Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rsm77 (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 16 August 2014 (→‎Remove Kingsley Amis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

People

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

Entertainers

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

Visual 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.

Swap: Remove Charles Oman and Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Add John Donne and Ben Jonson

Swapping two obscure British historians (I think articles with <1000 views/month can rightfully be called that; if one historian from the same time period is vital it's Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay) for two giants of English literature.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support  Carlwev  08:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I agree that neither Gardiner nor Oman are vital - I doubt they would be feature on many lists of the most important historians. Donne is an omission I had noted with a view to rectifying, and Jonson was highly influential. Neljack (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

This will make nonfiction even more underrepresented relative to fiction. pbp 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the fact that Oman and Gardiner are terrible choices. You're welcome to nominate more significant writers of nonfiction – I've already provided you with one possibility in this nomination. But to nominate Macaulay before Donne and Jonson would be almost as absurd. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Johnson is arguably more important than the two nominated (though of course he had his literary side). Other notable British non-fiction writers I'd say are at least more significant than these historians are Thomas Carlyle, William Hazlitt, and John Ruskin.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Erich Maria Remarque

Most famous for All Quiet on the Western Front, but he had other bestsellers as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not convinced he's as important as some other German writers we don't have, such as Gunter Grass and Heinrich Boll. They have good cases for inclusion, but I'm not sure Remarque is really vital. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I agree with Neljack. Remarque is not quite up there in my opinion. If adding a German writer, I would suggest Grass has the strongest case. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Samuel Johnson

Notable for his criticism, his dictionary, his literary efforts, and being an all-round clever chap. One example of his lasting importance is that the UK's top non-fiction prize is named the Samuel Johnson Prize.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support although it should be pointed out A Dictionary of the English Language is also on the list. When an author is primarily known for one work, when is this overlap appropriate? That might not apply as much to Johnson; but I've long thought Rabelais or Gargantua and Pantagruel ought to be vital but didn't know whether to nominate both or how to choose between them. Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

There is so much more to Samuel Johnson than his dictionary. His Shakespeare criticism was highly influential and he made significant contributions as an essayist. His non-fiction is probably what he's most remembered for, but Rasselas is an important piece of 18th century fiction and The Vanity of Human Wishes an important poem. Having said all that, on the question of an author primarily known for one work (unlike Johnson IMO), I think there's no hard and fast answer. If they're significant enough we can have both author and work(s) like with Homer and the Iliad/Odyssey. If a little less so, maybe not, which is why I think it's reasonable to have Wuthering Heights but not Emily Brontë. If Gargantua and Pantagruel refers to all five books, I don't know what else Rabelais wrote, so better to go with the work I would imagine (if just going for one of the two, which is probably appropriate in this case).--Rsm77 (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Kingsley Amis

Don't think he is quite notable enough for the list. Remembered chiefly for Lucky Jim and The Old Devils, neither of which is all that central to the canon.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support We seem to be rather heavy on English-language writers from the 20th century. The Movement is already represented by Philip Larkin; and I don't know if the angry young men are significant enough a movement to require a specific representative. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Intended as a swap for Samuel Johnson, who is clearly more important. Whether Amis is the least notable person (or British/Irish writer) currently on the list may be a bit more open to question. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Enid Blyton? Do we really need a second British children's writer in addition to Roald Dahl, especially when a non-English children's writer of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's stature isn't listed? (Although The Little Prince is on the list – another example of the author vs. magnum opus dilemma I alluded to in the previous thread.) Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Blyton is all that significant, though certainly well-known in Britain. I wouldn't describe Saint-Exupéry as simply a children's writer - as far as I know most of his books were for adults. But I don't think he really needs a place in the list, as most of those books are not so famous (certainly in the English-speaking world). --Rsm77 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists

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

Musicians and composers

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

Add 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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support One of the greatest blues singers. Neljack (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Swap: Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy and Daniel Barenboim, Add Arturo Toscanini and Herbert von Karajan

Ashkenazy and Barenboim are very good modern conductors and pianists, but they're nowhere close to the all-time greats in either category. Since they're listed under conductors, I suggest replacing them with two that are truly of legendary stature.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Karajan and Toscanini are two of the most influential classical musicians ever. Ashkenazy and Barenboim, while great musicians, can't compare to them. I recall that in the last few years BBC Music Magazine has conducted surveys of prominent conductors and pianists (100 each, I think) to find out who they regard as the all-time greats in their fields. Ashkenazy and Baremboim both failed make the top 20 list for either conductors or pianists. Karajan and Toscanini were both high up on the conductors list. I don't usually pay much attention to such lists in classical music, but I think the opinions of their peers is entitled to some weight. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom and Neljack. Malerisch (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support agreee with Cobblet and Neljack. Toscanini and Karajan are far more acclaimed conductors than Ashkenazy and Barenboim. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Lorenz Hart

We have plenty of Broadway lyricists and Hart is markedly less notable than the others we list. It's hard to justify including him when more important American figures in jazz (Count Basie, Nat King Cole or Ella Fitzgerald) or drama (Eugene O'Neill) during the same time period aren't listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom.  Carlwev  14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Directors, producers and screenwriters

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

Add 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)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I think it's reasonable to list one biography related to nature documentaries, especially someone who has accomplished so much in the field. Gizza (t)(c) 02:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Businesspeople

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

Swap: Remove Karl Albrecht, Add Jakob Fugger

Reclusive supermarket magnate vs. one of the richest men in history and financier of the Habsburgs at the height of their power.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support An excellent proposal! Neljack (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I think the richest 20 people in the world in the year of 2012 were all added to the businesspeople list. OK at the time when the list needed to be filled quickly but now looks kind of silly. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I'm more comfortable with the removal, if Walmart and it's founder are in our sights for removal and nearly there, the founder of Aldi seems a lot less vital. Fugger is def a improvement.  Carlwev  18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Bernard Arnault, Add Coco Chanel

Businessman who made his fortune selling luxury goods vs. designer who revolutionized women's fashion in the 20th century. I don't think we currently list a single fashion designer.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support pbp 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Coco Chanel is a great addition. She played a huge role in transforming the Western World (and indirectly much of the rest of the world) from a conservative clothing culture to a liberal one. Gizza (t)(c) 08:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Business person or artist? architects are under artists. Others like designers, who include furniture, instrument and vehicle designers are under visual artist. Again more comfortable with removal than add, but still an improvement.  Carlwev  18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explorers

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

Add Amelia Earhart

This failed once but I think it deserves another chance. Earhart's significance in breaking down barriers to women in science and technology can hardly be overstated. She was a worldwide celebrity in her time and remains one of feminism's most potent icons.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I would add Sacagawea as well. Malerisch (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support  Carlwev  14:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support pbp 17:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

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.

Swap: Remove Benjamin Spock, Add Anna Freud

The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care is already listed; I don't see why we need to list Spock separately, particularly when the founder of child psychoanalysis isn't listed to begin with.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Religious figures

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

Add Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Mary Magdalene

Women of incredible importance to their respective religions. It beats me how Mother Teresa got on the list before they did.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support In comparison to Old Testament figures, we are sorely lacking in New Testament ones. pbp 13:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

What about Aisha? Malerisch (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Islam and the very last thing I want to do is stir up a Sunni vs. Shia debate on her legacy. Somebody else can open that nomination. Cobblet (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Mulla Sadra

We have no Islamic thinkers in the 550-year gap between Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Iqbal. In particular the intellectual renaissance in Safavid Iran associated with the rise of Twelver Shi'ism is neglected. Mulla Sadra is popularly regarded by that country as its greatest philosopher, period.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Báb

I don't see why a relatively small and new religion like Bahá'í needs two representatives on the list. There are several religious movements of comparable size and newness (Spiritism, Mormonism, Cao Đài, Tenrikyo) that aren't represented at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I also noticed this anomaly a few days ago and was thinking of suggesting a removal. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

The current list of religious figures has 128 people. Of these, 56 represent Christianity, there 15 for Islam, 6 for Judaism with a further 12 common to all Abrahamic religions, 18 for Hinduism, 15 for Buddhism, 2 each for Bahai and Sikhism, and 1 each for Zoroastrianism and Jainism. I support an increase to 150 people or maybe more. Christianity and Judaism are well represented comparing them to other religions of similar history and influence. I think most if not all of this increase should go elsewhere.

I'm thinking of proposing to add Meera, whom I believe is definitely vital. Not sure if it should be a straight add or a swap with someone like A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada or Ramana Maharshi.

I wonder if there's also room for some notable atheists, agnostics and the like. They are better suited to go in Philosophers. But I'm not sure if there are any atheists who are vital purely on that basis. The best known ones in the Anglosphere (Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens) are too recent IMO. Schools of atheistic or rationalist thought existed in ancient civilizations too. Lucretius, Xenophanes, Epicurus, Diagoras of Melos, Ajita Kesakambali or Carvaka, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Muhammad al Warraq, Wang Chong and Fan Zhen are all possibilities. The strongest candidates are those that are notable in other things as well though. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the page on Meera as I was reading about Indian culture and I was wondering if it could be a good choice. But would you characterize her as a religious figure or as a poet? Hildegard of Bingen, the closest Christian analogue I can think of, is listed as a writer. I was also considering a swap of Bhaktivedanta for Helena Blavatsky, who seems to have done than anyone else to arouse modern Western interest in Eastern religion. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Judas Iscariot

We have most of the good guys in the New Testament, we need the bad guy, who also is a major figure in some of the texts that didn't make into the Bible, and pops up frequently in art and literature. pbp 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Politicians and leaders

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

Imbalances in the list of political figures

There's a pronounced European slant in the list of political figures. This is most obvious in the earlier time periods: more than half (36/71) of the figures from ancient history are European, and so are 62% of the post-classical figures, even though this is a period marked by golden ages in Islamic, Indian and Chinese civilization while Europe was mired in the Middle Ages.

At the same time, the dearth of Chinese and South Asian leaders is so striking, it's farcical. We have room for two Tyrants of Syracuse and two Dacian leaders but none for the kings of the Gupta Empire: in fact the entire political history of South Asia before the 16th century is represented by a grand total of two people! How does ancient Egypt get 13 rulers while ancient China gets two over the same time period?

None of this makes any sense to me and I'm going to take a stab at fixing these imbalances. My proposals lead to no net change in the number of people a net addition of one person to the list. Europe would be reduced from a majority to a plurality of political leaders in the ancient and post-classical periods (like in the other periods); and pre-16th-century India and China would get twelve leaders each. Frankly I think these changes are pretty conservative, but we gotta start somewhere and I'm sure these 31 proposals will provide everyone with plenty to think about.

There are other issues I've tried to fix. Africa oddly goes from having seven post-classical figures to just one in the early modern period. On the other hand, Southeast Asia's remarkably well represented at every stage of its history, probably too much so. I've also spotted a couple of notable medieval Europeans we're still missing.

The additions are listed first (in chronological order), followed by swaps and removals (also in chronological order). Many thanks to User:Redtigerxyz for helping me pick Indian rulers to add. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome also has 13 rulers, which is a bit high. Although Cicero doesn't really fit in. He should probably be moved out of leaders and go into Writers or Philosophers. Anyway, these proposals will take a long time to get through! Thanks for doing the research Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rome at 12-13 isn't crazy if the USA has 24. Cobblet (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on these proposals! There's definitely an imbalance in the current list of politicians and leaders, and these suggestions all seem well-researched and thought-out. Since you aimed for zero net additions, I was wondering if you think the current number of leaders (~475) is satisfactory. I would support a moderate increase, mostly at the expense of entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters. Malerisch (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I miscounted (nominated one fewer Indian leader than I intended to) and it's actually a net gain of one since I'll now open the nomination of Rajendra Chola I as well. Increasing the number of political figures to 500 wouldn't be unreasonable IMO. Nevertheless I tried to preserve the status quo because we've never discussed how many of them we should have, and it's generally much easier to suggest additions than removals but an honest effort to fix issues of balance requires that we do both. Cobblet (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Yu the Great

Even though archaeologists remain unable to find physical evidence of the Xia Dynasty, popular Chinese tradition continues to regard the reign of its founder as the beginning of Chinese civilization. The parallel of his legend with Noah's is striking and the two figures are fully comparable in terms of significance to their respective cultures.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Ajatasatru

Magadha was the most important of the ancient Indian kingdoms: it formed the nucleus of the later Mauryan and Gupta dynasties. Its power and influence peaked under the reign of Ajatasatru, who also founded Pataliputra, which became the capital of the Mauryans and Guptas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Besides historical references, known in religious texts of Jain and Buddhist origins.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 04:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Emperor Gaozu of Han

Founder of the Han dynasty. His struggle against Xiang Yu for control over China can be likened in historical and cultural significance to Caesar's Civil War, right down to the level of linguistic idiom: alea iacta est, meet 破釜沉舟.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Menander I

The spread of Hellenistic influence into central Asia and northern India deserves representation and Menander is the best-known ruler of the Indo-Greek Kingdom. He's also notable for his conversion to Buddhism and his role in spreading that religion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Milinda in Indian sources. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Kanishka

Greatest king of the Kushan Empire and emblematic of the contact India had with the nomadic civilizations of Central Asia. Especially noted as a patron of Buddhism – the council he convened in Kashmir is often regarded as the beginning of the Mahayana tradition.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support The Kushans deserve representation. Gizza (t)(c) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support One of the "4 Pillars of Buddhism."--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Cao Cao

A figure of decisive importance in the fall of the Han dynasty and the establishment of the Three Kingdoms. The unflattering portrayal of him in Romance of the Three Kingdoms (China's answer to War and Peace) has made him the archetypal villain in Chinese culture, even if that might be a little unfair to him: his military exploits are legendary and his contributions to Chinese poetry are also notable.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Samudragupta and Chandragupta II

The Gupta Empire represents a high point in Indian civilization and these are two of the greatest rulers India has ever known. Out of an interest in diversifying our representation of different time periods and cultures in South Asian history, I've left Chandragupta I out of this nomination.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Harsha

The most powerful ruler in north India between the fall of the Guptas and the rise of Islamic influence. Noted for his military campaigns to unify the north, his establishment of diplomatic relations with China, his contributions to Sanskrit literature, and his support for Buddhism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Emperor Taizu of Song

The Song dynasty was less militarily powerful than the Han or Tang dynasties, but the flourishing of Chinese art, literature, science and technology during this period marks it nevertheless as a golden age. Its founder is credited with introducing the political stability and bureaucratic reform that provided the basis for such prosperity.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Raja Raja Chola I

Responsible for the establishment of the Chola Empire as the dominant economic and naval power in South India. His conquests gave the Cholas complete control over the maritime trade routes between the Arabia/Africa and East/Southeast Asia and set the stage for the spectacular military campaigns of his son Rajendra Chola I.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Rajendra Chola I

