we have 24 breeds/types of cats, dogs, horse, sheep as well as pork, bacon, ham, sausage and hot dog. With that many breeds, to not include the domestic pig along side the wild kind does not seem smart. Article says that domestic pigs first domesticated perhaps as long ago as 13000 BC in Near East and separately in 8000 BC in China, and that they number today at approximately 1 billion.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Plants

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

Taxus baccata

Had my mind on the European Yew today, can't think of a swap right now, straight add??, seems equal or higher than some other plants we have, what are others opinions, especially Plantdrew's.  Carlwev  05:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not that much knowledge in the field of biology, but I agree that the European Yew should be added. I would support a swap seeing that there are so many different species on the list. I personally would not mind removing some of them to be honest. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not super excited about adding it. Certainly it's equal or higher than some of the other plants already listed, but I'd look towards removing those, not adding yew. I'm not sure I'd consider it one of the 200-250 most vital plants, although it does have some cultural/symbolic importance in Europe, as well as being a source of timber for some specialized applications (e.g. bows), and it is a common ornamental plant in landscaping. In recent times, I think the ornamental use might be the most vital aspect of this species. The ornamental plants on the vital list right now aren't really very well chosen; I haven't been doing much with VA/E the last couple of weeks, but I might start think about swaps for ornamentals (it's kind of hard though; there is hard data on how widely grown various food plants are, but nothing like that for ornamentals). Plantdrew (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Other notable tree species not currently listed include oil palm, willow, nutmeg, olive. I recognize the historical importance of yew, but I think I'd take these first. Cobblet (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd support yew, along with the others that Cobblet mentions. Neljack (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of them you mention willow, nutmeg, olive seem relevant and possibilities with swaps, I was also thinking about Henna.  Carlwev  18:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Olive

Brought up several times now, I may as well open this. Fairly widely eaten and since prehistoric times, much more vital than other food plants like tomatillo.  Carlwev  12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support

Oppose

Discussion

Add Poison Ivy

This plant is one of the most well-known weeds in the world. Hikers always watch out for it and camp counselors have to make sure that campers do not walk into it. Numerous products have been created to kill this weed and heal the rash. The plant even has a comic book character named after it (Poison Ivy (comics)).

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The problem with this is we don't have ivy to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Then lets add ivy too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We are also missing weed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fungi

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

Health and fitness

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

Add Ejaculation

This is a process common to all mammals, including humans. It is a crucial part of sex, and thus should be added to the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)'

Oppose

1. Oppose Too finely divided for level 4 (10,000 articles) and adequately covered as a topic already by other articles on the vital articles list. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above and Carlwev. Semen, orgasm and sperm (if successfully added) cover all that is vital in relation to ejaculation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is subsumed to a certain extent by semen and other articles. I think the most obvious omission in relation to male reproductive physiology is sperm. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mildly important, but I wonder if an encyclopedia would have separate articles on testicles, semen, penis, sexual intercourse, masturbation, orgasm, and ejaculation; we have all other articles I mentioned. My first thought was this is covered by orgasm, but Cobblet, has a point that semen covers it too, this is basically just the emission of semen. I'm not made up at this point though, it's mildly significant, but I'm probably neutral leaning slightly to no.  Carlwev  22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Add ovulation

This is top importance in wikiproject biology. It is the process by which eggs are released from the ovaries and prepare for fertilization during sex.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

It is hard to determine which events and phases of the menstrual cycle are vital and which are not. Ovulation and menstruation are probably more important than menarche, luteal phase and follicular phase. There is also menstrual taboo. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add sperm

This is an obvious omission. We have egg but not sperm. Surely the sperm is of equal importance to the egg.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Medicine

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

Add Human heart

I think the lack of a human anatomy section is an obvious giant gaping hole in this project. The anatomical articles we do list in the biology section are on animal anatomy and I am not convinced that we need such a lot of veterinary information. We do list heart in that section. Human heart I think is at least as vital or even more vital. I would even consider placing it on level 3. Human anatomy articles are typical encyclopedia articles and readers need to have good information on these topics. Currently medicine articles on Wikipedia leave a lot to be desired, revently a study was done on this. VA should identify articles that need to be watched over and improved and I think this article fits that description. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Seems reasonable to have a section devoted specifically to human anatomy and physiology. I can support the addition of any such articles, although in two cases we actually have the human equivalent (human tooth, human GI tract) and it's the animal equivalent (tooth, digestion) that needs to be added. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support There should be a human anatomy section too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Gout

We may have a bias towards topics that concern younger people. In comparison to the meaning medicine has to senior citizens, the medical section is too small. So I'm going to put up some topics for discussion in the coming days from the subject areas disease, pills and anatomy. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gout has been a significant medical issue for a long time - perhaps even more so in the past, when it could not be treated as effectively. Neljack (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Rwessel (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support  Carlwev  18:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Autoimmune disease

9th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Thanks for finding these discrepancies! Neljack (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Thank you. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Gastroenteritis

10th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Antipsychotic

We are currently lacking a human anatomy section and also a pharmaceutical section. This type of medication helps people who have mental disorders, like hearing voices and having halucinations. This is a major technological advance. The first such pills were prescribed in the 1960ies. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support A hugely important class of drugs. Rwessel (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC) -- Comment per my response to Cobblet below, I would also support adding the larger class psychiatric medication instead. Rwessel (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Suggest listing psychiatric medication instead, which also covers antidepressants like Prozac, mood stabilizers like lithium salts, stimulants like caffeine and Ritalin, and benzodiazepines like Valium, among others; all of which are notable types of drugs in their own right, but listing all of these separately is not going to be feasible on such a short list. Among pharmaceutical categories, health drugs only account for the sixth largest share of sales: imagine the mess we'd get ourselves into if we had to list each type of chemotherapy drug or painkiller or antihypertensive drug or antibiotic separately. Adding the general categories and the occasional outstanding example (insulin, Lipitor) would be more than sufficient for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Before we dive down this rabbit-hole, how many articles on types of pharmaceuticals do we want exactly? A representative list is here: we currently list analgesic and antibiotics (and specific examples of each, morphine and penicillin, are also listed). Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We probably should create a section for illegal drugs like LSD, methamphetamine, Cocaine, crack cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

While I would not object to listing psychiatric medication instead of Antipsychotic, I'm not sure your analogy is correct - we're not talking about listing the dozens or hundreds of antipsychotics individually, antipsychotics *are* a fairly large class by themselves. Perhaps not as big as antibiotics. At worst we'd be listing the half dozen major classes of psychiatric medications. Rwessel (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What you say is entirely correct and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But if we consider antipsychotics and each of the other classes of psychiatric drugs to be individually vital there are easily 50-100 pharmacology-related articles that should also make the list (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages, where antipsychotics rank 165th, or Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles which contains 131 articles): that's what I mean by a rabbit hole. Meanwhile, basic chemicals/chemical classes as diverse as heterocyclic compound, aniline, polyethylene, polystyrene, potash, quicklime, acetylene, cyanide, toluene, trinitrotoluene, urea, tartaric acid, steroid, ascorbic acid and adenosine triphosphate are all missing. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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#Basic 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.