Under his rule, the Chola dynasty became the first great south Indian empire. He expanded its lands in every direction and finished the conquest of Sri Lanka started by his father; launched an expedition north to the Ganges – such a long-distance land campaign had not been witnessed in India since Samudragupta's attack in the reverse direction 700 years prior; and most remarkably, conducted an overseas campaign against the Srivijaya empire of Sumatra, which led to the demise of that empire and secured Tamil trade routes with China. Compare his achievements with any Viking ruler (can any other maritime civilization before the European Renaissance boast of similar naval conquests?); I don't think he comes off worse.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Prithviraj Chauhan

The most important of the Rajput kings is immortalized in folk and historical literature as a charismatic symbol of Indian resistance to the Turkish invasion. His ultimate defeat at the second Battle of Tarain marks the beginning of Muslim control over north India.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support Hard to decide between Chauhan and Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad. They are both revered leaders. Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

True, I should've nominated both to begin with. Frankly, when you appreciate the staggering amount of representation other regions enjoy in this section, it's easy to name a dozen rulers from either India or China that are of equal if not greater significance. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Alauddin Khilji

The most important ruler of the Delhi Sultanate. His political and economic reforms ushered in a period of prosperity and enabled him to build a sizable army, which he used to expand his empire and defend against Mongol invasions (one of people in history who successfully did so).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Askia Mohammad I

Askia the Great established the largest and most powerful empire in the history of west Africa.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Ahmad al-Mansur

The Saadi dynasty of Morocco reached its zenith under his rule. His military and diplomatic skill preserved Morocco's independence in the face of Christian and Ottoman threats and that laid the foundation for the development of a distinct national identity.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba

17th-century queen who successfully resisted Portuguese colonization in what is now Angola, while building a kingdom strong enough to continue the struggle long after her death. Quite possibly the most important indigenous figure in southern Africa before Shaka. Definitely not the only woman involved in the resistance to European colonization, but unique in being well-documented in historical records. Compare Amina in Nigeria or Nanny of the Maroons in Jamaica – their roles in history may have been just as significant but far less is definitively known about them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Djoser and Khufu

These pharaohs are only significant for the pyramids named after them – in fact hardly anything else is known about the deeds of either. I think their importance is wholly subsumed by Imhotep and Great Pyramid of Giza and there's no need to list them separately. Amenhotep III would be a better choice for the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Midas and Croesus, Add Nebuchadnezzar II

I don't think these two semi-legendary kings are vital – there's a litany of better choices from Greek (Amazons, Dionysus, Icarus, Leonidas I, Minos, Pan, Sisyphus, Theseus, Titan (mythology)) and biblical legend (Job, Samson, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah). Since they're listed as political figures from west Asia, I suggest replacing them with Babylon's greatest king, notable as a builder and a conqueror (Hanging Gardens; the destruction of Jerusalem).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Remove Agathocles of Syracuse and Dionysius I of Syracuse

No sense in listing tyrants of Syracuse when Syracuse or Magna Graecia is not on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, would support the addition of Syracuse. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Indeed. Gizza (t)(c) 05:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Philip V of Macedon

Pyrrhus of Epirus is the best figure to represent Greece's war against Rome and I don't think we need a second one – resistance to Roman expansion is also personified by Decebalus, Mithridates VI of Pontus, Vercingetorix, Boudica and Arminius.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Burebista

We have Decebalus and do not need a second Dacian king.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Ermanaric

We have virtually no historical information about him; whatever significance he has comes from his presence in Germanic legend. He can't possibly trump the Eddas or the Nibelungenlied (neither of which we list) in that sense.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Er-who? --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Chlothar I, Add Louis IX of France

Details on the intrigues of the Merovingian ruling family can be found in the article on the Merovingian dynasty. I'm not sure what makes Chlothar I more notable than Brunhilda (one of the era's most colourful figures, who provided inspiration for characters in the Nibelungenlied) or Dagobert I (reformer, patron of the arts, and founder of the Abbey of St Denis). On the other hand, St. Louis is a major omission: he and Philip II are considered the greatest rulers of Capetian France. His achievements are too numerous to list – suffice it to say he was considered the epitome of the ideal Christian monarch and lots of places have been named in his honour, including the American city.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support pbp 18:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I'd thought before that St Louis was a surprising omission. Neljack (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Lothair I and Louis the German

The Treaty of Verdun (not listed in the History section) is more vital than the three sons of Louis the Pious who inherited his kingdom as a result of that treaty, and I'm not sure why two of them should be singled out over Charles the Bald. Succession wars are a staple of European history and I don't think it's necessary to list every participant in each war: we don't list, say, Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor despite his role in the Spanish, Polish and Austrian successions. Nor do we cover the history of any other region in the world at this level of detail: would people want to see articles on each of the participants in the Tripartite Struggle for post-Harsha India, or all of the Southern and Northern Dynasties of China?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support The Carolingians are indeed rather over-represented. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Arnulf of Carinthia

Similarly, none of the inheritors of the kingdom of Charles the Fat ought to be regarded as vital; its division is already described in Charles the Fat's biography and in Carolingian Empire. If we need one more Frankish ruler, it's got to be Pepin the Short.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Pepin would be a good add. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Henry the Fowler

Henry the Fowler's role in the history of Germany is comparable to Hugh Capet's in France. They may have founded the dynasty that marks the birth of each nation, but they are less vital than their successors who expanded and consolidated the power of that initially weak ruling house – Otto I in the case of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip II in the case of France. If Hugh Capet or Henry VII of England isn't on the list I don't see why Henry the Fowler should be.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Hayam Wuruk

His reign over Majapahit mainly owes its glory to the exploits of his remarkable prime minister Gajah Mada. I don't think it's necessary to list both of them when other Southeast Asian entities remain unrepresented: Kertanegara of Singhasari and Tun Perak from the Malacca sultanate are two other notable leaders from the same period.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Cosimo de' Medici and Lorenzo de' Medici, Add House of Medici

Usually I imagine people are more interested in articles on specific figures than on ruling houses. In this case though, House of Medici receives over three times as many page views as the articles on the two Medicis combined. It also seems undue to list two Florentine leaders when we don't list any other leaders of Italian city-states (Enrico Dandolo? Ugolino della Gherardesca?). FWIW, Catherine de' Medici is also on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support addition and neutral on the removals. Malerisch (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose removal, but Strong Support for add (what on omission!)--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support add but oppose removals in light of the combination of cultural, economic and political importance they both have. Neljack (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal and Support addition per Melody Lavender. Malerisch (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

The significance for economic history (banking dynasty) and for art history is incomparable. And I think you're playing down their role as political leaders. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of which requires that we devote separate articles to Cosimo and Lorenzo instead of treating the family as a collective whole. I wouldn't be opposed to adding the Medici Bank either – now there's a company of historic importance. Cobblet (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Medici Bank is vital, and so is the Fugger Bank, which redirects to the dynasty. Those are the kinds of historical company articles I'm looking for.--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a nomination up for Jakob Fugger soon. Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to remove Cosimo and Lorenzo to add the House of Medici. House of Plantagenet is currently listed (in History), but that doesn't mean Edward I of England, Henry II of England, John, King of England, and Richard I of England should be removed. House of Romanov is also listed along with Alexis of Russia, Elizabeth of Russia, Alexander II of Russia, Nicholas I of Russia, Nicholas II of Russia, and Peter the Great. And there's plenty of folks from the House of Habsburg as well, like Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. While Cosimo and Lorenzo weren't kings, that's not a reason to remove them. (This nomination should probably go in History to be consistent.) Malerisch (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not why I'm suggesting we remove Cosimo and Lorenzo. I'm fully aware that a ruler's significance is not always subsumed by the significance of their family: but in this case I think it's true. If you see better ways to reduce the number of European politicians, I'm all ears. Don't forget a statement like "the significance for economic and art history is incomparable" isn't true unless one is specifically talking about European economic and art history. What about the Barmakids or the Shanxi merchants? Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've switched to neutral on the removals—I won't get in the way if people want to remove them. That said, I don't think European politicians need to be cut down that much, although other African and Asian leaders certainly need more representation. I'm going a bit off topic here, but what I meant by "moderate increase" of leaders was more on the order of 100, and I think actors, directors, and businesspeople could be cut dramatically. I mean, is Karl Albrecht really more vital than Willy Brandt or Heinrich Himmler? Why is Michael Redgrave listed but not Edward III of England or Richard III of England? And Samuel Goldwyn but not Earl Warren, James Monroe, and John C. Calhoun? Malerisch (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Pope Clement VII

Commissioned Raphael and Michelangelo and excommunicated Henry VIII, but an ineffectual pope overall: his reign is marked by an inability to stem the tide of the Reformation more than anything else. Nor was he notorious or controversial in the way Pope Alexander VI was; he was just weak. I'd venture that Pope Urban II, who helped carry out the Gregorian Reforms and ordered the First Crusade, is probably a more vital figure in history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Bagyidaw

Less important to the history of Burma's Konbaung Dynasty than Alaungpaya, Bodawpaya or Mindon Min, all of whom are listed. I count ten Burmese political figures on the list – like I said, Southeast Asia's remarkably well represented.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion
Oops, Already listed

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 Pol Pot

Responsible for the deaths of between, 1 to 3 million people in Cambodia, seems important and huge impact to that region. Was thinking about him, thought I'd open it now with lots of leaders being proposed.  Carlwev  18:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support pbp 18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Isn't Pol Pot already listed? Malerisch (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could've sworn he wasn't in, I checked and missed him. He is already in, speedy archive, sorry guys and girls.  Carlwev  18:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military leaders and theorists

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

Swap: Remove Amancio Ortega Gaona, Add El Cid

Reclusive fashion executive vs. national hero.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

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

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

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

Add Aryabhata

The leader proposals above reminded me of a bigger hole to fill. Aryabhata was the first in the line of Indian mathematicians and astronomers during the classical era. His feats include his explanation and accurate measurements of solar and lunar eclipses, the place-value system, discovering the earth's rotation, and various work on trigonometry and algebra.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Johann Jakob Balmer, Add Paracelsus

I have no idea why Balmer's on the list – there must be dozens of physicists with a greater claim to fame. In his place I nominate one of the most significant figures in all of Renaissance science. Paracelsus rejected the medical dogmas taught in medieval universities (which was still based on the theories of Hippocrates and Galen like the four humours) and introduced the concept of using chemical compounds as medicine. In the process he incorporated scientific principles into medical practice for the first time. He's also credited with being one of the first to recognize a relationship between mental problems and physical illness; Carl Jung credits him with opening the door for psychiatry as a discipline. Paracelsus has been compared to Copernicus and Luther in his impact on Renaissance thought.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Charles Hard Townes, Add Robert Hooke

Hard to see why Townes is singled out over the two other scientists with whom he shared the Nobel Physics Prize for laser-related work. I don't think any of them can really be said to have played a more decisive role than the others. Hooke was a pioneer of microscopy (his book Micrographia introduced the subject to the public), telescopes (built the first Gregorian telescope), the wave theory of light (which he used to explain his discovery of diffraction), and watchmaking (the anchor escapement); he discovered Hooke's law and was an early proponent of evolution. Oh, and he was the assistant of Robert Boyle during his air pump experiments and Christopher Wren during the rebuilding of London.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Couldn't the same reasoning for removing Charles Hard Townes be used to remove Steven Chu? They both shared Nobel Prizes with two others on laser-related work. Malerisch (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

At least Chu has some significance beyond his Nobel work compared to his colleagues or to Townes. I agree the case for him isn't exactly the strongest though. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Alfred V. du Pont, Add Leo Baekeland

We already list Alfred's grandfather who established the du Pont industrial dynasty; I see no reason to list Alfred as well. In his place I suggest the man who started the plastics industry with his invention of Bakelite.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Sports figures

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

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)[reply]

Support having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football
  1. pbp 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I think we should have some ceiling number, and ten is fine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. Support Too many athletes period, and too biased towards Americans. Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Support, these sports aren't that populat outside the US. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Marciano it is. I was thinking of him too. pbp 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]
        • "there were fewer explorers in history."[citation needed] Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • But is importance to the world a criteria for inclusion into a list of vital articles? Or is it prominence of an athlete among other athletes? I am going for the latter. Technically, very few athletes actually affected history in any way. I am happy with the amount of athletes we list right now. Baseball can be trimmed by a bit, as I am doing right now. The other sports are not that bad. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There are luminaries in a lot of other fields that are missing. pbp 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lithistman:, if mine (and others') attempts to remove American athletes from this list is "anti-American", I'd counter that the current distribution of American athletes is jingoist. Americans make up 5% of the American population; they are not entitled to 50% of the athletes. pbp 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And with this post you prove my point. LHMask me a question 02:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lithistman:, So you're saying that even if American athletes is bloated, it's anti-American to fight that bloat? pbp 04:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying each athlete article should be judged in a vacuum, leaving nationality aside. And I'm also saying that just because there are many American athlete articles included doesn't mean they're "bloated." En.wikipedia has a large base of American users, which means that "vital" articles in En.wiki should have an American "flavor", so-to-speak. And the general tenor of some of the discussions on VA pages has been disturbing to me, as "too American" seems to be an acceptable argument here. That's what I'm saying. LHMask me a question 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lithistman:, If we leave 25-30 American athletes out of 100-120 total athletes, it will still have an American "flavor". If we're cutting athletes, most of the low-lying fruit ripe for cuts are American, because the non-Americans on here have generally made unambiguously significant contributions to the field of sports. pbp 20:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Purplebackpackonthetrail: I have absolutely no problem with removing any athlete if, in a vacuum not taking into account their nationality at all, that athlete's article is judged to be non-vital. But nationality should never, at any point, play a role in the discussion. And I see far too many discussions here (and this is not just a problem with athletes) where American nationality is being used as an argument against an article being added or for an article being removed. That is just utterly unacceptable in the English Wikipedia. Can you imagine similar "too French" or "too Nigerian" arguments being made in the equivalent encyclopedias? LHMask me a question 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, @Lithistman:, it seems a lot easier for an American athlete to get or stay on this list than a) an American in other categories, or b) an athlete in other countries pbp 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the number of sportspeople needs to be reduced, although I find it interesting that none of the most popular athletes from ancient times (charioteers, gladiators, Ancient Olympic victors, etc.) are included. Probably the most target-rich categories are Tennis & Athletics: neither are sports as popular as soccer, American football, baseball, or basketball, but both have 14 entries while baseball has 10 & people want to pare that one down. I'd also like to point out that paring any category down means blood will be spilled -- someone will be upset because one or more deserving athlete must be removed from this list. -- llywrch (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Lithistman (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good call on culling baseball. pbp 13:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's rather astounding to watch what's going on here. From people acting like baseball is only (or chiefly) played in the U.S., to others seeming to not understand that an article's "vitality" should be about more than the players "advanced metrics", the argument seems to be less about making sure a given article is actually vital, and more about finding select American articles to prune from the list of athletes. As I've noted up and down these pages, articles should be judged on their merits, not on whether certain sections need "pruned" of a given sport or nationality. LHMask me a question 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithistman:, What I find astounding is that there are 2-3x as many American athletes on this list as there are American political leaders. I had to move heaven and earth to get Henry Clay onto the list, while people are opposing removing the 3rd-best American golfer or the 8th-best American baseball player. I believe that athletes are generally not as significant to the grand scheme of things as political, scientific or literary figures; as such, I believe the total number of athletes should be less than 100. I also find it unfortunate that when people cite "greatest athletes" lists, they invariably cite American lists, rather than lists from the 95% of the world. pbp 20:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89:The vast plurality (2-to-1 over second place) of English speakers are from America. I have no problem at all with the VA lists (both athletic and non-athletic) being made up of many America-related articles. LHMask me a question 23:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Lithistman:, you're saying that the vital articles list should only care about the English-speaking world? pbp 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89:No. Read it again. That's not what I wrote, and I think you know it. LHMask me a question 02:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithistman:, you use prominence in the English-speaking world as justification for American bloat. How else am I supposed to read that? pbp 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to misconstrue what I write in whatever way you like. But I never--not once--wrote anything resembling "I think the vital articles list should only care about the English-speaking world." I made some salient points, and you interpreted them in a way that has almost no relation to the truth of what I wrote. But I've come to the conclusion that the whole VA exercise seems like little more than navel-gazing, and I'm done wasting time with it. I've remove all VA pages from my watchlist. Good luck pruning your list. LHMask me a question 23:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on American bias: The concept of vitality isn't really well-defined. That's what makes it so difficult. Everybody has their own idea about it, and it might be worth writing up a definition that makes it easier. There is no general policy on Wikipedia saying that the content should be diversified internationally. However, there is an essay on systemic bias which is not an official policy. It comes to the conclusion that an international scope should be aimed at in order to achieve WP:NPOV, which, of course, is an official policy.

Even if we came to the conclusion that VA should reflect only the interests of the English-speaking world, that would mean we have to include several other countries that have English as their first language and/or official language: India, Nigeria, South Africa, Philipines, UK, Australia, NZ. Many English native speakers are in Singapore and Hong Kong. Then the entire academic world works and turns in English. Most universities in Europe and Eastern Europe offer English-speaking courses of study. Literally all important academic publication work is done in English. These are all countries to be included, even if we ignore that English is the lingua franca of the world.

I think what Lithistman is trying to say is that there should be some bias towards Americans because they make up most of the English-speaking world.[citation needed] That may be true, but these statistics only count native speakers and ignore the number of people who have English as a second language or third or whatever. These may need encyclopedic information in English just as much as natives.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove Cy Young

Not ranked very highly on the lists I mentioned above in the my comment on Mantle - he's ranked 18th by SABR, 14th by Sporting News, 18th by ESPN,[1] 23rd by Bill James, and isn't in the AP's top 10. In fact, he's not even the highest ranked pitcher on any of these lists, with Walter Johnson ranked ahead of him on them all. Bill James has Paige (whom we've just removed) ahead of him too. And Mantle's ranked ahead of him on most of them, with only the Sporting News having Young slightly ahead. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Neljack. There are literally hundreds of prizes named after people, many of which are sports-related. Having an award named after you doesn't automatically qualify you as vital, and there certainly isn't a strong correlation between those whose names are on prizes and those who are vital. Malerisch (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn is basically suggesting below that we remove Willie Mays instead, but Cy Young seems like a less significant figure to me. Cobblet (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Change to Support. My belief in balancing and overall reducing the size of the sports figures' list is stronger than my belief in variety within the baseball list. The other proposals are going nowhere. Gizza (t)(c) 02:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per PointsofNoReturn. The greatest pitcher should be on the list before the 6th or 7th greatest batter. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Cy Young's name is on the award given to the finest pitcher in baseball every year. Whatever the various statistical rankings say, his influence goes far beyond the sheer numbers of his career. The same is also the case with Satchel Paige, though to a lesser extent. I feel the removal of the Paige article was a travesty, and this article's removal would be even worse. LHMask me a question 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us about the nature of his influence? Because his article (a GA) doesn't have much to say about it. Having an award named after you is hardly sufficient to establish that he is vital in this context. Frankly, there are too many baseballers - arguably too many sportspeople in general - and some difficult choices need to be made. Neljack (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an American baseball fan, I do not like removing baseball players. Sadly, though, we have to make choices. In all honesty, baseball is a major sport, but is not that major around the world. I am willing to remove a few more baseball players based off of international attention to the sport. However, I do agree that removing Cy Young is a bad idea. 7 baseball players might be low enough. Then we can make room for athletes from other sports around the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're serious about cutting baseball players down to seven, which seven would you want on the list? I understand it's tough to cut the only pitcher left, but if not him, then who? Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For 7, I would keep Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Cy Young, Sadaharu Oh, Roberto Clemente, and Ty Cobb. I would like to keep Lou Gehrig because of his famous speech at the end of his career and all of his accomplishments, so I would leave it at 8. That would leave the baseball list at less than half of the soccer list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet: Cy Young was the greatest pitcher of all time. He is first in wins with 511 wins. He is first in innings pitched. He pitched 25 and a third straight hitless innings. He is the only pitcher we have on the list. Willie Mays was a great hitter but we already have even better hitters on the list like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove Roberto Clemente

Ranked even lower - 20th by both SABR and the Sporting News, 34th by ESPN,[2] 74th by Bill James, and not in the AP top 10. One of only two non-American baseballers on the list, but it's better to seek national diversity through increasing the representation of sports that aren't popular in the English-speaking world, rather than including non-American baseballers whose inclusion can't be objectively justified. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support For a region that's got less than 0.6% of the world's population, the Caribbean contribution to sport is definitely not underrepresented when we have Usain Bolt, Garfield Sobers and Viv Richards. Nobody is complaining about the lack of a non-American basketball player (Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki and Yao Ming say hi) despite that being a sport with more international popularity; why such concern for international diversity in baseball? Cobblet (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Per Neljack. Cobblet makes a good point on basketball being a more popular sport than baseball internationally but not having any non-Americans listed. And the Caribbean is well represented with Bolt, Sobers and Richards. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Lithistman PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Lithistman and I would oppose the removal Sadaharu Oh as well. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

These nominations are almost becoming ludicrous. As per my note on Cy Young above, this isn't about his statistics! Roberto Clemente's influence goes well beyond his basic statistics. There is a reason Major League Baseball named an award after him. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If we are going to have an international baseball player on this list, Clemente is the best candidate. And if the Caribbean is to be represented on the athletes lists, baseball is probably the sport to do it with. pbp 20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think the other international baseballer we have, Sadaharu Oh, is a better candidate. He is probably the greatest player in Japan League history and is the worldwide home run career record-holder. And there is at least one other Caribbean athlete on the list - Usain Bolt. Given the success of Caribbean nations in sprinting, that seems to me to be at least as appropriate a sport as baseball to have a Caribbean athlete from. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many native English speakers know who Sadaharu Oh is? Ask yourself the same question about Roberto Clemente. That should close the case. LHMask me a question 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LHM, it has nothing to do with language. Just because this is the English Wikipedia it does not mean that we apply different standards of notability or vitality to people from non-English speaking countries. If Oh is a sufficiently important baseball player, then the fact that he is from Japan and best-known to Japanese-speakers is irrelevant. If we really applied the test of who is best-known among English-speakers, we would doubtless end up with a list full of recent pop culture figures but lacking many far more important scientists and historical figures. Neljack (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, and you know it. It also shows a stunning xenophobia on your part, regarding your perception of the intelligence of the English-speaking world. And it is my contention that vitality with regards to the English Wikipedia does depend, to an extent, on the relative likelihood of one article versus another to be searched out by English speakers. And Clemente far outpaces Oh in that regard, period. And Clemente is not to be dismissed the proverbial "recent pop culture figures" wave of the hand as you attempt to do above. LHMask me a question 04:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lithistman:, Above, you said that you weren't arguing that prominence in the English-speaking world matter. But here that's exactly what you're arguing. You're arguing for the removal of Oh because of his lack of prominence in the English-speaking world. The vast majority of the world is non-English-speaking, but you don't really seem to care about them being fairly represented on this list. pbp 05:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one being xenophobic, not me - you are proposing to evaluate vitality in a manner that discriminates against people who aren't from the English-speaking world. Do you seriously deny that contemporary pop culture figures are more well known than many more significant historical figures or scientists? The idea that it is xenophobic to point this out is risible. It is hardly a phenomenon limited to English-speaking nations, after all. Nor is it actually a comment on people's intelligence - it is entirely unsurprising that they are more familiar with contemporary figures who feature frequently in the media than figures from past eras or scientists who do not get the same publicity. Neljack (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the point (but don't completely agree) with taking English speakers into account, but only considering native English speakers is ridiculous. English has become a global lingua franca among the world's educated. Despite it not being necessarily native, it is often the main language of education in many former British and American colonies around the world. I can't find the specifics of the research right now (I believe it is probably in meta:Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey 2011 or meta:Research:Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011) but there have been surveys showing that the main language Wikipedia read in countries such as India, Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia is English, not their native languages. And you can see it in action. For instance, List of Bollywood films of 2014 is consistently in the top 100 page views of enwiki articles, and receives ten times the number of pageviews of List of American films of 2014.
Regardless, I don't see how what language a person speakers changes who are the most important people to include in an encyclopedia. You don't have to agree with them, but I'm a fan of these two quotes from Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" (implicit in that sense is covering everything outside of that person's language sphere) and "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (again all human knowledge cross language barriers). Of course, we will never reach this elusive goal which is the whole point of VA. Most editors on Wikipedia will still focus on improving content in the areas of their interest but there are some who look at the vital list for inspiration, especially during the Wikipedia:Core Contest and WikiCup. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Clemente is the only Latino player on the list. He was the first Latin American ensshrined in the Hall of Fame. Considering how many players in Major League Baseball are Latino today, removing Roberto Clemente is almost equivalent to removing Jackie Robinson. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Willie Mays

In view of comments made above, I'll open this proposal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above comments. Malerisch (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'll just quote (with my emphasis) from the introduction of our article on Mays (which references a host of sources for this statement):

    Willie Mays' career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time.

    Britannica concurs, saying: "He is considered by many to have been the best all-around player in the history of baseball."[3] The rankings I've mentioned before bear this out: he is ranked the second-greatest player of all time by the Sporting News[4], ESPN[5] and the AP[6], and third by the leading sabermetrician Bill James[7]. He also has wider importance as one of the first black players to become a top star - he has been called "baseball's first African-American superstar",[8] though Britannica suggests that because of racism "he probably never received the respect due him based upon his skills". But his status is such that, as NPR notes: "In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama emphasized his biracial appeal by pairing John F. Kennedy with Martin Luther King, Jr.; Abraham Lincoln with Willie Mays."[9] If we're looking for someone to remove (leaving aside the ones I've already proposed), I suggest we'd be better to look at Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb or Lou Gehrig. Neljack (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Neljack. Malerisch (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Player AP Bill James ESPN SABR Sporting News Average
Hank Aaron 3 12 5 4 5 5.8
Roberto Clemente ? 74 34 20 20 37
Ty Cobb 5 5 6 7 3 5.2
Lou Gehrig 8 14 11 2 6 8.2
Willie Mays 2 3 2 8 2 3.4
Sadaharu Oh ? ? ? ? ? ?
Jackie Robinson 9 32 54 36 44 35
Babe Ruth 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cy Young ? 23 18 18 14 18.25

I agree with Neljack's analysis and have switched to oppose: Willie Mays isn't the right baseball player to remove. I've compiled the rankings from Neljack's sources into a table (see above) and averaged the rankings, which shows that Willie Mays could be considered the 2nd-best player of all-time, behind Babe Ruth. I don't think anyone's considering removing Jackie Robinson because of his historic importance, so Roberto Clemente and Cy Young are indeed the best candidates to remove. Sadaharu Oh doesn't appear on any rankings at all though, so it's hard for me to judge his importance. Malerisch (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadahuru Oh was the best player in Japanese baseball. In the spirit of keeping an international view of baseball, we should keep him. He is also the world home run record holder in addition. Cy Young should be on the list because he is the only pitcher on the list and most lists of the best baseball players of all time do not consider pitchers to be as important as hitters. Roberto Clemente is borderline, but I am inclined to keep him due to him being the only Latino player on the list. Willie Mays was a great player too, but I am leaning towards removing him over the other players because he does not own many records. I am not sure if the amount of baseball players we have now is fair. We have 9 baseball players vs. 17 association football players. Maybe we should remove one more baseball player to make the baseball list be half of the association football list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're planning to cut down association football as well, so baseball probably would have to be cut down a bit more. I have another question though: did we overlook Ted Williams? He's ranked 4th by the AP, 7th by Bill James, 4th by ESPN, 3rd by SABR, and 8th by Sporting News, which gives him an average ranking of 5.2, tying him with Ty Cobb. He doesn't seem like a bad candidate either: the article calls him "one of the greatest hitters in baseball history." Malerisch (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but baseball is nowhere close to half as important as football. FIFA claims 3.2 billion people saw at least one minute of the 2010 World Cup. Good luck finding an edition of the MLB playoffs that drew in anything close to 1.6 billion viewers. Cobblet (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But remember that this is an English Wikipedia. If you look at the offline releases of wikipedia here, [1] you will notice a distinct Anglo-American bias. The fact that one of Wikipedia's most important projects has a bias towards the English world means that we should at least have a small bias towards some American sports. That's not to say that we should have as many baseball players as soccer players, but that does mean that the list of baseball players is close to where it is now. As a rule, I would keep baseball players listed at one half the list of soccer players, rounding down if the number of soccer players is an odd number. I will be proposing this below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is Wikipedia 1.0 one of Wikipedia's most important projects? Why is it acceptable for such a project to have a Western bias? (A major rationale for the project is to make Wikipedia available to places with poor Internet access; which Western country fits that criterion?) How does reducing representation of baseball, a sport with a trivial degree of popularity in any English-speaking country except for the US and Canada, even lead to an overall reduction of bias toward English-speaking nations in the first place? Cobblet (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American (by far the largest number of readers compared to any given country, with the UK at about a third of American readership), it warrants having a large amount of American athletes from America's oldest major sport, Baseball. [2] That is not say that baseball should have as many people as soccer, but it means that Baseball should have about half of the number of articles that soccer does. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the useful table, Malerisch! Neljack (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About half as many baseball players as soccer players seems reasonable to me. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kick off Soccer Players?