Add Imperial and US customary measurement systems

11th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that both Imperial units and United States customary units are already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support This article was originally created as a result of one user's initiative to combine the two topics into one. I'm not terribly enthusiastic with the idea, but it does at least provide a useful historical overview of the evolution of these systems. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. pbp 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I'm not too sure about it at Level 3. The article is too focused on comparing the two measurements with each other. Maybe the more general system of measurement is a better choice higher up (and here of course). Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Astronomy

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

Swap: Remove Declination, Right ascension and Celestial equator, Add Equatorial coordinate system

In the same way hue/brightness/saturation don't need to be listed individually, I think the article on this particular celestial coordinate system should (and does) cover its elements adequately.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Abscissa and Ordinate aren't listed under Cartesian coordinate system either. Malerisch (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Earth science

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

Physics

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Question on recent proposals

User:Malerisch, you're proposing a net add of over 20 articles: Physics is under quota but not by that much. Most of the adds and removals look pretty good to me but I'm not a physics major, so it's hard for me to see whether we're giving each subfield of physics the attention it deserves, or if we're introducing more imbalances into the list. Notable omissions I've noticed in the past include photoluminescence, X-ray crystallography (the most extensively used crystallographic technique), Planck's law (you're nominating black-body radiation) and Network analysis (electrical circuits): I'm curious to hear your opinion on these. How did you come up with your nominations? I do appreciate you taking a stab at this – the physics section has desperately needed an overhaul. Cobblet (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reduced the net add to below 20 now (16, if I counted correctly) with some of your feedback, so hopefully that's better. I don't think luminescence is in the list yet, so that should probably come before photoluminescence. X-ray crystallography is a good add that I would support, although I remember that a previous nomination of it failed. Network analysis is also good, but I think it would fit just as well under Electronics than Physics. I didn't have any real method to my nominations other than just scanning through each section and seeing what was missing or needed to be removed. Thanks for asking! Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned a few times below that I think the topics you're picking might be too esoteric for our purposes. I know there was (and still is) plenty of even more esoteric stuff on the list than what you're suggesting, but I decided to walk through Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Popular pages just to give myself some perspective on what people generally read. I'm glad my suggestion of X-ray crystallography seems to be completely vindicated (#53, compared to crystal at #252). (BTW I think luminescence is too close to light and photoluminescence is more vital than other forms of it – since we already list fluorescence maybe it's better to just add phosphorescence to complete our coverage.)

Anyway, some of the things I noticed we don't have are thermocouple, piezoelectricity, drag (physics), hysteresis, solenoid, and especially oscillation-related concepts like simple harmonic motion, vibration and damping. Some material properties like Young's modulus, thermal conductivity and thermal expansion surprised me by their popularity. Heat transfer is definitely a good add and we should probably add thermal conduction as well since we've listed convection and radiation. Cobblet (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about thermocouple since we already list thermometer. I don't think we have any electronic measuring instruments though, so multimeter would be a good add. Not too sure about piezoelectricity either, but leaning towards support. Drag and hysteresis are good adds. I was considering solenoid, but it seemed too similar to inductor, which is in Electronics. I added harmonic oscillator for both simple harmonic motion and damping, but I don't think vibration is necessary since we already list oscillation. I think elastic modulus is a better choice than Young's modulus since it covers all 3 primary moduli. Agree on the 3 thermal articles. Malerisch (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I still like thermocouple anyway, but OK. I can support multimeter; we do already list oscilloscope. I just noticed we're missing electromagnet, so forget about solenoid for now. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove all experiments?

A previous discussion can be found here (it does get a little sidetracked though). I think the experiments should be removed since they should be covered in the appropriate subject articles (e.g. double-slit experiment and wave–particle duality). Here's the list:

1. Geiger–Marsden experiment (covered in Atomic nucleus)
2. Oil drop experiment (covered in Electric charge)
3. Michelson–Morley experiment (covered in Interferometry in Technology)

Two other notable experiments that aren't listed are the Cavendish experiment and the Stern–Gerlach experiment. If you oppose, should we add these experiments, along with the double-slit experiment? Malerisch (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per my comments below. If we list explorers but not their expeditions, we should list experimentalists but not their experiments. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support a complete and balanced coverage of experiments will make the section too large. The most important of them are covered in the theory and physicist articles as stated by Malerisch and Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I see no reason for a bulk removal. VA is not Wikiproject Outline. Individual experiments can be more important than the coverage in an article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose If anything, we should add a few experiments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Across the sciences, Wikipedia's pretty uneven in choosing which experiments to have specific articles for. There's no dedicated article on Lavoisier's refutation of phlogiston theory or his work on the conservation of mass, or Pasteur's work on vaccination or chirality, or Jean-Henri Fabre's observations of Pine Processionary caterpillars. Mendel's and Pavlov's experiments are covered by the concepts they introduced, while Darwin's work on orchids is covered by his publication of the results. The Miller–Urey experiment gets its own article and so does the voltaic pile. Physics experiments tend to be much better represented than experiments of other disciplines but even here there are gaps – I'd like to see an overview of Faraday's electricity experiments. I tend to agree we should remove the experiments for now, partly for the reason Malerisch gave, partly because the experiments are generally covered in the biographies of the experimentalists, and partly because I don't think we should reinforce Wikipedia's own biases. Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Analytical mechanics, Lagrangian mechanics, and Hamiltonian mechanics

These serve as the complement to Newtonian mechanics. They're definitely required knowledge for physics majors and used quite extensively both in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support based off off of page views. otherwise I do not understand any of this. I did not take physics ever. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are ubiquitous enough in college-level physics that I think they deserve their own spots on this list. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the relative importance of these 3 articles can be compared to thermodynamic potential vs. internal energy and enthalpy: the overview article is less important than the specific topics themselves. If page views can serve as justification, analytical mechanics had 8200 hits in the last 90 days while Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics had 38000 and 39000 hits, respectively. I would be okay with just adding the last two. The overview article also wouldn't cover Lagrangian, Euler–Lagrange equation, and action (physics) in sufficient detail (all important concepts in these articles). Malerisch (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best I stay neutral on the mathematical physics proposals for now. I know everything you've said is true but I'm simply out of my depth when it comes to this and wave equation – will somebody else with formal training in physics offer an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Harmonic oscillator

The scope of this article covers simple harmonic motion as well as the more general damped and driven harmonic oscillators, which are essential to mechanics and electrical circuits (RLC circuit). Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Two-body problem

This is one of those tutorial problems that professors use to teach concepts, but it's not very insightful and definitely not vital. I would compare it to Atwood machine: the standard demonstration for pulley exercises. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Elastic modulus

Important concept in solid mechanics. The article covers the Young's modulus, Shear modulus, and Bulk modulus. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Add Noether's theorem

One of the most fundamental and useful theorems in physics. It can be used to derive all the conservation laws (energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.). Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Noether's contribution on this subject is outstanding but I'm not sure it's a good idea to list this and supersymmetry when symmetry (physics) isn't listed in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Symmetry (physics)

I agree with Cobblet that this is probably the better add. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This might be a good place to mention that symmetry itself isn't a vital article (symmetry in mathematics is the one linked in the mathematics section). Malerisch (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd swap symmetry in mathematics for symmetry (the former even redirects the reader to the latter for a discussion on geometrical symmetry and I think this is the most vital aspect of the topic) and consider adding binary relation to cover the set-theory concept of "symmetric". Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Biot–Savart law, Remove Gauss's law and Ampère's circuital law

We currently list 2 out of the 4 Maxwell's equations, which are the removals that I'm proposing. The other 2 are Gauss's law for magnetism and Faraday's law of induction, which are not listed, but I don't think that they are any less important than the ones we list. I believe that we should remove these two since we already list the overview article. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think I prefer the straight removal: the Biot–Savart law is important but not quite on the same level of Maxwell's equations or Ohm's law or even something not on the list like Kirchhoff's circuit laws: coverage of it in magnetostatics ought to suffice for our purposes. In optics I'd make a superficially analogous distinction between Snell's law (which I also think might be more vital than the Biot–Savart law, though I don't think we need to list it if we're listing refraction) than the Beer–Lambert law for example. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Dipole

Dipoles are an essential concept in physics and chemistry. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Magnets, how do they work? Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support A dipole creates magnets and greatly reflects intermolecular bonds.