Guys, there are 17 soccer players on this list. That may well be what gives some people (including me) the impression that we might be cutting too many Americans. Do we seriously need so many soccer players? None of them is American, by the way. How about replacing some of them with their teams? --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Hamm, and it somewhat makes sense to have a bunch of soccer players because there are a bunch of countries where soccer is by far the most prevalent sport. pbp 18:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the number of current players/fans really be such an important criterion? I'm not saying we have to cut many. Just a few. One or two. There are too many sports figures, I think. Soccer, like American Football is not historically important according to the WP-article. Both sports were played since the middle of the 19th century, which is not old, given the fact that we should cover the history of mankind. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you that there are too many sports figures, but I think it's reasonable that ~15% of the sports figures be soccer players. So, for every soccer player we cut, we should probably cut six from other sports. pbp 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that 17 athletes is too many for any sport, even the most popular one in the world. I've been thinking about proposing some removals, and will probably do so before long. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could cut two soccer players to make the list an even 15? That seems like a start, and we can debate about any further removals later on. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cuts to soccer players can certainly be made, if only to make room to add Garrincha. But this only makes the 14 tennis players look even more ridiculous. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis should drop down to at least 10 based on the removals and proposed removals elsewhere. Maybe even around 7 or 8. We can then add either Grand Slam or The Championships, Wimbledon to compensate. Tennis is probably the world's most popular women's sport but the number of female athletes will still be among the highest (if we're planning to do a 50-50 gender split). Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove some tennis players too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any single sport should have more than ten entries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If soccer has only ten entries, baseball should only have two, and the whole list should only be 50-60. pbp 00:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is pro-soccer bias. Baseball should have five entries if soccer has ten. Cutting the list of baseball players down to two is essentially eliminating the list of baseball players since it is impossible to choose the top two baseball players of all time. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a European I wouldnt have a problem with 10 association football players, 5 baseball players and five American football players. I think athletes list should be in the neighborhood of 75 and definitely below 100.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My many European coworkers would wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. As for a list of two baseball players, have Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson. Done! Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my American friends would want to remove most soccer players and keep the list full of American players. Obviously there needs to be some middle ground. See my proposal below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of Baseball Players to Association Football Players

According to this link from wikimedia tools, [3], 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American. As such, there needs to be a significant amount of attention to removing American bias while also not going so far as to create anti-American bias. From the discussions above, it is evident that there needs to be a separate thread to discuss the ratio of American Baseball players to soccer players. Since a little over a third of the readers of the English wikipedia are Americans, how about we make the ratio of soccer players to baseball players 2 to 1. This would eliminate most of the American bias because Cricket would have enough players on the list along with non-American hockey players and field hockey players to counteract the number of basketball players and American Football players. If need be, we could remove a couple of basketball players from the list.

In conclusion, here is my proposal: keep a ratio of Non-American athletes to American athletes at 2:1 to represent the readership in the English Wikipedia. This ratio would be a fixed rule that would stay in place if we lower the number of sports figures in total on the list. This seems like a fair compromise so that American bias elimination does not turn into Anti-American bias creation.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

You seem to be proposing two different things – I can't tell whether you're talking about just football vs. baseball or all the athletes in general. Americans currently comprise 44/117 or 38% of the athletes, definitely a better ratio than when we started trimming the list. But trying to justify a ratio of nationalities based on viewership alone makes no sense – first, one can apply this type of argument to every section of the list of people; second, if we can apply it for Americans we can apply it for every other nationality. By the same logic you're using, for every Chinese person on the list we should have one New Zealander, because both countries contribute 0.7% of Wikipedia's viewership. Oh, and we should have 27 times as many Americans as Chinese and New Zealanders combined. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

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

Basics

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

History by continent and region

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

History by country

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

Prehistory and ancient history

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

Post-classical history

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

Early modern history

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

Modern history

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

Historical cities

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

Add Antioch

Very important city in the Near/Middle East in the first centuries BCE and AD. Should either be here or in Geography. pbp 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. pbp 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

This should go under History: the modern city is Antakya. Cobblet (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this proposal be paired with a removal since History is currently over quota? Malerisch (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of science and technology

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

History of the social sciences

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

History of other topics

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

Auxiliary sciences of history

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

Geography

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

Basics

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

Physical geography

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

NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swap: Remove Sinai Peninsula, Add Mount Sinai

The Sinai Peninsula is only notable as where Mount Sinai is. Mount Sinai is the holiest mountain in Judaism. It is also of major significance to Christianity. As we are adding mountains important to various cultures, Mount Sinai should be on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I'd prefer this as a straight add. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai is not the holiest mountain in Judaism; the Temple Mount is. Mount Sinai (both the Biblical place and the modern place, which may be completely different) has no real permanent holiness. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Jew myself, I always thought the temple mount wasn't as important as the actual Western Wall. I didn't know that the actual hill had any real significance. Still, I think that Mt. Sinai is important enough to be on the list. It is where God gave the Torah to the Israelites and is important to both Judaism and Christianity. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Western Wall is only important because it's the last remnant of Temple, which was on the Temple Mount. Secondly, the article being proposed is not about the historical Mt. Sinai; it's about a mountain which might be the place the Torah was given. Thirdly, the peninsula is pretty important on its own as the bridge between Africa and Asia. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to add the article Biblical Mount Sinai then? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought on Biblical locations was remembering we already removed Garden of Eden, and I would place place Garden of Eden higher importance than Biblical Mount Sinai. Other biblical things we don't have which are probably higher could be Ark of the Covenant, and old and new testament.  Carlwev  10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Old Testament redundant with the Torah and included in the bible with the New Testament? I would add the Garden of Eden and the Ark of the Covenant too.
The old and new testament add thread failed ages ago anyway mainly for that reason. Everything can be covered by or seen as redundant to something else, we have to decide which is acceptable and which is too much. I believe we list Ten Commandments in the 10'000 under religion, and Moses too in the 10'000 and 1000 lists, which could make Biblical Mount Sinai redundant. Thanks for your discussion though, I like Garden of Eden and Ark of the Covenant a bit more, but still not completely sure on them either. Could always open the thread and see what others think....
For religious locations/concepts, we are also missing both Armageddon and Purgatory I think I would support those, as I believe them more significant and important enough concepts for inclusion, especially Purgatory.  Carlwev  14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Biblical Mount Sinai

Alternative to the above proposal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose for reasons basically stated by Carlwev in the previous thread – we're lacking too much in terms of "big" Biblical topics to make adding a detail like this a reasonable proposition. I'd much prefer adding things like The Exodus or Book of Exodus, Genesis creation narrative or Book of Genesis, Gospel, and Book of Revelation. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose About a place in Bible, story covered in Moses and Ten Commandments, more vital Jewish/Christian topics missing like ones Cobblet and I said; Plus More vital mythical locations missing or removed, like Purgatory, Camelot, Garden of Eden, Armageddon etc  Carlwev  09:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet and Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Parks and preserves

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

Countries

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

Regions and country subdivisions

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

Cities

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

Add Macau

This is consistently one of the most-viewed Wikiproject Cities pages. A previous nomination failed but would've passed according to our current rules.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support again, I was surprised this was not included.  Carlwev  10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, good catch. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

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.

Literature

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

Add Satire

Important topic and genre in literature and other arts, I would call this more vital than many books we have.  Carlwev  17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support pbp 06:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I was thinking, maybe we should list some genres and topics under main art rather than literature, as sci fi, fantasy, horror, satire can all be genres of literature, film, tv shows, radio shows, theatre, comics, video games etc, not only literature alone, these are wider arts genres, not just literature genres. what do people think?  Carlwev  17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Tyndale Bible

Least notable of the four(!) translations of the Bible on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Don't think the Luther Bible is that notable either. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Luther Bible

I didn't even notice this and the Gutenberg Bible were on the list as well. We still have the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the King James Version.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Am thinking of this and Tyndale Bible as a swap for Old and New Testament which I support--Rsm77 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, do we need the other versions as well. I think bible should be enough. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support It's amazing that there are 7 translations/manuscripts of the Bible listed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Music

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

Sometimes I wonder whether it would be possible to reduce the modern musical works list to around 5 or 10 entries. The problem with proposing individual removals is that there are so many of a similar level of notability, so there is always the argument, "well if X is on the list..." Any opinions on a major reduction? --Rsm77 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel some trimming is warranted, but down to 5-10 seems rather extreme. How do you feel about the current distribution of musicians across different time periods? The distribution of musicians and musical works ought to be similar IMO. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Performing arts

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

Visual arts

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

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.

Add supervillain

We have an article on superheroes but not an article on supervillains. Without supervillains, there would not be any superheroes, making them almost just as important as a group. I will also be proposing a few supervillains to go along with this proposal below.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think superhero should be on the list, either; it should be replaced with the more general hero. Superheroes are an almost exclusively American concept (apparently "Super Heroes" is trademarked by DC and Marvel?!), and supervillains equally so. I could see adding villain, though. Superheroes are just another type of stock character; why not add funny animal, action hero, damsel in distress, femme fatale, and mad scientist? However, superhero fiction could be added to represent this particular genre, which is more vital and in line with science fiction, fantasy, horror fiction, etc. Malerisch (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Malerisch. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Malerisch. I support adding villain and replacing superhero with hero. Maybe superhero fiction as well. Gizza (t)(c) 01:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Hero and Villain should be on the list in addition to superhero and supervillan. Not so sure about the individual examples. We also don't have Monomyth which is vital IMO.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list narrative and/or narrative devices like character (arts) (which ought to cover the concept of protagonists/antagonists), plot (narrative), setting (narrative), etc.? Cobblet (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add The Joker

Perhaps the most well known supervillain in comic book history. He appeared in the original Batman comic book in the first issue in 1940. Whenever someone thinks of Batman, that person almost always thinks of Batman's archnemesis The Joker. If we are going to add supervillains to the list, he should be on it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose for a few reasons:
  2. Oppose Per Malerisch. Well said. Gizza (t)(c) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Fictional characters is right-sized now. pbp 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, not that notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add catwoman

One of the most iconic supervillainesses in comic book history. She also appeared in the original batman comic books. She has also been Batman's love interest in many of the comic books. Since we have Wonderwoman, a superheroine, then surely we can have Catwoman, a supervillainess.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose See above. Malerisch (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Malerisch. Gizza (t)(c) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Fictional characters is right-sized now. pbp 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose:, not notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Philosophy and religion

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

Philosophy

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

Religion and spirituality

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

Add Purgatory

I just think this is an important topic compared to some religion topics and people we have. I thought it should go with heaven and hell in afterlife, but maybe under Christianity, as it's more specific. Nirvana is to do with after life but is under Buddhism as it's pretty specific to that religion. I was also wandering if Saṃsāra is worth thinking about? as we have nirvana and dharma, they often appear together when studying Hindu/Buddhist afterlife beliefs, thoughts?  Carlwev  15:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Specific religions

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

Add Old Testament and New Testament

It seems disingenuous that we have several editions/translations of the Bible, and dozens of people from the Bible, but not the two major divisions of the Bible. pbp 21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support It makes sense to include divisions of the Bible. I did notice that the article Gospel is not a vital article. Should that be proposed too? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support That does seem rather strange. I'd thought gospel would be a good add too. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. As the (canonical Christian) Gospel(s) are just the first four books of the NT, I'm not sure they'd deserve their own VA listing. Rwessel (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion
I'd support a swap for one or more of the translations/versions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several versions are currently proposed for removal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarianism and Nontrinitarianism

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

Esoterics, magic and mysticism

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

Mythology

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

Everyday life

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

Family and kinship

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

Remove Affinity (law)

Covered by kinship.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support OTOH, consanguinity is slightly more vital and in my opinion, just fits in the list. Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Not really that vital. I can't see it would fit with the other law articles in terms of importance. Neljack (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support It doesn't really matter if the information isn't currently in the article, only if it should be. Malerisch (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, and move to law section --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The information in Affinity (law) is not covered in the article about kinship. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

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.

Sexuality

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

Stages of life

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

Sports and recreation

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

Timekeeping

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

Remove days of week Sunday, Monday... Saturday, perhaps add Names of the days of the week

Surely there is little particularly notable about any given weekday. There are some historical connotations, but those mostly relate to the day's names, and Names of the days of the week is a good start for that. There is also some cultural significance to particular days (the week starts on Saturday in Islam, for example), but that's probably better dealt with in the article on Islam. Seven-day week may be useful. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support removal, not sure about the add. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support removal, oppose add.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removal, oppose add. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support removal. Possibly support seven-day week, workweek and weekend, 12 hour time/24 hour time, further types of calendars and years/months, eternity (as a philosophical concept) and time value of money (as a financial concept). Gizza (t)(c) 02:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Anno Domini receives over double the number of page views compared to any of the articles Rwessel's proposing to remove. Names of the days of the week also gets more hits than any of them. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought days and months listed separately was a bit weak (pun half intended), I mean it's not like anyone would study them, not much anyway, and not singularly, they take up 19 slots in total, which is a lot. I also had Workweek and weekend on my mind which covers the mon-fri working then sat-sun rest idea, and equivalent similar theme used in some other times and places, seems reasonable topic for one slot compared to using seven for every single day.  Carlwev  15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of timekeeping, Julian Calendar was also on my mind.  Carlwev  09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove months of the year January, February... December

Largely the same reasons as for removing the individual days of the week. Just not really individually notable. Month (already listed under Physical sciences/Measurement/Units of measurement/Time) already covers the general historical/cultural issues. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support removal. Possibly support seven-day week, workweek and weekend, 12 hour time/24 hour time, further types of calendars and years/months, eternity (as a philosophical concept) and time value of money (as a financial concept). Gizza (t)(c) 02:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Colors

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

Society and social sciences

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

Basics

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

Add Nonverbal communication

There are plenty of articles listed about telecommunication and verbal communication but we're missing the other piece of the puzzle. From gestures to posture, facial expressions to eye contact, nonverbal communication plays a very important part in society.

This might be more suitable in the Language or Psychology sections. I proposed it here only to put it alongside communication.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Related topics include body language, kinesics and paralanguage. I chose nonverbal communication as it is the broadest article on this phenonmenon.

Individual acts of nonverbal communication are extremely common. But common can't always equal vital. Otherwise, handshake, smile, salute, dress code and blinking will all be included among many other articles. Gizza (t)(c) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about Facial expression and Body language for ages, I think they're important and I think I'd still support them my self. But your right, if anyone else thought they were borderline this wide overview article is a great one to have. Also I just found out reading that verbal means words, not spoken. As I thought non-verbal would technically include writing, but it does not. I thought it could go into language, but social science is probably better, I touched on this at college but in sociology, not in English. Also I haven't checked the page history, but I'm presuming Gizza is the thread nom. and first support, as Gizza has the first comment in the discussion?  Carlwev  08:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes apologies. I forgot to sign. I also support adding the main categories of nonverbal communication but at the moment am testing the waters to see what everyone else thinks of this area. Gizza (t)(c) 09:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology

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

Business and economics

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

Add Software Industry

Important industry that isn't on the list yet. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support industries can replace nearly all companies. They have far wider scope. Gizza (t)(c) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Health care industry

Another vital industry with a wide scope not on the list. There aren't even any related companies on the list at the moment. Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would be the closest to being vital but they ain't.

Support
  1. Support nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

We should probably have articles on all the major industries. Perhaps these would replace the articles on specific companies. What does everyone else think? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Apple Inc.

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I agree with the removals Malerisch suggests too. Our coverage of companies seems to be rather biased towards IT, perhaps not surprisingly. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Mac OS should be removed first, and Apple's impact on the technology industry makes it vital IMO. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube also have less historical importance and so should be removed before Apple. Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

What about the 6 car manufacturers in the Technology section? I think most of those should be removed before these companies. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they should also be removed + there are some more companies spread out on other subpages.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering how you define historical importance. Didn't you just oppose the removal of eBay? Why are Microsoft and Apple less historically important? Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the IT companies have their own operating systems listed too. There are exceptions but generally a product is less vital than the company that makes it. I don't think Mac OS and Microsoft Windows can be considered more vital than Apple Inc. and Micrsoft respectively. Gizza (t)(c) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when Apple's legacy in consumer electronics is more significant than its operating system. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only companies that should be on the list are East India Company and Dutch East India Company. I forgot to suggest the removal of Standard Oil which is historic in the sense that it is no more, but not vital IMO. We should list consumer electronics, I thought about this several times before, it's a important omission and should cover consumer electronics by Apple and others. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Melody Lavender:, I think your definition of "historic" is off, particularly since you want to remove Standard Oil. Standard Oil is arguably the most influential company in American history, in the sense that most of the American regulatory apparatus. Furthermore, the prominent multinational oil companies Chevron and ExxonMobil (both some of the biggest corporations in the world) both trace their lineage to Standard Oil. The influence occurred almost a century ago, so I'm more than comfortable with calling them "historic". I'm also comfortable calling GE and IBM historic, because their peak of innovation occurred decades ago. IBM was the first important technology company. GE is a very important electronics company. As such, I think the removal of those three companies is a bad idea. pbp 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: I agree that Standard Oil could be considered more important for Economic history than the others. But we don't have Economic history in the first place. What I am trying to say is that in this case I would prefer the approach of adding the overarching articles (industries) instead of individual ones (the companies). This rationale is hard to illustrate because many of the important articles are red links: Instead of AT&T we should really add History of the telecommunications industry. And Telecommunications industry, which is a redirect to Telecommunications, should be a separate article. Nothing keeps us from adding red links to the list, though. Some articles that do exist and describe industries, sectors, and overarching concepts that should be added are History of the internet, History of computing and History of telecommunication, as well as Primary sector of the economy, Secondary sector of the economy, and Tertiary sector of the economy, Public sector, and Private sector. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove AT&T

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I don't see anything that makes AT&T stand out in importance from other major corporations we don't list. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose AT&T has historical importance. pbp 16:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Energy industry

Another vital industry with a wide scope not on the list. The article is not well developed yet but it should cover historical aspects of the industry, such as the importance of Edison's General Electric. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Definitely a vital industry. Malerisch (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove General Electric

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose GE has historical importance. pbp 16:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Remove IBM

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose IBM has historical importance. pbp 16:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Remove Microsoft

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Microsoft Windows should be removed before the company itself. However, that's arguably the most important operating system, so all the others would have to be removed as well, which I don't think is that good of an idea. Malerisch (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

But one could say that the significance of Microsoft is subsumed by the significance of Bill Gates: his page got more views last month than Microsoft and Microsoft Windows combined. Another viewpoint is that we can list the inventor and his invention without listing the company he built around it (Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone, but not Bell Telephone Company or AT&T). In the end it still comes down to how important you really think Microsoft is though, and I'm no economic historian myself. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Walmart

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I suggested replacing these with multinational corporation. Gizza (t)(c) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose as long as Amazon.com is on the list—Walmart is definitely the more important retailer. It's not true in every case (e.g. Thomas Edison is more important than General Electric), but I would also remove the founder, Sam Walton, before Walmart: the company he founded is more vital than himself. I'm not saying Walmart is necessarily vital, but it shouldn't be removed while the other articles stay. Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

We have smaller articles like amazon mentioned above. I don't seem to hate companies as much as everyone else. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer over 10,000 stores, nearly half a trillion dollar turn over and employs over 2 million people. I know it's fairly recent but I still think it's quite significant, lots of biographies are more recent. I mean we're still talking about sports, we have the worlds top 25 footballers, and top 14 tennis players, many of them more recent, but the worlds biggest retailer is not allowed? Like we have 150+ people important to film but don't have one company no disney, fox, viacom/paramount etc, I did media not acting but those came up when i studied cinema.  Carlwev  12:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the quota for biographies is at 2000, the vitality standards for people will be less than for non-biographies in the sense of having less importance and influence in real life. From what I've read in the archives, supporters of the current quota say that 2000 is reasonable because readers expect biographies or personal, human stories in an encyclopedia, not just abstract topics (I haven't made up my mind on it myself). Putting the biography issue to one side, there are more general articles than can cover those companies. Film industry will be a good addition. Cinema of the United States is already listed. There are other broader articles too such as Major film studio. We can avoid bias, COI and spam issues that can crop up if we had to select one or two of Disney, Fox or Viacom. In the case of Walmart, discount store, department store and supermarket are the more general options. Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, it would be funny if we put companies in biographies, although it would never fly. I would prefer to look up Nintendo than Miyamoto or Mario for example, I Would prefer to look up Sony before its co founder, same with Walmart. Biographies already have some articles that aren't single people, several comedy music or theatre duos, many music bands, which I expect. We also have a few oddities like Rothschild family, although I think that's significant compared to some other bios, even though it's a family, perhaps closer to a company kind of article, almost, than a bio?
I agree with Carlwev. I don't think the general articles can sufficiently cover companies, though. General articles like actor, politician, and writer certainly don't cover the lists of people with those professions, and I think the equivalence between companies and people is closer than one might think. Each person has his or her own background, influences, and legacy that makes him or her vital, and so does each company. I also don't think COI is an issue—just because they're companies doesn't mean we can't fairly judge their importance. We can all agree (I hope), for instance, that Apple Inc. is more vital than Toshiba, that Walmart is more vital than Tesco, and that Microsoft is more vital than Oracle Corporation. Malerisch (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Multinational corporation

An article to replace many companies. Similar to Non-governmental organization, which is already listed.

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I don't think it's necessary to list history articles for every major industry: instead this is the article that should cover the effects of globalization on business. Would swap history of economic thought for economic history of the world. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I think we need both history of economic thought and economic history of the world. The contents of these articles are not likely to intersect much in the end, because the first is about the theoretical aspects (economics) and the second is about what happens in the real world (economy and business).--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical: thoughts influence actions. History of the philosophy of science vs. history of science? History of music theory vs. history of music? History of theology vs. history of religions? Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support more industry articles but not "history of industry" articles. That would be going too far. Except for maybe industries with a very long history such as agriculture. History of tourism for instance, is not necessary and actually redirects to tourism itself even though the main article is in Level 3. Gizza (t)(c) 13:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Logistics

The proposed removal of Walmart made me think of this. Funny how we have military logistics but not logistics in general.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support important business concept. Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support another topic I thought was already in.  Carlwev  17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Another concept shared by many fields (military, business and games/sports) is strategy. Personally I wouldn't add it because it is not coherent as a topic. Military strategy is listed while business strategy, which redirects to strategic management, is not. There isn't a strategy article for games or sports except for strategy (game theory) or for specific games like chess strategy. Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither strategy nor plan is vital, but a mental process like planning might have a better case from the perspective of psychology. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Add Test (assessment)

Tests or examinations if you prefer are basic part of formal education for young and older children and adults too, have been for a long time throughout most of the world, many formally recognized and widespread like A-levels GCSE and similar. Tests also feature outside of school like in job or career environment or other positions and things such as driving.  Carlwev  19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Ethnology

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

International organizations

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

Language

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

Move Sign language to Language families

Because sign language is a category of languages and not just one language, its listing should be moved from its own classification of "Visual and tactile language" to "Language families". Muffinator (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. Muffinator (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Reading (process)

Learning to read is something vast majority of people today at least in the west do in school as children or elsewhere. In the vital 100 we have language, linguistics, writing, literature, and book, I am sure reading is vital at the 10,000 level, we list 100's of books and authors and languages, surely the process of understanding writing in the first place is vital, not to mention it's a popular pass time, or form of recreation also. I am fairly sure this should be in language near writing, but it could be seen as recreation or even feasibly education near library or near literature?  Carlwev  15:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Reading is barely squeezed out of the vital 1,000 by literature and book. Definitely worthy of the 10,000. It belongs in language because it is the act of receiving language. Recreation and education are points of view about wht reading is. Muffinator (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

We do already have literacy on the list. That seems like there is some overlap with it. Reading (process) might still be vital by itself though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cuneiform

Cuneiform is one of the earliest writing systems and was developed in ancient Mesopotamia. Britannica says that "its overall significance as an international graphic medium of civilization is second only to that of the Phoenician-Greek-Latin alphabet." Cuneiform is at least as vital as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Malerisch (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Agree, very old, fairly wide spread, influential on later scripts, more vital than many scripts and languages we have.  Carlwev  17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support very significant. Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Law

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

Mass media

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

Museums

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

Most visited art museums

To give insight in the current vital articles, here are some museums from the List of most visited art museums in the world. Of course, this offers only a quantitative indication of only art museums. Hopefully this will help making new additions and removals in order to improve the vital museum articles. – Editør (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9+ million visitors
  1. The Louvre va-4 Museums/Europe
6–7 million visitors
  2. British Museum va-4 Museums/Europe
  4. Metropolitan Museum of Art va-4 Museums/Americas
  5. National Gallery va-4 Museums/Europe
5–6 million visitors
  2. Vatican Museums va-4 Museums/Europe (Sistine Chapel va-4 Architecture)
4–5 million visitors
  2. National Palace Museum va-4 Museums/Asia
  3. Tate Modern va-4 Museums/Europe
  4. National Gallery of Art va-4 Museums/Americas
3–4 million visitors
  2. Musée National d'Art Moderne va-4 Museums/Europe
  3. Musée d'Orsay va-4 Museums/Europe
  4. Victoria and Albert Museum
  5. Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía
  6. Museum of Modern Art va-4 Museums/Americas
  7. National Museum of Korea
2–3 million visitors
  2. Hermitage Museum va-4 Museums/Europe
  3. National Folk Museum of Korea
  4. Somerset House
  5. Museo del Prado va-4 Museums/Europe
  6. Rijksmuseum va-4 Museums/Europe
  7. The National Art Center, Tokyo
  8. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro) see also #33 and #69 on the list
  9. National Portrait Gallery, London
1–2 million visitors
  2. Shanghai Museum
  3. National Gallery of Victoria
  4. Uffizi va-4 Museums/Europe
  5. Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations
  6. National Museum of Scotland
  7. Moscow Kremlin va-4 Architecture
  8. J. Paul Getty Museum va-4 Museums/Americas: nominated for removal
  9. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
  10. Art Institute of Chicago
  11. Saatchi Gallery
  12. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (Brasilia) see also #21 and #69 on the list
  13. National Galleries of Scotland
  14. Van Gogh Museum
  15. Grand Palais
  16. Tokyo National Museum
  17. Tate Britain
  18. Tretyakov Gallery
  19. Dalí Theatre and Museum
  20. Musée du quai Branly
  21. Doge's Palace
  22. Gyeongju National Museum
  23. Australian Centre for the Moving Image
  24. Pergamon Museum
  25. Galleria dell'Accademia
  26. Queensland Art Gallery/Queensland Gallery of Modern Art
  27. Mori Art Museum
  28. Los Angeles County Museum of Art
  29. Smithsonian American Art Museum/Renwick Gallery (Smithsonian Institution va-4 Museums/Americas)
  30. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
  31. Institut Valencià d'Art Modern
  32. Art Gallery of New South Wales
  33. National Museum of Western Art
  34. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
  35. Museo Soumaya
  36. Acropolis Museum (Acropolis of Athens and Parthenon va-4 Architecture)
  37. National Portrait Gallery (United States)
  38. National Art Museum of China
  39. Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum
  40. Royal Academy of Arts
  41. Montreal Museum of Fine Arts
Should we add museums to the list based off of the amount of people who visit each museum? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this list is incomplete and not about museum quality. It was only meant as background information which can perhaps aid us in our voting process when there are no decisive qualitative arguments. – Editør (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove J. Paul Getty Museum

Per Johnbod's comment above, I've nominated the J. Paul Getty Museum for removal. Its collection isn't strikingly unique or notably different from the other listed museums, and it's hard to justify having six/seven museums from the United States while only having one museum from Asia and zero from Africa. The Getty is also the least visited museum listed (assuming that the Guggenheim is moved). And J. Paul Getty himself can be found in the People section, so this removal will reduce that overlap. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Again I would point to the Art Institute of Chicago as the only American museum not already on the list that might be worth including. I don't see any reason to list the Getty Museum ahead of that or the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support  Carlwev  15:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Per Malerisch. Gizza (t)(c) 01:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

The collection seems pretty vital to me, and I don't care if it doesn't have as many visitors. Most sites stress the importance of the classical Greek/Roman collection. But what seems more important to me is that it has an amazing collection of newer Art from the 18th to 20th century, but this doesn't seem to be promoted well, at least on the internet. I'm still undecided. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its collection isn't bad by any means, but I just don't think it's distinct enough from the other museums already listed. Based on the works listed in the "Selected collection highlights" section of the article, I'm not seeing much variation between the Getty's collection and those of other museums. Many of the 18th to the 20th century artists whose works are in the Getty also have similar works in the other museums listed. For example, Canaletto is present in the Hermitage Museum, Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Gallery, and National Gallery of Art; Jacques-Louis David is in the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Gallery, and National Gallery of Art; and J. M. W. Turner is in the National Gallery, Metropolitan Museum of Art, and National Gallery of Art. The same can be said for Édouard Manet, Claude Monet, and Vincent van Gogh, as well as the other artists. Malerisch (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add National Museum of China

The National Museum of China received 7.5 million visitors in 2013, making it the #3 most-visited museum in the world, behind only the Louvre and the National Museum of Natural History (covered in the Smithsonian Institution) (source). It's not purely an art museum, so it doesn't appear on list of most visited art museums in the world (don't confuse this with the National Art Museum of China, which only had 1 million visitors). We need more Asian museums, and I believe that this is a good choice. I was wondering why no Chinese museums ranked high on the art museum list; this probably explains why. Malerisch (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – Editør (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

According to Wikipedia, the National Museum in New Delhi had 7.4 million visitors, but I'm unable to independently verify that statistic (here is the unsourced edit). Malerisch (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[10] See page 53 table 36. The National Museum isn't even on the list of the top ten visited attractions in Delhi. Source from the Indian government. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suspect that the 7.4 million figure was lifted from the National Museum of Natural History, which had that many visitors in 2009. Malerisch (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbidden City/Palace Museum in Beijing has 14+ million visitors per year [11] and is already listed as vital article under Architecture. – Editør (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and government

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

PASSED
Added 6-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add International relations and public policy

Key issues and fields of study within political science. These articles have been suggested in previous discussions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Definitely vital. Malerisch (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Psychology

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

Society

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

Sociology

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

Add Criminology

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. I think adding it here is fine. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Tried this once here we were over quota then and the atmosphere was a bit more hostile. I think this stands another chance, genuine topic of study and of interest to general reader and expert. Crime is in the vital 100 so I believe study of it deserves at least vital 10,000 especially when we list over 20 crimes too. The only reason given for not having it was, we already have crime, but I think that's not a good reason myself, I think it's important enough in it's own right for inclusion and if we missed everything covered in some form by a vital 100 article we wouldn't have much left. Not 100% sure were it would fit, somewhere in social science surely.