Oppose

Discussion

Just a side note, the dipole article isn't well written. It starts off almost like a disambiguation page. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Electric dipole moment

We currently list magnetic moment. This is the electric equivalent. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Remove Magnetic moment and Electron magnetic dipole moment

I believe that the articles on magnetic moment and electron magnetic dipole moment are adequately covered by the dipole nomination above and the spin nomination below. Malerisch (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Magnetomotive force

We don't even list magnetic circuit, so I don't see how magnetomotive force is vital. It doesn't appear in standard physics textbooks either. Transformer, which is already listed, should cover the majority of magnetic circuits. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Plum pudding model

Not particularly vital, and only one in a long series of incorrect hypotheses. The only outdated atom model I'd consider vital is the Bohr model, which is still relevant to today's curriculum. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support No more important than many unlisted historic atomic models. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Let alone other historical scientific/pseudoscientific theories (geocentrism, vitalism/spontaneous generation, phlogiston). Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I took a college chemistry course recently. This model was only briefly mentioned in class and had only one multiple choice question on the atom unit test. It did not appear on the final exam. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Add Laws of thermodynamics, Remove Second law of thermodynamics

There are 4 laws of thermodynamics. Why do we only list the second one? Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Internal energy, Heat transfer, and Heat capacity

These are all important to thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support the last two, which are definitely topics of general interest. But it's hard to support something like internal energy when the equivalent concept in chemical thermodynamics (chemical potential) isn't listed – indeed our coverage of physical chemistry in general is far, far less detailed than what is already listed and what you're now proposing to add for physics topics of roughly equal significance. Where is Le Chatelier's principle or calorimetry? Cobblet (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Ignore the analogy to chemical potential – the better chemical analogues are enthalpy and free energy which are in fact listed. Support all three Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Well, no one said the chemistry section was close being finished. :) Malerisch (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes (I've been ruminating on some swaps for a long time), but it's over quota; if we don't change it or remove a significant number of elements or compounds (currently comprising 70% of the chemistry list), it will be impossible to approach the same level of coverage physics enjoys. Coverage of biology or the social sciences is similarly less than comprehensive. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Swap: Add Thermodynamic potential, Remove Thermodynamic free energy and Enthalpy

More general article; covers internal energy as well. Malerisch (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support addition. Strong oppose removals: if these aren't vital from a physicist's standpoint then move them over to chemistry, because any chemist will regard these as vital, they being the thermodynamic parameters that correspond to the spontaneity of a chemical reaction and the heat of that reaction. Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that thermodynamic free energy and enthalpy are vital to chemistry, but internal energy is just as vital to physics. It would be inconsistent to list the first two and not internal energy. Malerisch (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll support it after all then. (Sorry, it's been a while since I had to think about this stuff.) Do you still want to add thermodynamic potential? Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed anymore then. Malerisch (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Thermodynamic process and Thermodynamic cycle

Again, both are important to thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support thermodynamic cycle only, which should not only cover the concept of a thermodynamic process (in fact even the article on thermodynamics covers this) but concepts of state and path functions as well, which are no less fundamental but not quite important enough IMO to deserve an article on their own. Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Agreed. Malerisch (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Reflection (physics) and Refraction

Key concepts in optics. Yes, refractive index is already listed, but refraction is basic enough that both can be included. The scope of refraction also includes Snell's law. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Refraction is more vital than refractive index in any case. Surprised that these two articles are currently missing. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'd prefer to remove refractive index if we're adding refraction. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That could work. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Dispersion (optics)

Dispersion is another basic concept in optics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It seems to me that refraction and prism might provide sufficient coverage of this concept. Cobblet (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Transparency and translucency

Another basic optics concept. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

If scattering included a more extensive discussion on light scattering I imagine there would be mention of these concepts there. Perhaps that's stretching it, I'm not sure. Or maybe the quantitative concept of transmittance, which also incorporates discussion of the Beer–Lambert law, is a better addition. Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose dispersion does overlap with refraction/refractive index too much. How about these suggestions instead, in addition to transmittance? Ray (optics), Optical resolution, and Huygens–Fresnel principle. Malerisch (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel ray is the kind of thing that should just be covered by optics, and both superposition and the Huygens–Fresnel principle should be covered by wave. I thought about listing optical resolution once but a discussion of resolving power ought to go under Tech if the stuff on lenses is also listed there. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Kerr effect

Not any more vital than other topics in nonlinear optics like the Pockels effect or optical rectification. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Second-harmonic generation might be the most important topic in nonlinear optics but I don't think that's vital; in fact I don't think the article on this entire sub-subfield of physics (how many such articles do we have in other disciplines?) is vital either. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Swap: Add Geometrical optics, Remove Optical physics

Geometrical optics is one of the two main branches of classical optics, along with physical optics, which is already listed. Optical physics doesn't seem to have a strong distinction from optics, and we already list some modern fields of optics (nonlinear optics, photonics, and X-ray optics), which don't need a redundant, unfocused overview topic. Malerisch (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Prefer to remove optical physics altogether. The coverage of geometrical optics in optics looks nearly as extensive as what's written in geometrical optics; and if we're also adding reflection and refraction as individual topics then I don't see a need for an overview article between optics and individual optical concepts. I don't think nonlinear optics or X-ray optics are vital either. Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Cobblet: That's okay with me. Before I create another removal, should physical optics be removed as well? Malerisch (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally think so. Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2014 (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 Nonlinear optics, Optical physics, Photonics, Physical optics, and X-ray optics

Optics is better represented with essential concepts, not fields. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support These subfields are either covered in sufficient detail in optics, or by specific concepts related to that field, or are simply not vital. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Move Luminosity to Astronomy

Why is luminosity categorized in optics? The article is clearly in the scope of astronomy, and I can't even find the word "optics" anywhere on the page. It's also categorized in astrophysics. Luminosity is closely related to Magnitude (astronomy), which is in Astronomy as well, so I don't see a reason why they should be separated. Malerisch (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Add Time dilation and Lorentz transformation

Length contraction and time dilation are always paired together in relativity textbooks. There is no reason to have one and not the other. Lorentz transformations are the more general version of these and are related to four-vectors, another vital concept. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose adding time dilation and would support removing length contraction – I don't think any of the admittedly interesting consequences of special relativity apart from mass–energy equivalence are worth listing individually. Support adding Lorentz transformation. Cobblet (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Swap: Add Lorentz transformation, Remove Length contraction

I think Cobblet has a good point. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Add Equivalence principle, Stress–energy tensor, Einstein field equations, and Metric tensor (general relativity)