(Also if you look at the previous add thread attempt, it was 5-2 support on 9 Nov, I nearly closed it as passed on that day, but for some reason I left it open longer, for another oppose to appear and fail it; silly me.)  Carlwev  14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral about this proposal. I don't know if criminology covers anything substantially more than what's covered by crime, criminal law and forensics. And not every study of a Level 2 topic is listed on Level 4. See somnology, sexology, bacteriology, thanatology, horology, popular culture studies, musicology, communication studies, religious studies and pyrology. I can support it as a swap, maybe with forensics. Gizza (t)(c) 05:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War and military

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

Remove Conventional warfare

Why is it necessary to list "normal" warfare? Isn't this what most of the articles in this section are about?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the definition of conventional is probably not stable enough for a encyclopedia article, what's high tech today is conventional tomorrow. Plus: I think the entire section on warfare by type needs reevaluation; lots of topics there don't seem vital to me. On the other hand, we don't even list the overarching article warfare. Economic warfare is missing, for example, and it's likely to grow in importance, as the recent sanctions in the Ukraine crisis show.--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per Cobblet and Melody Lavender. Malerisch (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Conventional warfare is a type of warfare. All of the articles are individual types of conventional warfare. In addition, we need to add nuclear warfare. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Biology and health sciences

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

Basics

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

Anatomy and morphology

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

Biochemistry and molecular biology

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

Biological processes and physiology

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

Botany

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

Cell biology

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

Ecology

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

Zoology

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

Organisms

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

Add Cactus

Cacti are a fairly widespread, well-known, and diverse family of plants. They are frequently found in deserts and are recognized for their spines and ability to conserve water. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, quite an omission. I wonder how this happened, because the list of organisms seemed so detailed. It's not listed under its Latin name, and the subfamilies aren't either. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support another surprise of an omission  Carlwev  11:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No surprise that lots of important plants have been left out: see User:Plantdrew/Vital. Sugarcane, anyone? Cobblet (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as vital as camel. Gizza (t)(c) 11:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Mastodon

There are currently 4 articles in the Proboscidea (elephant-like animals) order: Proboscidea itself, Elephant, Mammoth and Mastodon. Elephant is obviously vital. Mammoths are the most well known of extinct Proboscidea and became extinct only 4,500 years ago. Mastodon are far lesser known group. They became extinct around 10,000 years ago, a similar time to the Gomphothere, another group of elephant-like animals who are not on the list. The main Proboscidea article should be enough for covering these groups and others.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support I still think mastodons are one of the more important extinct mammals, but they might be too similar to mammoths to include. We are still missing other important animals, so I can support removing this for now. Malerisch (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support removal of mastodon, would also support adding Pleistocene megafauna Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Pleistocene megafauna or megafauna or specific examples of prehistoric megafauna are all possible replacements. Cobblet (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, they're just as vital as Mammoths and elephants. The fact that the name is slightly less well known makes it even more likely that readers will want to look it up on an encyclopedia. I see no reason to list Proboscidea. I'm not sure about the addition of Gomphothere, it doesn't seem more vital than Stegodon (also not on list). Out of the other animals from the order Proboscidea only Moeritherium seems to have vital quality. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I would prefer to keep this  Carlwev  18:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Undecided on this for now. While there's no denying that mastodons are the least vital out of the listed proboscideans, I'm not convinced that it should be taken out of the list entirely. Dictionary definitions that list specific species of Proboscidea besides elephants include mastodons (1, 2 [2nd link works if you click through from Google]), and Britannica includes mastodons in its first sentence as well (3). The BBC thinks mastodons are important enough for a subpage under Proboscidea (4), and the Tree of Life highlights the mastodon as an example of Proboscidea (5). Mammoths and mastodons are also sometimes discussed together (6, 7, 8). Furthermore, the fact that list of museums and colleges with mastodon fossils on display is a Wikipedia article is quite interesting (there's no equivalent article for mammoths), but it shows that mastodons are popular exhibits (assuming the list is correct since it lacks sources). I don't know if all this makes mastodons vital, but I think it should be considered in this nomination. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some research Malerisch. I noticed that the BCC provides more detailed coverage of animals than what we can provide on the expanded vital list. The BCC has 338 pages on mammals compared to our 167, 295 pages on birds when we have 147, 80 on modern reptiles compared to our 37, and 53 on prehistoric reptiles when we have 12. Their coverage of amphibians and insects is also more comprehensive although their coverage of fish is weaker. The mastadon as you said is actually a subpage of Proboscidea and doesn't have its own page per se.
The BBC rhinoceros page here contains four subpages to explore the animal group. There are three on modern rhinos (White, Black, Indian) and one on prehistoric (the Woolly rhinoceros, another animal that went extinct around the similar time to the mammoths and mastodons). Maybe megafauna or pleistocene megafauna are better options as they discuss all of the animals that died out during the last major Ice Age. Gizza (t)(c) 02:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should remove the order Proboscidea instead and keep elephant, mammoth, and mastodon. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear. The point I was making about the rhinos was that we only list one type of rhino on VA even though there are mamy current species of rhinos as well as many recently extinct species. Getting rid of Proboscidea instead means no coverage of other elephant-like animals such as Gomphotheres, which also lasted up to the most recent Ice Age.
If we're mass deleting extant animals that are still relevant today, how many extinct animals should we really have? Mammoth, many dinosaurs and the dodo are vital but our focus should still be on the present not the past. We're inconsistent too since we don't list Smilodon, the most famous species of sabre-toothed cat (tiger). Gizza (t)(c) 04:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longhorn cattle

This article is currently a disambiguation page, but it's not obvious which cattle breed was intended for this link, so I'm putting this up for a short discussion instead of just fixing it. The article originally pointed to English Longhorn, but the reason for the page move was that "most links to this page seem to be intend for Texas Longhorn (cattle), a more numerous, historically-important breed." What should this link be changed to? Malerisch (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I question whether Texas longhorn is vital. It is 343rd on the list of what people search for the most in wikiproject agriculture. However, if we are going to choose between English longhorn and Texas Longhorn, I would choose Texas Longhorn. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Texas Longhorn is probably more vital than the other options. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to lean toward PointsofNoReturn's perspective that Texas Longhorn just isn't that vital—we are missing Holstein Friesian cattle, for instance. Malerisch (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holstein Friesian cattle should probably be added. And Angus (cattle) is likely also more vital than Texas Longhorn. We're also missing some cat breeds (only two are on the list: Manx cat and Siamese cat). We should add Persian cat at least, and maybe also Mustang to the horse breeds. And some extinct breeds of domestic animals might also be vital such as Aurochs. There should be lots of non-vital organisms to swap for these. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on Angus cattle. We also list Guernsey cattle, which doesn't seem that vital; the article states that its global population is less than 10,000. And yes, the number of cat breeds could be increased a bit. Mustang could be added as well, but there should be around the same number of dog and horse breeds. 10 breeds may be a bit too much. Malerisch (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Add Holstein Friesian cattle, Remove Longhorn cattle

The Longhorn cattle page is currently a disambiguation and so should be removed. None of the three cattle breeds on the page seem particularly vital either, so I propose to add Holstein Friesian cattle instead, which are the "world's highest-production dairy animals." Holstein Friesian cattle are also one of the most recognizable cattle breeds: they're the ones with the black splotches. Malerisch (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I'd support removing Guernsey cattle (one dairy breed is enough IMO) and swapping Brahman (cattle) for Zebu. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Health, medicine and disease

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


Add Histamine antagonist

With the allergy season fast approaching, I'll write up a proposal for allergy medication. Allergies are some of the most wide-spread diseases, ranging from annoying hay fever to deadly anaphylaxis. Allergy and Asthma are, consequently, on level 3, and they explain or at least mention the role of histamines in the pathophysiology of these diseases. Our article on antihistamines is not exhaustive yet, and doesn't really give a good overview of the subject. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not every remedy to every common medical condition is vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Human eye

Vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support One of the more important human anatomy articles. Malerisch (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Beta blocker

One of the most widely prescribed drugs to reduce blood pressure. It has several other uses in cardiac diseases, has and anxiolytic effect and is also given to prevent migranes. It's also considered a doping drug. The most ancient substance in this group, Propanolol, dates back to the 1960ies. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support If people want to see more (say by 10-20 articles) coverage of drugs in general (pharmaceutical or recreational) then this is worth consideration. Propranolol is a Nobel-Prizewinning discovery. But note that not everything for which a Nobel Prize has been awarded is on our list; in fact only a select few are. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

This is a better idea than adding antipsychotics. The reason I don't suggest adding Antihypertensive drug here is that beta blockers are much more notable than the other antihypertensives, none of which merit significant coverage on our list. Antipsychotics don't stand out from the other psychiatric medications in the same way. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add L Dopa

On the market since 1973, L Dopa is another substance that was on the World Health Organization's list of essential medications right from the beginning. It's a substance that is normally produced by the human body; a lack of it manifests in Parkinson's disease, one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases.--Melody Lavender (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose It makes no sense to propose this when dopamine itself isn't on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add dopamine

Compliment to the above proposal.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support As I mentioned below, this should be added to Hormones. Malerisch (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

This should be nominated in Biochemistry and molecular biology (subtopic of Hormone), not Health, medicine and disease. Malerisch (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If nobody objects, we can quick move it to hormones if it passes. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs next to epinephrine – these are both catecholamine neurotransmitters. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add physical disability

We already have disability and intellectual disability. Looks like an oversight to me, to not also include physical disabilities which are more culturally recognized due to their visibility. Muffinator (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Muffinator (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Arthritis

Arthritis is a major joint disorder that affects a large percentage of the population. From the CDC, it's the "most common cause of disability among U.S. adults," and 1 in 5 adults has this condition. Major types of arthritis include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wouldn't support specifying the major types, but support arthritis. Muffinator (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This is yet another surprising omission. Gizza (t)(c) 04:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support crossed my mind before, happy to support.  Carlwev  08:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Epilepsy

Epilepsy is a major neurological disorder that is well-known for causing epileptic seizures. It affects about 65 million people worldwide. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. I considered that we might want seizure instead, but that's just a redirect to epileptic seizure, so epilepsy is clearly the broader topic of the two. Muffinator (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Tried to swap in before, happy to support again  Carlwev  08:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Add Medical diagnosis, Remove Diagnosis

The diagnosis article is currently a list of disparate topics (and resembles a disambiguation); medical diagnosis is where the appropriate material is located. Malerisch (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support makes sense  Carlwev  15:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support My assumption is that the Diagnosis article, when added, was meant to cover medical diagnosis. This is a good swap. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, good find.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add First aid

We're poised to add emergency preparedness, why not this as well?

Support
  1. pbp 04:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Local emergency preparedness. Gizza (t)(c) 05:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support another topic I thought we had it already  Carlwev  17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Malerisch (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Physical sciences

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

Basics

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

Measurement

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

Remove Arbitrary unit, Angstrom, Atmosphere (unit), Baud, Bushel, Jansky and TNT equivalent

These are all non-SI units with fairly specialized applications and aren't really vital. There are other such units we don't list: none of them should be on the list if a common derived SI unit like tonne is deemed non-vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Angstrom isn't that obscure, but considering that centimetre and kilometre were removed, I don't think it should stay. Atmosphere (unit) is a pretty common unit of pressure as well, but bar (unit) and torr aren't listed either, so I can support removing it too. It also makes no sense to keep TNT equivalent when trinitrotoluene isn't listed. Malerisch (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Malerisch. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Angstrom, support removal of all others. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Angstrom is a pretty obsolete unit at this point, although it is still occasionally used. It also has a trivial conversion to the preferred unit nanometer. Rwessel (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Add Accuracy and precision

These two related but distinct concepts are fundamental to the science of measurement.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rwessel (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Planck units, Add Natural units

Planck units are one system of units based on fundamental physical quantities, but hardly the only ones. They're all useful in specific contexts and I think a discussion of the concept as a whole is more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose; would support a straight add. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Swap: Remove Micrometer, Add Calipers

Micrometers are just one modern type of calipers. It's like listing analytical balance instead of weighing scale.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support but what about ruler? Malerisch (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I think I can support ruler. What other kinds of hand tools or stationery are people interested in adding? Cobblet (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap: Remove Altimeter, Add Odometer

Odometers have a long and rich history compared to most other measuring instruments; their significance far outweighs any single flight instrument.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I don't actually think there are many measuring instruments with as long of a history as the odometer. (Rulers and water clocks are two basic ones that should be nominated.) Malerisch (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose; would support a straight remove. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose swap, support straight remove of Altimeter. Rwessel (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose add, support straight remove. There are many measuring devices and sensors of comparable importance. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Astronomy

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

Add Extraterrestrial life

Significant to both astronomy (e.g. Fermi paradox, astrobiology, planetary habitability, SETI) and the popular imagination.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support strongly, I actually thought this was in already, would also support the all the other articles stated in lead, although a bit less sure of Fermi Paradox  Carlwev  11:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support only for extraterrestrial life and astrobiology; adding the others would give too much weight to something that hasn't even been observed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support extraterrestrial life only per StringTheory11. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Chemistry

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

Earth science

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

Physics

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

PASSED
Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add Supersymmetry

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Malerisch. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Add Simple harmonic motion

Harmonic oscillator is already listed, but it seems like some also want the more basic concept to be added as well. I also think it's worth listing since it's a topic that comes up fairly frequently in physics. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I was thinking of SHM during the earlier set of physics proposals. Good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Drag (physics)

Cobblet pointed out that this was missing, and it's definitely a key concept in fluid mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Although what I didn't think of at the time was that lift (force) is at least as important. Types of forces... I dunno how much of these we want. Tension and compression? Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Fluid statics

This field is categorized here: Mechanics > Continuum mechanics > Fluid mechanics > Fluid statics. I think this is too specific, and considering that all the subfields of optics were removed, this probably should be as well. We also already list statics separately.