These are some of the most fundamental concepts in general relativity and should be included. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the last three I think these topics go so far beyond the realm of everyday experience that they really don't hold any interest to the general public at all. I don't think we'd ever be able to find space on the list for equivalently esoteric concepts in any other field of knowledge besides math. It might even be better to individually list each of Newton's laws of motion or Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics before we start listing concepts in general relativity. Cobblet (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose and would also oppose principle of relativity. There's Theory of relativity on level 3. We can go into more detail on the next level: Special relativity and General relativity are already listed on level 4. I'm afraid everything else is ott here. It's an interesting collection for the top 100,000. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is one of the proposals that I can't really evaluate in terms of balance because I'm not a physics major. General relativity maybe deserves more than one article but I'm not sure it deserves five when we also lack, say, fundamental statistical mechanics topics like Boltzmann's entropy formula, Statistical ensemble (mathematical physics) or Partition function (statistical mechanics). Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, the Einstein field equations look like a good add; the tensors less so (I hesitate to suggest listing even basic physical quantities like concentration when we already have topics like solution to cover them). Cobblet (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't consider these to be any more esoteric than many of the topics we have in Mathematics. Algebraic number field? Atiyah–Singer index theorem? Homology? Module? Sheaf? Hilbert space? Holomorphic function? etc. I doubt most people really care about these either, but we include them to provide a comprehensive overview of mathematics. I think our best option is to have the best coverage of physics as possible, not pick which fields hold the general public's interest more. Malerisch (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

On that note, I would be okay with (and might actually prefer) removing the two tensors from this nomination and adding principle of relativity instead. I'll add that the equivalence principle and the principle of relativity are less esoteric and more fundamental than most of the physics concepts we're adding (there's zero mathematical skill and only basic physics knowledge needed to understand them) and that quantum field theory is much more esoteric than the Einstein field equations. Like Cobblet said, I fear general relativity will be seriously underrepresented if we're not adding anything else. Quantum mechanics isn't that much more important than relativity, but it certainly seems that way based on the number of articles in each category. Malerisch (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the Mathematics topics you're listing as examples should probably go. I've been considering putting up Sheaf for removal, at least. The purpose of the list is not to provide an outline or a comprehensive overview. We are trying to identify which articles are essential for an encyclopedia. This means to some degree listing what people want or need to read but also inlcuding what they should read. Also we have to put it in perspective to other topics. Why should Physics have more articles than Medicine? --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The quotas are definitely not fixed in stone and I think such discussions are worthwhile, even though I doubt they'll lead anywhere quickly. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Equivalence principle and Principle of relativity

These are some of the most fundamental concepts in the theory of relativity. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

OK, I can support adding equivalence principle and principle of relativity. Maybe the latter is even better than the Lorentz transform. You're right: I'd completely forgotten that math is the other big exception when it comes to abstract topics. One essential role for an encyclopedia is precisely to provide a comprehensive overview of knowledge, even in areas that are less popular than Pokemon. Reaching this objective for all fields of knowledge within a limit of 10,000 articles is the big challenge: we come much closer to meeting it in physics and math than anywhere else on the list. Proposals to add social science topics of even slightly specialized focus like morphology (linguistics), family law and public policy haven't achieved consensus. Ditto for geography (Darling River, Luoyang, French Polynesia), and history is over quota so good luck trying there. Coverage of abstract topics in chemistry or biology is also sparse to non-existent. How we expect to fix these issues when we're so attached to subway systems and living/dining rooms (I had to kick and scream to get the airplane makers removed too) is beyond me.

On QM vs. relativity: the dominant role that QM plays in atomic and particle physics accounts for much of the bias – the case could be made that we don't need to list QCD or QED if we already have Standard Model and discussions of the fundamental interactions. It's not like we have no examples of the consequences of general relativity, even if they're a bit tangential (physical cosmology, supermassive black hole), but the consequences of QM have found more practical application at this point in time. Gravitational lensing is cool, but I'm not sure it's found enough use in observational astronomy (we don't even list that) to warrant inclusion; quantum tunnelling (not on the list either) is cool and has been used to build diodes and microscopes, and I'd be much more inclined to include it. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Quantum tunnelling is definitely a good add—I thought that it might have some overlap with the uncertainty principle and wave–particle duality, but it is important enough to have a separate article. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Quantum tunnelling

Quantum tunnelling is a vital concept in quantum mechanics that is responsible for radioactive decay and plays a major role in the development of semiconductor devices. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Not to mention the role in helping us understand the rates of chemical reactions and in the development of the scanning tunneling microscope, which is one of the tools that allows us to see surfaces at the atomic level. Cobblet (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Add Relativistic mechanics, Remove Relativistic quantum chemistry

Relativistic quantum chemistry isn't all that vital and is based on theories from relativistic mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Quantum chemistry is already listed. Cobblet (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Black-body radiation

This is a key concept in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The origins of QM can be traced to our inability to solve this problem with classical mechanics in the 19th century. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Antihydrogen, Antiproton, and Antineutron

These are less important than all the types of quarks that were removed a few months ago. Antimatter, antiparticle, and positron are enough. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Hydrogen-like atom

This concept isn't particularly vital. It doesn't appear in standard textbooks, and the article is classified as low-priority for WikiProject Physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support IIRC (don't really want to, these are dark memories), this is one of the problems you solve in an introductory class on quantum chemistry. Doesn't make it vital though. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I should note that hydrogen atom isn't on the list, so I don't think hydrogen-like atom should be. Malerisch (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Gauge theory

Gauge theories are the theoretical basis for much of modern physics, most notably the Standard Model. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Would listing this obviate the need to separately list gauge boson, particularly when we already list the gauge bosons individually? Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would rather keep gauge boson. We list both fermion and lepton, so it makes sense to list both boson and gauge boson. Malerisch (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Quantum gravity

We list string theory, but we don't list the problem it's trying to solve. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support indeed the coupling of quantum and relativity is vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is one of the main areas of research of quantum mechanics. It was first proposed as a paradox by Einstein and others in 1935 and has been widely discussed ever since. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support entanglement is vital. One of its exciting applications is quantum teleportation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Our coverage of QM is hardly stingy but such a profound consequence of it probably deserves special mention. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  12:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Wave function

Absolutely vital to quantum mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Hyperfine structure

We don't even list fine structure, which is surely at least as vital. A better article would be the Zeeman effect. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Even better IMO would be articles like spectral line or emission spectrum. Cobblet (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Add Energy level, Remove Excited state

More general and detailed article; covers ground state as well. Also covers the fine structure and hyperfine structure. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Even better than my suggestions above. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Excited state is the article people are going to look up when they try to understand quantum mechanics, not energy level. I'd support a straight add however. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose the removal per Melody Lavender. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

As of right now, energy level has had 20,752 page views in the last 60 days compared to 13,118 page views for excited state. The former's tagged by the chemistry, physics and spectroscopy wikiprojects; the latter only by physics. So I don't think what ML's saying is true. Concepts of quantized energy levels and transitions between them are more extensively covered in the former but not the latter: the former article is indeed more general. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw the numbers. They are just raw facts that need interpretation. The reason why the numbers are higher on Excited state is probably that Energy level is of interest to chemistry and other projects as well, as you mentioned. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

And the reason that it's of interest to other wikiprojects besides physics is precisely because it's the more general article... Cobblet (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Quantum number, Remove Principal quantum number