As a separate question, what do people think of removing fluid dynamics? Dynamics (mechanics) is also listed. And what about electrostatics and magnetostatics? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Gotta think about this one. You could call aerodynamics a subfield of fluid dynamics: does that mean it's even less vital? I'd also question whether we really need to include dynamics and statics as subfields of mechanics – can a person really be said to study "dynamics" as an academic subject? Is there such a thing as a "dynamicist"? At least I know for a fact there are journals and academic departments devoted to rheology. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Rheology

I don't think this subfield of continuum mechanics is particularly vital. Why is it more important than, say, polymer physics? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Superfluid helium-4

It's an interesting property of helium, but isn't this awfully specific? The more general article is superfluidity, but I'm not sure if that's vital either. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support too specific. Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Superfluids are a pretty exotic state of matter, but less so than quark-gluon plasma and degenerate matter, no? I think those should be removed too. Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've posted a removal thread below. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Degenerate matter and Quark–gluon plasma

These states of matter are too esoteric to be listed. Degenerate matter is discussed in white dwarf and quark–gluon plasma in quark, and both also mentioned in state of matter. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Kirchhoff's circuit laws

These laws are commonly used to analyze circuits. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Centrifugal force

The centrifugal force isn't a real force, and it's covered in centripetal force anyway. Fictitious force may be a better addition. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support An interesting topic of debate, but not vital. Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Equations of motion

We do already list motion (physics), but I think the equations that govern motion are important enough to be listed as well. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Physics beyond the Standard Model

This article should cover many active research topics that aren't vital enough to be listed separately, including the CP violation, neutrino oscillations, and loop quantum gravity. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Technology

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

Agriculture

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

C is currently listed here. Malerisch (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
IT isn't well represented either. There many fields of it that aren't well covered. I think these topics are more important than listing say 15 different types of fabric. Also keep in mind that technology is still 28 articles bellow quota. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider everything in the fabric section except for canvas more vital than C++. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my vote. There are more vital programming topics missing. It's better to have them instead of another C-language. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Printer (computing)

Someone mentioned printer, and I think they have a point, We have things like computer mouse, monitor, keyboard, Hard disc drive, motherboard, 4 programming languages nearly another one soon, computer printer seems to fit in I believe. We also don't have Image scanner is that worth some thought?. To me a computer printer and scanner seem more vital than having 4 or 5 programming languages.  Carlwev  15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support. as nom.  Carlwev  15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. I'm not sure if this should go in this section or Media and communication: printing, photocopier, and printing press are all located there. Malerisch (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Prefer placement with the other printing technologies. Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support and place along similar print technology. Gizza (t)(c) 14:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

You could be right, all printing tech together may be sensible, what do others think?  Carlwev  16:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Berkeley Software Distribution, MS-DOS, Multics, and OpenVMS

Many people are concerned that computing may be overrepresented, and the operating systems category seems like a good place to rectify that. BSD ought to be covered to some extent in Unix, and MS-DOS is the less vital out of the two Microsoft operating systems. Multics was an influential early operating system, but we don't list things like difference engine and IBM Personal Computer, which were just as influential to the hardware side of computers. And OpenVMS just isn't on the same level as Linux, Unix, Mac OS, or Microsoft Windows. If we're removing Apple Inc. and Microsoft, I don't see how these operating systems are any more vital. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Multics and OpenVMS, not sure about BSD and DOS. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Information technology

I find it mildly amusing that in spite of the alleged bias toward IT, we don't have IT itself on the list. The section itself is also titled "Computing and information technology". Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support  Carlwev  12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Compact disc

Covered by Optical disc. We don't list DVD or Blu-Ray.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per V3n0M93 and the same reasons for removing floppy disk. Gizza (t)(c) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add File system

An important computer science topic. It discusses how exactly data is stored on a disk.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Lisp (programming language)

We don't have any functional languages. This the most vital of that paradigm.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

A long time ago all programming languages were removed because it was thought programming languages article itself was enough and covered the topic, now we have 4 of them added back, and might soon have a total of 6 programming languages. How many do we want in the end? I would probably disagree removing CD as we have optical disc, over 200 billion CDs have been made, and they're still going. One could say CD is covered by optical disc so we don't need it, but what is the reply to we have programming language, so we don't need 6 examples of programming languages? I admit programming isn't my thing but I am a little confused say water wheel in use for over 2000 years may not get in because we have water mill but 6 programming languages is acceptable. I still appreciate all the hard work and different views, I think it makes the list better in the end, this is only my view.  Carlwev  12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep CD, we should add DVD and Blu-ray too. There is no reason to list only one of them. I personally feel that the optical disc article is enough. About programming languages I don't thing the Programming language article covers them enough. If this was VA1000 then one article would be enough but here we can add a few languages. We still have no coverage of logic programming as well as other fields of computer science. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also the recently successful proposal to remove Floppy disk Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_30#Remove_Floppy_disk. There are many storage media which had just as much of an impact on society as CD or Floppy disk did (been popular worldwise for around 20 years). OTOH, photographic film was popular for 100 years and is clearly in a different level. On the point of programming languages, I agree that 6 is excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Computer architecture

Vital topic. Discusses the relation between software and hardware.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Virtual reality

Important topic. We do list Computer graphics though.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose VR is mostly hype at this point. Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I think this is not the weakest, I probably would include this before any programming language, I know it's early days with VR, but it's still in use to an extent, nanotech, and AI are also far from being super advanced were they could be in the future too but are also significant and included.  Carlwev  12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED
Already listed under Engineering --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add Software engineering

We have a lot of topic concerning programming languages and theory, but none about the actual process of creating software.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Electronics

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

Add Electromagnet

Electromagnets are definitely vital: they're one of the most commonly used elements in electronic devices. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Antenna (radio)

Antennas are also widely used today. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Engineering

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

Industry

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

Add Smelting

The process used for thousands of years across the world to extract metal from its ore is vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support had this on my mind  Carlwev  11:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Water wheel

We recently added Archimedes' screw, Water wheel seems slightly more important. If we can have Solar power and solar energy and solar cell, as well as windmill, wind power, wind turbine, I believe we should have water wheel. They were in use from ancient Roman and Greec world in the 3rd century BC to the 20th century.  Carlwev  17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

We list watermill though, which covers similar ground – you might as well propose water turbine too even though we have turbine (watermills use one or the other). I'm not sure we need this much overlap on this subject. Incidentally, I've never really liked the overlap between hydropower and hydroelectricity and now we've also got solar power and solar energy. Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

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

Machinery and tools

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

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.

Add Wheelchair

Vital. Rollator (Zimmer frame with wheels) might also be vital.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - A wheelchair is the international symbol for disability. Hearing aid, white cane, and crutch are also notable. Muffinator (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support The wheelchair is the most important symbol of disability. I would also consider adding the objects mentioned by Muffinator above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the related topics of hearing loss and blindness are already on the list, with nothing comparable for crutch. Muffinator (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Prosthesis

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support but [justification needed] Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support,vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Medical radiography and Medical ultrasonography

X-rays and ultrasound are fundamental medical imaging techniques.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Medical radiography includes projectional radiography and x-ray computed tomography; those are vital enough to be listed as well. Positron emission tomography should also be considered. In these cases, some specificity is good (e.g. tomography is less vital than the specific technologies). Malerisch (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, vital. I agree that this is a case where the specific articles are more important than the general. Scintigraphy is even more important than PET-Scan, though. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Military technology

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

Remove Assault rifle

There are only eight medical technology articles on the list, but a stunning 68 military technology articles. That is totally out of balance, even if we consider that much of the revolution in the medical technology sector has taken place in the course of the last century. We do have rifle on the list (not that I think it's necessary) but it should cover assault rifle. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support The military technology section is unreasonably large and I think this is sufficiently covered by rifle. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I don't think the military technology section in general is too big but agree that the main rifle article covers assault rifle. As it stands, rifle would definitely look out of place in the 1000 when basic categories of weapons and tech such as bomb and armour are missing. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support "Assault rifle" is a poorly defined subcategory of rifle. Rwessel (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would prefer to keep this, rifle wouldn't look completely out of place in the 1000 list, I think assault rifle is important enough for here, and I don't think weapons is excessive. I was on the fence about removing AK-47. I know rifle should cover it, but everything is covered by something else to a degree, and I think it's important enough on it's own for inclusion too.  Carlwev  20:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose This is an important classification of guns. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

AK-47 and M16 rifle were Wikiproject Firearms's first and fourth most frequently viewed articles last month. Just sayin'. (Assault rifle itself was 87th.) Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Molotov cocktail

I believe this is the weakest article in the weapons section. Whatever cultural significance the Molotov cocktail has, I'm pretty sure it's less than assault rifles. I'm not aware of any national flags depicting Molotov cocktails, for example. We already list IEDs as a notable type of improvised weapon, and we list things like riot and guerrilla warfare too, both of which should cover the application of improvised weapons in general.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. In addition Molotov Cocktail is already mentioned in Improvised explosive device. Rwessel (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

When it comes to modern unconventional warfare, perhaps the biggest omission from the list is suicide attack. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation and timekeeping

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

Optical technology

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

Swap: Remove Reflecting telescope, Refracting telescope and Catadioptric system, Add Optical telescope

There's no need to list all three subtypes of optical telescopes. It would be better to list other types of telescopes such as radio telescope, which has important applications in astronomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Optical microscope

And if we can have types of telescopes we can have types of other optical instruments. The optical microscope page receives as many views as the three pages on optical telescopes combined.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

I'd like to nominate electron microscope one day, but the most generally familiar type of microscope should come first. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The electron microscope is an incredibly significant invention. I would definitely support adding it. Gizza (t)(c) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Digital photography

One of the most disruptive technologies of recent times, taking over the photography industry almost overnight. Alternatively we could add digital camera.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. I prefer the photography article slightly ahead of the camera. Gizza (t)(c) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

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.

Add Locomotives

Our coverage of Rail transport is lacking basic articles compared to other transport possibly for a few reasons. First there is no such thing as a military or weapon train, so compared to planes and ships for example trains get less space. Representation of them when the list was compiled years back went the direction of including certain things like rapid transit then 5 examples of it or 5 underground train networks. We also have train station, track, Trans-Siberian Railway. We include high speed rail, just added, one of the newest types of rail transport but we are missing the 3 types of rail transport that have been the most widespread and used for longer amount of time, at the moment we have 13 articles in rail transport. It looks like the rapid transit systems may be staying, to include articles like Moscow Metro and Nissan but not Steam train, seems odd to me. Also rail transport has less than other transport types. 13 rail transport, 27 road transport, 18 aviation (plus more in military tech), 21 naval transport (plus more in military tech). Someone may say we have steam engine, but that's also in the 1000 with things like automobile, internal combustion engine, electric motor, so I think taking that into account I think the 10,000 list is big enough. To play Devil's advocate to my own idea, I am less sure on diesel locomotive as I am also pondering on Diesel fuel and/or Diesel engine. I am also pondering if Railway electrification system may be better than electric locomotive.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about locomotive? I think that should be listed before individual types. (Also, I believe you nominated electric locomotive twice.) Malerisch (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Altered, one electric was meant to be diesel.  Carlwev  12:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll open locomotive too then, didn't realize that and we have train, I noticed Steam train, redirects to steam locomotive, diesel train to diesel locomotive, and electric train also not an article but a disambiguation that lists electric locomotive, because we list train I thought train types were OK but they redirect to locomotive types, then because we list train I didn't realize locomotive itself was a separate and missing article. I'll open Locomotive too.  Carlwev  12:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also realizing the train articles redirect to the locomotive articles, we list Steamboat already, and steam train is equal if not higher importance. We don't leave off steamboat as we have boat, but we may leave of steam train, as we have train?  Carlwev  12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've suggested below, if this bothers you then we could swap steamboat for marine propulsion in general. And one of the reasons I nominated electrification is that it should cover the electrification of different economic sectors, including transportation. Cobblet (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diesel I'd like to point out, we have nothing for diesel anything anywhere. Although diesel locomotive may not get in, to say it's covered by diesel fuel and/or diesel engine, isn't relevant unless we include them, which we do not at the moment, I may suggest one or both of them instead, thoughts? They may be better to have, but we don't have them yet.  Carlwev  18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diesel engine's more vital than diesel fuel; it's the operating principle of the engine that dictates what kinds of fuels can be used, and diesel fuel is not a specific chemical mixture the way gasoline is. Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Steam locomotive

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, more vital than Locomotive. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I think steam locomotives are vital enough to be listed separately. Malerisch (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Electric locomotive

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Diesel locomotive

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Discussion

Add Locomotive

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Strongly support. But I'll probably add an "oppose" to the individual types after thinking about it a bit more. Locomotives are very important to trains, although there's really not that big an impact to what trains do based on the type of locomotive. Rwessel (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, oppose the individual locomotive types. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support If we don't want to add steam locomotive and consistency between ship and train topics is a concern, I suppose I could support a swap of steamboat for marine propulsion. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support this and oppose specific types. Covered by the main locomotive article and steam engine/steam, electrification/electric motor and diesel engine/diesel respectively. Gizza (t)(c) 08:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support but not too sure on the individual types. Malerisch (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support and also not sure about individual types. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Remove Convertible, Hatchback, Sports car and Station wagon

Specific car body styles are not vital. Passenger vehicles are overrepresented relative to more specialized ones – heavy equipment like bulldozers, off-road vehicles like snowmobiles, etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Six automobile manufacturers is also excessive when you consider that most types of manufacturers are not represented on the list at all. Gizza (t)(c) 07:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Was just thinking about bringing these up, no one seems to like them, and the other 2 went quickly with lots of support.  Carlwev  09:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose pbp 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I'm not too sure why sport utility vehicle is excluded from this proposal. Why is it more vital than sports car and station wagon? Malerisch (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only because they're often technically considered light trucks. I've suggested in the past that I'd be comfortable removing the truck subtypes as well; but to keep New York City subway but not pickup truck is bias against rural America ;-) Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics

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

Basics

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

Algebra

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

Calculus and analysis

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

Discrete mathematics

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

Geometry

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

Other

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

Probability and statistics

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

General discussions

Alexander Grin and Korney Chukovsky

No disrespect to wikipedians (we all have limited knowledge), just a constatation of the fact that the decision was made by people who have absolutely no knownledge of Russian culture, not to say literature. To call "obscure" two cult Russian writers demonstrates this. I strongly suggest in such cases to draw attention of the corresponding national wikiprojects. -No.Altenmann >t 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:LITERATURE would be the right place to ask for help. Not national wikiprojects which will inevitably be biased in judging the vitality of topics related to their nations. It is a simple question about how many Russian authors should be represented in a limited list of the worlds most important authors. Grin and Chukovsky may be important in Russia, but their global importance is limited relative to many other authors from other countries who are also not on the list. The approach you advocate would only work if there were already allotted a fixed number of slots for Russian authors - then it would make sense to let the members of wp:russia and Wp;Literature decide who occupies those places - but that is unfortunately not how we are working currently. If I were in charge it would be, and the only task of WP:VITAL would be to decide how to prioritize slots for different topics and then let the wikiprojects fill them out. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed, but since it is outside my interests, I will not mess with your work. (After all, nobody forbids me to start Wikipedia:Vital articles about Russia, right?) -No.Altenmann >t 03:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you're right Altenmann (talk · contribs), in criticizing that we called them 'obscure'. We should be more careful, especially with what we say about people. The word does have a double meaning though, I'm quite certain the nominator didn't mean this to be derogatory, but just wanted to express that they are less well known than the other Russian authors on the list.