There are 4 quantum numbers (for electrons). Why do we only list one? This is not the best idea. As I stated below, we already include the concept of quantum number, and adding it would be unnecessary overlap. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as nom. (This doesn't happen very often...) I prefer the removal below. Malerisch (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Prefer the straight removal for reasons discussed in the following proposal (quantum numbers are already covered by electron configuration and atomic orbital). Cobblet (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per the overlap with electron configuration. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Principal quantum number and Electron shell

The concept of quantum numbers is wholly covered in atomic orbital and Pauli exclusion principle. Electron shell is redundant with electron configuration. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Electron shells are an obsolete theory based on the Bohr model (which is also listed); they predate and have been replaced by the current quantum-mechanical concept of atomic orbitals. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. We should have the general quantum number article though and a few of the main principles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest removing Pauli exclusion principle as this has to be included in any discussion of quantum numbers. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

How about a swap of the Pauli exclusion principle for quantum state? Malerisch (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that that's the sort of topic that should just be covered by quantum mechanics... I thought you were worried about overrepresenting QM :) Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'm not too sure how best to distribute or allocate coverage of electron configuration – apart from that, we've also got electron shell, atomic orbital, and now we're proposing to add quantum number... the overlap here is probably more than is desirable. I think we can get rid of electron shell (add valence (chemistry) to replace it) and maybe we don't need to list quantum number as both electron configuration and atomic orbital should cover the concept. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing electron shell is a good idea, but I don't think we should remove both Pauli exclusion principle and quantum number. Since quantum numbers are pretty much covered in atomic orbital, could we keep Pauli exclusion principle then? Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

All right. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Feynman diagram

Feynman diagrams are extremely fundamental to particle physics and quantum field theory. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Just too esoteric for a general audience, I'm afraid. Is this really more vital than Venn diagram? Cobblet (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Fair enough. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2014 (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 Spontaneous symmetry breaking

This article may seem important due to the Higgs boson, but there are plenty of other equally important concepts in quantum field theory. The topic doesn't stand out as vital. Malerisch (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Spin (physics)

Spin is one of the most basic concepts in particle physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Electron magnetic dipole moment should be removed as it's just one application of the concept of spin. Cobblet (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Supersymmetry

A vital field of active research in particle physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No question that the rationale is correct but when AFAIK no experimental evidence has been produced in favour of the theory I'm a little leery of including it. How about adding a broader treatment of physics beyond the Standard Model? Cobblet (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Cobblet: I agree that supersymmetry has no experimental evidence, but neither does string theory, which is on the list. I don't think one is more vital than the other, so either they should both stay or both be removed. Malerisch (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

True. If we include either physics beyond the Standard Model or theory of everything I don't think we need to list specific theoretical proposals. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Scattering

This article should cover all the types of scattering (none of which are on the list). Most importantly, this includes Compton scattering, Raman scattering, Rayleigh scattering (why the sky is blue), Rutherford scattering, and Thomson scattering.

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Wavelength

Seems like a fundamental concept that is missing. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Once again a surprising omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Wave equation

The Wave section is definitely incomplete without this article. Don't confuse this with wave function! Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Stimulated emission

Too similar to laser (in Technology) to be included. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Superposition principle

Superposition is a fundamental concept in waves. This article should also cover standing waves and quantum superposition, which are not on the list. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Boiling point and Melting point

We already list boiling and melting. There isn't enough distinction between the two to keep them. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The articles on these phase transitions ought to cover the idea that they occur at specific temperatures and the significance of that. Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The articles on these points also focus on how the boiling points and melting points of substances can be changed by pressure as well as other ways. If anything, these articles are more important than boiling and melting. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I feel common phase transitions are important enough to list separately, but I'm not sure whether phase transition temperatures should also be separately listed... leaning towards no. Critical point (thermodynamics) and triple point could be replaced by phase diagram, could they not? Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To make sure, you're proposing to remove boiling point and melting point instead, right?

A phase diagram certainly contains the locations of the critical point and triple point, but I'm not sure if the article's main purpose is to describe what they actually are. We shouldn't be adding diagrams when we don't list free body diagram, pressure volume diagram, circuit diagram, or Minkowski diagram. (Or Feynman diagram.) Malerisch (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd remove boiling and melting points instead. And that's fine: phase (matter) also covers both concepts in its discussion of phase diagrams (they're usually introduced associated with one another which is why I brought up the swap). I should note that I don't think critical and triple points are vital enough to list on their own. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Chemistry 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.

Computing and Information Technology

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

We currently only have a single programming language on the list (C). Over the course of the last year several people have suggested to add more. Vital Article Lists on foreign language Wikipedias usually include ten or twelve, including the list on Meta which should provide a guideline for all Wikipedias. Programming languages are here to stay. They will be as important a revolution as the steam engine was. In my estimate, progamming languages will be taught on an increasing scale and I think they have the potential of becoming equally as important as mathematics. So I'm going to suggest the two most widely used object oriented languages: --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can support adding more programming languages but in general the computing section is the most bloated of all of the sections in technology. Wikipedia's bias towards computer geeks/IT savvy people is probably its strongest bias of all since people who are not comfortable with computers never make an edit here. There are eight operating systems listed, many of which overlap with the IT companies listed. There are also anomalies like blog, computer monitor, mouse (computing)/computer keyboard and floppy disk being listed while article (publishing), television set, remote control and VCR are not. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Meta list is awful. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look of the Meda lists Cobblet and I agree with you. I suspect they are copies of an older English Wikipedia version. Despite being a list meant for everyone in the world it is more unbalanced than the current en-wiki version in most areas. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Java (programming language)

If you use an Android device your favorite app is written in Java! Java is one of the most widely used programming languages, it's rated top or high importance by the relevant projects on its talk page, and just like Wikipedia, Java is Open Source.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. The Java language is pervasive in industry. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Shouldn't JavaScript also be nominated? Much of the web is built on it. Malerisch (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support very commonly used programming language. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We list object-oriented programming; I'm not sure it's necessary to have that many specific languages. And are you sure that Java and C++ are going to leave legacies exceeding older languages like Fortran or COBOL, which also aren't listed? Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Object-oriented programming is a huge developmental step in programming and it makes maintenance easier. The software written in these languages is here to stay for at least a few decades and will need constant maintenance, in these languages. We should have Fortran and COBOL also, as well as JavaScript and PHP. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add C++

Today's other major programming language. Mostly used for object oriented programming it can in may ways be compared to Java but is less strict than Java. It has the potential of staying a major influence and leaving a historic mark.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Where is C on the list? Among computer languages, C++ lives as a dialect of C, and I'm curious about what treatment we have of C and other computer languages so far on the vital articles lists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

C is currently listed here. Malerisch (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

C++ is much more than a dialect of C. C++ is a new language with classes and lots of libraries. It is based on C, which has only 32 or so keywords. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What Melody says is true: C++ is a very different beast compared to C. But I'd point out that there are technology topics of a lot more fundamental significance than programming languages that we're missing (adze, bag, airfoil, basket weaving, digital photography, four-stroke engine, composite material, medical radiography, prosthesis, center pivot irrigation). Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree on most of these, except for basket weaving - we have weaving. Four-stroke engine strikes me as the most powerful proposal among these topics. They aren't a replacement though for programming languages. We shouldn't just diversify the list historically. There are recent develpments that are going to be of lasting importance, and it's up to us now to judge which ones those will be, in order to put them on the vitals list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't really up to us to judge when we're not academic historians specializing in recent technological developments; either it has to be self-evident to everyone or we need some evidence that "going to be of lasting importance" is not just a personal opinion. If you also consider Fortran and COBOL vital then how many programming languages do you want to add? Others have pointed out that IT isn't poorly represented on the list and one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it remains a recent blip in the history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Add JavaScript

As Malerisch said further up, much of the Web is built on it. JavaScript was essential for the advent of web 2.0. Thanks to Ajax it's still around and growing in poularity. So this should be discussed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support From the article on jQuery, it's used by over 80% of the 10,000 most visited websites. Malerisch (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The technology section may or may not be bloated, but these programming languages are certainly more important than, say, provable security, forward error correction, or abstract machine. Malerisch (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Floppy disk

Floppy disks were popularly used during the 1980's and 1990's so for about 20 years. There are many storage and recording media that were as popular for a similar length of time and are not listed, including VCR/Videotape, Compact cassette, USB Flash Drive, DVD, Gramophone record and Phonograph cylinder. There is nothing distinguishing about floppy disks that warrants their inclusion. The main data storage device article is sufficient.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Rwessel (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Electronics

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

Add Semiconductor device

13th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Semiconductor is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think the better choice for this level is the more general electronic component. On level 3, we already list integrated circuit and transistor, so I don't think we need the overview article. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Engineering

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Engineering, 18 for the list of topics in this category.

From the list Wonders of the World#American Society of Civil Engineers, the following four articles have already been listed among the vital articles: Channel Tunnel (in Technology/Infrastructure), Empire State Building (in Arts), Golden Gate Bridge (in Technology/Infrastructure), and Panama Canal (in Geography). The articles CN Tower, Itaipu Dam, Delta Works, and Zuiderzee Works are not included, and should possibly be added. I would like to nominate the last two articles. – Editør (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works

These two so-called civil engineering 'wonders' in the Netherlands protects many people from flooding (North Sea flood of 1953) and created one of largest artificial islands in the world (Flevopolder). They do not quite fit into the list yet, but this seemed to be the best category to nominate them in. – Editør (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Please tell me more Perhaps one article but not both, but first I have to wrap my mind around what other articles about major civil engineering projects are coming on to the vital articles list. Something about what has kept the Netherlands from being overwhelmed by the sea would indeed be a good article for the 10,000 vital articles list at level 4, as many coastal countries will want to know about preventing encroachment by the oceans. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a similar project in Lagos, Nigeria: Eko Atlantic City. If we include Delta Works, we'll have to consider that, too. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a comparison I can take seriously. Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This topic just came up very recently. I still think adding Flood control in the Netherlands is the best way to cover the Dutch struggle to tame the North Sea. The title does opens it to accusations of geographic bias, but on the off-chance the Aswan Dam gets renamed Flood control, hydroelectricity and water management in Egypt, would we have to remove it from the list because of Egyptian bias? Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us about this recent nomination. I also support the suggestion of Flood control in the Netherlands, since that article includes a summary of both Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works and gives it some extra context. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention of the other article, which I will support (as does the original nominator) as an article about a historically very significant civil engineering project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Flood control in the Netherlands

Alternative to Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works. – Editør (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support two birds with one stone works well here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Not sure if the general Flood control article is vital but I would say that the even more general emergency management (disaster management) article is vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Flood control

An article specific to the Dutch flood control will give the list more Western bias. Flooding is a problem in many areas of the world, for example in the up-coming economy Nigeria (is predicted to become one of the biggest economies in the world within 20 or so years). Its capital Lagos has that problem, too. The proposed article lacks a good coverage of the Dutch project as of yet, but it should of course be expanded to cover it.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

At Level 3, for some reason drought is not listed when flood, tornado and tropical cyclone, earthquake and volcano are. A lack of water is just as dangerous and deadly as too much water. Desertification could fit in on the expanded list if drought goes up one level. Drought relief itself currently redirects to a section in drought. There should be enough reliable sources and coverage to full a complete article on the topic. Ideally it would also be added as the drought equivalent to this article. There are also options like hurricane preparedness (currently earthquake preparedness redirects to emergency management). Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First, our coverage of natural disasters isn't comprehensive: landslide, heat wave, ice storm and wildfire are missing. Second, at least we list levee and dam as aspects of flood control; where are wildfire suppression/prescribed burning, prediction of volcanic activity, earthquake prediction/earthquake engineering, landslide mitigation, etc.? I think flood ought to cover aspects of flood control in general; we could add more specific concepts on this topic like floodgate and seawall if we really need to. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Artificial island

An article specific to the Dutch flood control will give the list more Western bias. Flooding is a problem in many areas of the world, for example in the up-coming economy Nigeria (is predicted to become one of the biggest economies in the world within 20 or so years). Its capital Lagos has that problem, too. The proposed article lacks a good coverage of the Dutch project as of yet, but it should of course be expanded to cover it.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Already listed here Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Earth.2C_160 under geomorphology perhaps not the best place. I'd be open to discussion on moving it and similar articles nearby.  Carlwev  12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Emergency management

The overarching article for dealing with the management, mitigation and relief for all types of disasters.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This article or crisis management would belong under government or management as it is one type of policy and decision-making; but when neither public policy nor broad and highly notable subdivisions or concepts within it like international relations or social contract aren't listed (although agricultural policy is surprisingly present) I don't think we're in a position to consider adding something like this. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Industry

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

Add Solar energy

12th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Solar power is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support We include both hydropower and hydroelectricity; this and solar power are the solar analogues. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Which is more important: the "energy" or the "power" articles? On Level 3, Hydropower, Nuclear power, and Wind power are listed, yet they are joined by Solar energy, not Solar power. (There is no article on Wind energy, nuclear energy or renewable power.) Malerisch (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The naming conventions aren't consistent from article to article, but basically there are articles about harnessing natural phenomena to do mechanical work (hydropower, solar energy); there are articles specifically about electricity generation (hydroelectricity, solar power); and then there are articles that start off like they want to be the former but end up being the latter (wind power). Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Infrastructure

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

Remove Bedroom, Living room and Dining room

I see merit in listing rooms that require specialized plumbing, furnishings and appliances, like kitchens and bathrooms. But rooms that are purely defined by the kind of furniture they contain (a bed vs. a couch vs. a dining table) aren't vital; it's the furniture items themselves that are. Otherwise what's to stop us from listing all the rooms on a Cluedo board?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plenty of houses, particularly in poorer places, don't even have separate living and dining rooms. Neljack (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Cobblet and Neljack. Both bed and room are listed making bedroom redundant. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. pbp 14:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would prefer to keep these  Carlwev  18:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Basement, Add Foundation (engineering)

The latter is necessary for all buildings and is obviously of more, ahem, foundational importance.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support "all buildings"? Post in ground buildings don't really have foundations, but they don't have basements either. Foundations come before basementsPlantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support basements are less common and less essential than the other rooms mentioned above. Not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the removal of Basement. I'm fine with a straight addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

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.

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.

General transport related ideas

Whilst looking at the transport and tech lists several more articles came to mind, mostly vessels and techs that I think many of them are more significant than some topics already present. Steam locomotive, Electric locomotive, Electric car, diesel engine, diesel fuel, Rudder, Propeller, wing, Cruise ship, Catamaran, Toll road, Interchange (road). All of these ideas came to me, I haven't thought about all of them in depth, I wanted to post them in case I forgot them and to ask if others like them, some I really like the idea of and think they are very good candidates, like the steam and electric locomotive, and others not as much, but I listed them anyway, perhaps not toll road or rudder for example.