This is the definition of obscure from Merriam Webster:

1 a : dark, dim

b : shrouded in or hidden by darkness
c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>

2 not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious

3 relatively unknown: as

a : remote, secluded <an obscure village>
b : not prominent or famous <an obscure poet>

4 constituting the unstressed vowel \ə\ or having unstressed \ə\ as its value --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your polite but pointless answer gives more validity to my comment, as well as to my answer I decided to revert. I don't find the word offensive; I understand it perfectly describes the cultural level of those who judged the world culture. Your list represents hopeless American POV on the rest of the world. Ignoring national POV only perpetuates cliches about Russia: vodka, Tolstoy, bears, "Russians are coming", Dostoyevsky, this level-4 pedophile Nabokov (thank you for listing him as American) ... (what did I miss?). I don't insist that I am right about relative importance of A.Grin, but 6 random people without a single Russian deciding how Russian culture looks like strikes me as arrogant. Especially amusing was the comment about the number of Russian writers: 20 - how dare they! Never mind 87 Anglo-Saxon. That the rest of the world is represented by less didn't bother you. It just may be that 37 for the whole rest of Western Europe is a fair share, but somehow I am inclined to think that the compilers have problems not only with Russians. -No.Altenmann >t 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, another pointless answer: you're free to help us judge, and thank you (I guess??) for thinking we're elite. But as you have already noticed, the task we are taking on is almost impossible, it's ill-defined and we're aware that the list isn't perfect. Seriously, anybody can participate. Currently there are no rules as to when an entry can be relisted. A recent discussion that disappeared (archived by mistake, maybe?) has not shown any consensus on a relisting period, so you can list them again any time, maybe with better arguments. You will find large consensus for your position that the list is overly American. Why do we need to identify the most important articles on the encyclopedia? I don't know. Good question. Because that's what editors do, maybe? And: You're right, Nabokov should go. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I archived that discussion here because there were no comments in over a month. If someone wants to bring it up again, they can unarchive it. Malerisch (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann:, you're right that the biggest biases in the list are American and British. Any representation of Russia is very small by comparison. Other parts of Europe in some areas and historical periods are okay but the rest of the world is even more poorly represented throughout the list. You are welcome to suggest additions and removals. The contributors to the list in recent times have more diverse nationalities, and areas of expertise than before so the list in general is slowly improving. But we not are not perfect are individual mistakes are made.
FWIW, there is a current proposal to remove all railway networks from the list except for the Trans-Siberian Railway which has received some support. There are clearly people here who respect the great Russian engineering feat. The more people we can get from different cultures and knowledge to contribute, the better. Gizza (t)(c) 03:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> I apologize for my harsh tone. The main reason of the post here was to create an anchor thread to refer to from WP Russia. Unfortunately Russians don't care. I thank you for your invitation, but my interests lie elsewhere. My position is that wikipedia is most important as a web of knowledge and don't see much value in striving for "perfect" articles (featured, good, DYK, "10,000 things you should know about it all", etc.). Accordingly, I prefer to create articles about things nobody knows and few care. Surely I will not earn any barnstars, e.g. for my last work, Khalmer-Yu. Neither Rubber soldiers/Girl with an Oar/Regenwurmlager/Nagana szlachectwa/Sink works will hit DYK with my efforts, although sometimes I try to amuse people with things like Swill milk scandal or Animal latrine :-) Good luck; it looks like my idea about Wikipedia:Vital articles about Russia did not fly. -No.Altenmann >t 04:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs more articles about commonly unknown subject matters. I like your idea to create a web of knowledge. To me anyway, the most interesting articles I read are the ones that I had no knowledge of previously. Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic vs. manual nesting of VA lists

Recently, there has been some discussion about how to handle articles that appear in a higher-tier VA list but not a lower-tier list. I think that this would be best resolved with a formal proposal. There are two obvious ways to solve this problem: automatic nesting and manual nesting.

Supporting automatic nesting would mean a few things:

  • Articles that appear on higher-tier list but not a lower-tier list would be automatically added to the lower-tier list. For example, although solar energy isn't on level 4, it can be added without discussion because it is already present on level 3.
  • Articles that are nominated to a higher-tier list but are not already on a lower-tier list would be automatically added to the lower-tier list. For example, if a nomination of climate change to level 3 passed, it would also be added to level 4 without discussion.
  • Articles that are deleted from a lower-tier list would be deleted from any higher-tier lists. For example, if a nomination to remove point (geometry) from level 4 passed, it would also be removed from level 3 without discussion.

Supporting manual nesting would mean the opposite:

  • Solar energy would still have to be nominated to level 4 even though it is on level 3.
  • Even if climate change passed on level 3, it would still have to be nominated on level 4.
  • Even if point (geometry) were removed on level 4, it would still have to be nominated for removal on level 3.

Please support your preferred choice! Malerisch (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support automatic nesting
  1. Support I prefer automatic nesting because it ensures that all articles are always appropriately nested and streamlines the process without unnecessary voting. Additionally, it's possible to hit roadblocks with manual nesting. Consider the semiconductor device nomination: it failed to be added on level 4 1-3. What if the removal nomination on level 3 received a final tally of 3-1, which is entirely possible, and so wouldn't be removed? Manual nesting doesn't guarantee that nesting will always be achieved. Malerisch (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support manual nesting
Oppose both solutions (I assume this means no nesting at all, so please explain why!)
Discussion
Comment - I would agree to automatic method if there was only one logical choice but there is not. Even if we agree every article should appear at all lower tiers than its highest appearance, which I presume we have by now. An issue I was thinking about, if an article is listed in the 1000 list but not the 10,000 list, the automatic method could have several ways of doing things, all logical. I'll call them Adding, Removing and Switching
  1. Adding One could say The article should automatically be added to the 10,000 as it's already in the 1000, this is what ended up happening to History of North America, with voting and many more.
  2. Removing One could just as easily say the article should be immediately removed from the 1000 list as it's not even in the 10,000, this may happen to Semiconductor device and more in the past with voting.
  3. Switching Some articles were removed from the 1000 and added to the 10,000. This happened to Antônio Carlos Jobim and more by voting.
  4. If an article is found, added or removed from the 10 or 100 lists but is missing from one or more lower tiers, there would be even more combinations of solutions, of where said article should and should not be and all completely logical...I found Oral tradition in the 100 list but no other list. It ended up being listed in the 10,000 list only. But it would have been equally as logical to have it in 100, 1000 and 10,000, or only 1000 and 10,000, or only in 10,000, or remove it completely....When we removed art and added arts to the vital 10, we presumed arts should be added to the 100 and 1000 too, but had to discus whether or not art should be removed also from the 100 and the 1000.
In short why would you pick adding to be the only logical solution, when removing or switching also make sense. When opening a thread that would otherwise not follow logic, we should vote not for simply, "have it/don't have it" at this level, but for the methods Adding Removing Switching above; or ask the question "Which is the highest tier you want this article" and vote on the options, we did threads like this for Antônio Carlos Jobim, and space technology articles and a few more. Some found consensus some didn't, but that's no different to the potential result of any other kind of thread.
When all existing discrepancies are dealt with, any new thread opened for a higher level should either be an article already at lower tiers as PBP says or should just be opened and worded in such a way as to follow our logic. Eg if someone wanted to open a thread for Ableism, which is currently being discussed, and is presently not listed at any level, one could open a thread: "add Ableism to the 10,000" or: "Add Ableism to the 1000 and 10,000" the thread simply named: "Add Ableism to the 1000" shouldn't really be started and should be altered quickly if it is, as opening it now would create the problem all over again. The last one would only be OK to open if Ableism gets added to the 10,000 first in a separate thread, which it isn't yet. I have written more than I hoped I would, but does this make sense?  Carlwev  09:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply! I understand what you're saying. You're correct that there is more than one way in dealing with such a discrepancy, but I believe that adding automatically by default makes the most sense since it's the most common case and most accurately reflects the status quo. Additionally, all other adjustments can be made with only 1 thread.
Let's say that we added all the missing level 4 articles automatically, and I'll explain how this happens:
  • For a complete removal, a "Remove Semiconductor device" on level 4.
  • For a switch, a "Remove Antônio Carlos Jobim" on level 3.
  • In the case of oral tradition, "Remove oral tradition" on level 3.
  • And art would also only need 1: "Remove art" on level 3.
With removing/switching, more threads would need to be posted because those are less common scenarios. I believe that adding is the simplest solution. Hope that's clear! Malerisch (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting statistics

The issues of nationality and pageviews have been popping up now and again. For everyone's information here are a few links showing which nationalities are editing and reading the English Wikipedia 1 and 2. Also important to note are the countries where the English Wikipedia is the most popular version. Here is a useful map (slightly outdated at Oct 2013 but it wouldn't have changed a lot since then). The archive at Wikistats provides further insights in the viewing and editing habits of Wikipedians as you can observe the trends over the past few years. Generally the gap between the Global North and Global South is decreasing slowly but steadily. Gizza (t)(c) 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Disability and related topics being marginalized under Medical

I wish to object to the way Disability has been sorted under Medical. Disability as a topic is far more than a medical issue, it is a broad societal issue as it is relevant to topic areas ranging from politics to engineering. Disability should be listed under Society and social sciences#Issues. By classifying Disability as an exclusively medical topic Wikipedia is insulting and dismissing the entire history and achievements of the disability rights movement and rejecting the social model of disability which is widely accepted and supported by governments and organizations such as the UN and others of similar stature. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overreacting a bit here. The categorization of the vital articles is really just there to provide an internal framework for the discussion, otherwise talking about 10,000 articles would be impossible. It's not really visible in the main namespaces as such. There have definitely been discussion as to which category an article should be listed under, and quite possibly this should be moved. I think that there's a problem with articles that have significant justification to be under more than one category. For example Month is listed under Physical sciences/Measurement/Units of measurement/Time, while it clearly is also of significance to Everyday life/Timekeeping. At least some of these should have a link to the primary location, at least for reference. This is likely a much bigger problem for the level-4 VAs simply because of the size of the list. Also, one of the main reasons for the categorization is the assignment of article quotas - how that would impact counting towards that quota is an interesting question (although counting it only under the "main" entry would be no worse than what we have now. Rwessel (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67: I agree with you. The general topic fits much better under society and social issues. Maybe Physical disability should stay under medicine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not too sure about this. As far as I understand it, the issue boils down to whether the list should favor the medical model of disability or social model of disability. From what I've read, the medical model is still a dominant view: quoting from the article itself, "the social model of disability is a reaction to the dominant medical model of disability." The World Health Organization doesn't dismiss the medical model either: "ICF looks beyond the idea of a purely medical or biological conceptualization of dysfunction, taking into account the other critical aspects of disability" [12]. The previous WHO definition used the medical model more exclusively. Britannica claims that both models are dominant [13]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that the medical model is "often adopted" but also that the social model is the "dominant legislative, social-science, and humanities paradigm" [14].
Usually, the point of a social movement is to incite change from a dominant status quo. Whether the disability rights movement has done that yet, I don't know. And couldn't the same argument be made for the autism rights movement, which I'm sure would like to see autism categorized under Society as well? Let's make sure not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the meantime. I'd prefer if WP:DISABILITY or WP:MED could provide some input. Malerisch (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about actually reading the Disability article - it addresses many topics outside of medicine. Look at the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , look at major national legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act - medical issues make up only a small fraction of the totality of those instruments. Do you guys seriously believe that the Paralympic Games is an international medical conference? I bet there would be an epic sh#tstorm if someone here dared to classify Feminism under Gynecology - but it seems to be perfectly ok to do exactly the same thing to Disability. Yes Wikipedia does not right great wrongs but neither is it's role to intentionally commit and perpetuate great wrongs either. By the way I am speaking from the WikiProject Disability POV. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no harm in moving the disability entry under Issues in Society. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, I've reconsidered my position in light of your comments—I can support moving the disability section to Society. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't resort to WP:CANVASSING to garner support: your posts here and here are hardly neutral in tone. Malerisch (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Malerisch, I asked relevant WikiProject members to participate in this discussion about moving Disability to Social Issues - I didn't tell anyone how to !vote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we move Disability to Social Issues, the same argument can be had about the medical side of disability. Also it wouldn't make sense to have Disability in Social Issues, and it's sub topics in the Medical section. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it not make sense? Would you not put Paralympic Games under Sport or the ADA under Human Rights Law? It isn't a monolithic all-or-nothing issue - which is rather the point I made in the first post: Disability has multiple aspects, many of which have little or nothing to do with Medicine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also does it really matter where the article is put considering it has no actual effect on the contents of the said article.--V3n0M93 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It matters insofar as an index such as this (effectively a taxonomy of Wikipedia's content), is an indication of Wikipedia's POV about the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My main problems are two: First by putting disability and the different types of disabilities in different lists makes the list harder to maintain. Second moving it to social issues neglects the medical aspect of it. Obviously wherever we put it it's a lose-lose situation. Does anybody else have any ideas? Also the idea of this project is finding the 10 000 most vital articles that should be refined to be of high quality. The categorization is just done to make the maintenance of the list easier. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since abortion and euthanasia are already listed as social issues, these concerns are there to begin with anyway – but I think we'll manage just fine. IMO this would hardly be the strangest move proposal I've seen: there's Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 30#Move Ethnic group to Sociology, Social status. Cobblet (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WPRV
  2. ^ http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm
  3. ^ http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4&oldid=621451107"