I was thinking, if we have sail, wheel, and tire should we have wing, propeller and rudder? Are trains by power more relevant than several underground train networks? are car shapes, and car or aircraft manufacturers more deserving than most of these?...I also think we don't have much to represent rowing, which I think is fairly significant, we have canoe (not the only type of rowing boat) and in sport we have rowing (sport) (significant but only about the "sport" not war, travel, historic, merchant), Rowing and oar are kind of weak, and some, but not myself hate having a sport-transport duplication, like sailing plus sailing (sport), and human swimming plus swimming (sport). I may drop these in gradually in time. Do people like or dislike any of these in particular, or have any other thoughts?  Carlwev  10:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of your suggestions I like diesel engine and cruise ship – I think these might be the topics with the least overlap with the rest of the list. I would suggest not wing (rather close in scope to flight in that it has to cover both human technology and animal anatomy) but airfoil in technology, along with things like bird flight and insect wing in zoology (but that's a separate discussion in itself). Things like propellers and rudders are arguably of secondary importance – to make a parallel with aviation, would you consider flight control surfaces worth adding?

I don't know how many types of watercraft we should have. On the one hand, I feel catamaran and kayak might be worthwhile additions. On the other hand, when it comes to land transport I feel that we don't need any of the subtypes listed under automobile and truck. In any case, we list galley as an example of a rowing ship, so I'm not sure we also need an overall article on rowing. Of human activities that aren't currently double-listed as sports I'd prioritize adding cycle sport and shooting sport. Cobblet (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Add First Transcontinental Railroad

Nominated per the discussion above. I definitely agree that the First Transcontinental Railroad is vital to American history, although I still believe that a modern highway system deserves to be on the list as well. Malerisch (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Malerisch (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support That railroad was a transportation network of worldwide significance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Critical historically to American history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Coverage of the construction and impact of this railroad is pretty extensive in American frontier which is listed in the History section. Compare Oregon Trail, Manifest destiny, California gold rush or Louisiana Purchase, topics just as important in America's westward expansion which are also not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Tokyo subway, Moscow Metro, New York City Subway, Paris Métro

We don't need to list five rapid transit networks when no road network and only one railway is listed. Surely high-speed rail projects like the TGV and Shinkansen are more notable than the Paris and Tokyo subways; and surely the First Transcontinental Railroad matters more to the history and economy of the US than the New York subway. The Moscow Metro has some architectural significance but St. Basil's Cathedral is much more important and that's not on the list either. I think the London Underground is the only subway system that might be worth keeping since it was the first example of one.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support removing Tokyo, Moscow and Paris. Weak support for New York. Rapid transit/Metro is clearly vital. Whether 5 examples of rapid transit are vital is another matter. As mentioned, we don't list any airports or seaports. Agree with Cobblet, Rsm and Malerisch's comments. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - While it may not seem significant, each subway has played very important parts in the development of their respective cities. They are also very important to many people, who use these systems daily—these four systems have the highest ridership of all metro systems in the world; by contrast, something like Cleveland's RTA isn't vital, as it isn't well-known like the four metro systems described above. (Mostly the NYC Subway, and less so for the other subway systems, but still, TGV and Shinkansen could be added, as well, without removing the metro systems.) Epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose pbp 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose bulk removal, I might be inclined to support individual removals or swaps though. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose all the removals. The New York City Subway is the most used in the Americas and it pretty old. The other three are also important because they are in major cities and are highly used. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest we stick to the practice of having articles on the list about things that are important to the Average Joe (is he on the list?). Subways, like highways, are infrastructures most of us use every day (or would like to use every day). The argument that much of the world doesn't have subways, or highways, is not valid in my opinion because they will have them, some of them will have them in the very near future. The subways proposed for removal here, just like the US highway system that has just been proposed, are going to be the examples (good or bad) that countries like Nigeria are going to model their infrastructure on. I don't think architectural sigificance is so important. (Paris Métro, I believe, is architecturally significant, by the way.) --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree on that point; they should not be removed just because they are infrastructure. Epicgenius (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to nominate every highway and railway network of every large developed or newly industrializing country, since I'm sure many people also use those on a daily basis. Ports and airports too, for that matter. What's vital to one city or country is not necessarily vital to the rest of the world. Cobblet (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Tokyo subway may not be the best choice to represent Japan as it does not include Tokyo's most famous line the Yamanote Line, which serves several of the world's busiest stations and is used by 3.68 million passengers per day. Perhaps the world's busiest station, Shinjuku Station, used by 3.64 million passengers a day, might also be an option. Japan certainly should be represented, but not sure the best way to do so. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Technology-wise, we've got three Japanese car makers and the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge. General culture-wise, Mount Fuji isn't on the list. Are we defending these subways because we like subways, or because we think they're the most important aspect of a city or country's culture? Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment: Epicgenius, your comment on riderships isn't entirely true. According to this, the Beijing Subway, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway, and the Shanghai Metro are the rapid transit systems with the highest riderships. The Guangzhou Metro also beats the New York City Subway, and the Mexico City Metro and the MTR beat the Paris Métro. The London Underground is actually the rapid transit system with the lowest ridership out of all these, although Cobblet is choosing to keep it based on other reasons. Malerisch (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Cobblet makes a good argument, so have voted in support. Still, if this proposal is not successful, Tokyo subway remains perhaps not the best choice to represent Japanese rail. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I voted against the bulk removal now, but I would support partial removal (maybe Tokio or London) or swaps for Beijing Subway. Yamanote Line might be worth discussing, but it might open the road for adding a train line per country or something. Include Airports and Train Stations? Not sure. The actual transportation lines seem more important to me. Car makers and companies in general should all go, unless they're historic, I still hold that opinion. I wonder how they got on the list initially. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Add High-speed rail

Nowadays a distinct and important mode of passenger transportation in many parts of the world. I think it represents a major technological advance in the history of transportation.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support good find. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --ELEKHH^T 13:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support This was already on my mind, as are steam, diesel and electric locomotives.  Carlwev  20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Mathematics

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

Basics

Add nth root

14th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Square root is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Thank you to Malerisch for the clear statement of rationale. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Square root

Covered by nth root which is on the list. So I'm putting this up for discussion. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose At this level I think both are vital: square roots are the most ubiquitous of the fractional exponents. They've played a notable role in mathematical history, being what led ancient mathematicians to realize that irrational numbers exist, or what led to the development of complex numbers, to name some simple examples off the top of my head. Perhaps this sticks out rather oddly because we don't list square number. I think from the perspective of number theory, both might be vital topics in their own right. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't think this is the best idea, considering that square roots are quite common in mathematics. I don't think anyone would propose removing Square when Polygon is on the list, or Normal distribution/Probability distribution, Euclidean vector/Vector space, etc. Malerisch (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet and Malerisch. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Nth root is algrebraic. square root is arithmetic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Inverse function

We have function on level 3. Level 4 should have more details on this important concept in Mathematics. It also plays an important role in Computer science, most notably some think it's relevant for the solution of the P/NP problem, one of the Millenium problems. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support not entirely convinced of it's lv3 status, but lv4 it seems to fit in.  Carlwev  12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I remember looking at the mathematics section some time ago and noticed that nearly all of the articles listed had a "Top-Priority" or importance tag from WikiProject Mathematics with the exception of a few articles that were also listed at Level 3. I suspect that during the formative stages of the expanded list, somebody decided to add a bunch of mathematics articles based on its talk page tag, which means that the people who rated these articles have left their mark on the list. It is not a bad approach to use initially and fill up the section. However, it obviously needs refinement as sometimes "Top-priority" articles may not actually be vital according to consensus while "High" or even "Mid" might be vital. This is for every topic of course. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely and have been thinking the same thing on many occasions. The priority given to an article by a project is just one factor among many. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Irrational number

This was added with no discussion and reverted. I'll open it here to give it a chance, to be fair to the user that tried to add it, and because it seems fairly significant maths topic, many have suggested maths should have a few more topics than it does. Is also listed as high importance maths project article, the 168th most viewed maths topic article, and appears in about 78 languages as well as being a pretty decent article. We list at least one irrational number, Pi.  Carlwev  11:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk)

Oppose

Discussion

If irrational numbers gets included, transcendental numbers should really be added as well. Alternatively rational numbers should be removed, as all three topics are subsets of the (also included) real numbers. As while Pi *is* irrational, it's more importantly transcendental. Rwessel (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Parity (mathematics)

Fairly well-known concept. Malerisch (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Well known, but pretty minor. Rwessel (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Algebra

Add Dot product and Cross product

Dot products and cross products are the two basic methods of multiplying vectors. They are used extensively in mathematics, physics, and engineering. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Critical to vector calculus. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Calculus and analysis

Add Laplace transform

The Laplace transform and the Fourier transform (which is already on the list) are the two most widely used integral transforms with many applications. Malerisch (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I know very little about this area of mathematics but would the generic transform article Transformation (function) be vital? Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Vector operator Del

The gradient, divergence, and curl are the primary operators of vector calculus. Aside from mathematics, they are commonly used in physics (e.g. Maxwell's equations or the Navier–Stokes equations). These are represented by the del operator. The article also includes in its scope the Laplace operator, another key operator in mathematics and physics with many applications. Malerisch (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I never learned any vector calculus so this is just an innocent question: what if we list del instead? Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right; I think that's the better choice. Malerisch (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Geometry

Add Shape

The last of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Pretty fundamental. Neljack (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

General discussions

Resources for editors

As I've followed various WikiProjects, I've noticed that an editor is running a tool to show article pageviews by project, with results summarized in Popular pages reports for most WikiProjects. For example, you can see the popular pages report for WikiProject India at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Popular pages and in general you can go to most WikiProject main pages and just append the subpage link "/Popular_pages" to the main page URL to see the popular pages report (there are some exceptions, that is projects for which there is no Popular pages summary). The popular pages are shown in strict rank order of pageviews from all sources, including redirects, and thus show a different count of pageviews from that shown by the link to the grok.se tool from the article's history page.

Of course pageviews are far from the only consideration when deciding what to list as a vital article on Wikipedia, but to do our work on trimming the vital article list in disregard of actual pageview behavior by Wikipedia readers seems to miss out on a valuable source of guidance on what to prioritize. Cobblet has already brought up some interesting ideas about reader interest in articles about fish by noting those statistics. Insofar as the vital articles list serves as a checklist of articles to bring up to featured article status, I think considering pageviews (among several other rationales for regarding an article as vital, including treatment by standard reference books and textbooks) will be a good reality check and stimulus to discussion as we continue work on this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pageviews definitely provide a different perspective when evaluating if an article is vital. A previous discussion on this here seems to show that the community is divided on how much impact hit count should have, though. Malerisch (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You have lurked in here for a long time, haven't you... Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Organizational matters

Renaming Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People?

User:Dougweller on the Level 3 talk page (see here) has suggested a renaming of Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Updating article assessments on the list

There are countless articles that do not have up to date assessment classes. I have been working on doing some of them, but I cannot do 10,000 articles by myself. If some people could help me update the article assessment classes, that would be great. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Assessment classes updated for mathematics articles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for replying so late but thanks for updating the assessment classes PointsofNoReturn. The behind-the-scenes work that you, Malerisch and Cobblet do (as well as everyone else) is much appreciated. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

When can suggestions be proposed again?

If there was a proposal which previously failed, is there a standard amount of time before it can be proposed again? On the one hand, we shouldn't allow repeatedly proposing ideas until they happen to succeed, but sometimes there can be valid reasons to reconsider. What do you think? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The exact same proposal? At least six months. Since there's been a general consensus against adding recent figures, it's unlikely that a person will be added based on recent events (with the possible exception of dying). Proposals that are slightly different (such as "Add A, remove B" when "Add A, remove C" failed) can be done sooner. pbp 18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no such rule. In principle you can propose it again right away, but probably most people will be annoyed if you do that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If consensus has shifted on a proposal, I don't see why we should have to wait six months to bring it up again. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more subjective than a specific time period. Depends if opinion has changed. Definitely it should not be re-added a day after it failed. Maybe a week minimum, but it should mostly rely on if opinion changes. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a hard and fast rule and should be a matter of common sense. Obviously the shorter the time between identical proposals, the less likely it is that consensus has changed unless the proposer and other supporters mount a stronger argument. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. For instance, if a proposal received little attention for some reason, it might be appropriate to raise it again relatively quickly. Neljack (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Search bar tool?

Although I have learned a bit, I am not completely fluent in Wikilanguage, and all the little templates and stuff that can be used. We have a search box that can search the archives of this talk page, I've seen similar search boxes here and there. Is it possible to create and have a search bar tool that searches only through the subpages of this project, similar to an archive page search bar. One that would search through the 11 sections the vital 10,000 is split into, And/or through all levels of the project, (search the vital 10, 100, 1000, and all 10,000 pages) to see if and where a topic and similarly worded topics are listed without having to search manually through several pages. I think this would be great idea, do other people think it would be good to have this too? and is it possible? i

My extended thoughts....There seems to be an occasional but recurring issue, I'm sure most of you here re aware of, when proposing adds, or when just looking, with some articles, it's not immediately apparent are or should be, users have to manually search several pages to see if a topic is here or not, and we have often not found a topic that's present and nominated it. edible plants where split between food and plants (this is mostly fixed), mental conditions could be and are split between medicine and psychology, drugs are in several places, there are blurred lines between sports and performing arts, arts and technology for kinds of craft, history of articles may have spread out, and many many more issues. Many times has someone including me, proposed to add something, already present in a section we didn't think of looking in, many times we have found a topic listed in multiple locations because it kind of fits in more than one section, and we have also found articles which were present in a certain level but not the lower levels, which we in general treat as wrong, If we could have a search bar that searched only this projects several separate pages it would help us see if a topic is present or not and help identify any multiple or out of place entries if they're still any.  Carlwev  09:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Google usually gets the job done: enter "site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded" followed by your search terms. Cobblet (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Another way to do it is use the "What links here" function on the page you want to add, then set it to Wikipedia-space only pbp 15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2014 (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.

Duplicate entries

The articles listed below are duplicated in the Expanded list:

1. Colonialism in History and Society and social sciences
2. Artillery in Society and social sciences and Technology
3. Pāli Canon in Arts and Philosophy and religion
4. Great Plains in Geography (2x)
5. Publishing in Society and social sciences and Technology
6. Conscience in Philosophy and religion (2x)
7. Gamma ray in Physical sciences (2x)
8. Prussia in History (2x)

Does anyone want to make the calls on which entry to delete? Malerisch (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Where things were listed on two different pages I followed the classification on Level 3. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)