Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4

Introduction

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

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed anytime as PASSED if at least five !votes have been cast in support, and at least two-thirds of the total !votes are in favor of the proposal; or they may be closed as FAILED if at least five !votes have been cast in opposition and the proposal has failed to earn more than one-third support. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable complete 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: 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 23:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 23:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Contents

People

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

Entertainers

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

Visual artists

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

Add Roy Lichtenstein

A prominent pop artist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Because we have 32 "Modern" artists, against only 17 older ones - these should be boosted before other moderns are added. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Johnbod. Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Joanne Gair

Her body painting, especially of the Trompe-l'œil variety, has become quite prominent as the primary artist for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and her prior work as a make-up artist for Madonna and others is highly regarded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think it's wildly premature at this point to suggest that she's an integral part of the history of art. Of contemporary female artists I think Louise Bourgeois and Cindy Sherman might have the best cases to be made for them. Cobblet (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Writers

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

Add Eve Ensler

An American feminist playwright and performer who influences the world a lot.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk)

Oppose

1. Oppose Women are definitely underrepresented on the list, but there are much better choices when it comes to female writers and feminists. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

1. She has been quite keen to put an end to violence against women in the world, doesn't it prove her vitality?--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am quite keen to put an end to violence against women in the world. Doesn't that prove my vitality? Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Journalists

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

Musicians and composers

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

Directors, producers and screenwriters

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

Businesspeople

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

Explorers

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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists

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

Add Auguste Comte

Since he was the founder of sociology and positivism, and some high school world history textbooks mention him, it is vital.

Support

1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that the list contains Émile Durkheim, but not Comte, which is more crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Durkheim is probably the real founding father of sociology, but Comte is also interesting. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support reading the article does provide a sense of his vitality though the second part of the nom is very weak. There would be 100,000 articles that "some high school world history textbooks mention". Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Comte was indeed highly influential, though I would regard Durkheim as equally important. Neljack (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Thorstein Veblen

A social scientist and critic who greatly influenced socialist thinkers and engineers who sought a non-Marxist critique of capitalism.

Support

1. As nom. This highly influential figure should be included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose He may have been important to the American intelligentsia 60 years ago (compare Paul Krugman's influence nowadays) but not so much today. Institutional economics is already represented by John Kenneth Galbraith. Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

1. He was another prestigious figure in institutional economics, which means that the article is definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Granville Stanley Hall

He was a key figure in the history of child-study, and contributed a lot to psychology, hence he is vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have too many psychologists. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose "72nd most cited psychologist of the 20th century" if anything proves he is not vital. The nom doesn't rebut this with anything substantial. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

He was the first to have an American negro as his student, and was the first president of the American Psychological Association, which is currently the largest psychological association on earth. Don't these statements prove that this article is vital?--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, not even close. The one child psychologist whose addition I'd support is Melanie Klein. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hall's theory that adolescence is the most crucial life stage (this theory later went obsolete) greatly influenced education in the United States, making upper secondary education there compulsory. Doesn't this mean that he was crucial?--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Still nowhere close. Johann Julius Hecker was the driving force behind the establishment of the globally influential Prussian education system, the first modern system of compulsory education anywhere in the world. Isn't that a much more impressive contribution? Unfortunately he's far too obscure (111 page views in the last 30 days, probably fewer than anyone currently on the list) to be vital. Horace Mann and Booker T. Washington were both notable politicians who made a far greater impact on American education than Hall – both were included on The Atlantic's list of the 100 most influential Americans. Cobblet (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Then let's include Johann Julius Hecker, Horace Mann, Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Lawrence Kohlberg

An American psychologist best known for his theory of stages of moral development.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

1. His theory of stages of moral development is crucial, hence he is also crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Jerome Bruner

A psychologist who made significant contribution to educational, developmental and cognitive psychology.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Johann Julius Hecker

A great Prussian educator who influenced the formulation of Prussia's first general school law, which in turn influenced compulsory education on earth.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too obscure – I think this would be by far the least-viewed biography on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Horace Mann

He helped to established public schools in Massachusetts, which in turn caused many other states to do the same, thus he influenced the U.S.A. a lot.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd rather include educators with a more global impact like Maria Montessori. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington

Both influenced the U.S.A. a lot, however unlike Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, neither of them are included in the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Du Bois. Oppose Booker T. Washington – there are two other African-American activists from that era I'd consider more vital, Ida B. Wells and Marcus Garvey. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Du Bois only. Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Du Bois. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Du Bois. Neljack (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. Booker T. Washington had greatly empowered American negroes, hence African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) happenced and succedded. This means that he is as crucial as Martin Luther King Jr.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The comparison to MLK is nonsense. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Booker T. Washington explicitly mentions the fact that Booker T. Washington greatly made more American negroes receive high education, learn vocational skills and be familiar with the U.S. legal system, paving the road to the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Hence he was as crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thousands of people paved the way for MLK's achievements, including the two people I mentioned above. That doesn't make all of them automatically as important as MLK. Where's the national holiday or monument in honour of Booker T. Washington? It's an absurd comparison to make. Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

But Booker T. Washington was as crucial as W. E. B. DuBois!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Du Bois opposed Booker T. Washington's idea of temporarily acquiescing to racial discrimination and focusing on self-improvement within the community, and eventually won over the majority of the African-American community to his more combative approach to addressing racial inequality. The Souls of Black Folk is widely recognized as a seminal work in sociology and African-American literature, to the extent that we include it in our list of books. Between the two of them, there's no question Du Bois is more important as both an intellectual and a leader. Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

But Booker T. Washington secretly did funded litigations against de jure racial segregation and disfranchisement of the vast majority of negroes living in the Southern America. The article explicitly mentions this fact! And he did economincally empowered lots of American negroes. Also, black conservatives tend to side with Booker T. Washington as contrasted with W. E. B. Du Bois. What's more, his autobiography, Up from Slavery has been a bestseller since it was published, and is still widely read today.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you're at least trying to read the articles you nominate – I had my doubts when you started the habit of nominating any person who I happened to mention as being possibly important. Funny how you're so passionately defending the stature of a person you appear not to have heard of before yesterday – if I'm wrong to think that, why didn't you nominate him sooner? So I don't see the point of arguing with you, especially when you're not even contradicting what I've said. (Word of advice: if you ever happen to speak to an African American in person, calling them a "negro" might get you hurt.) Cobblet (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, artist Kara Walker is trying to reappropriate the word "negress", and many older African Americans prefer the word "negro" to "black" when non-blacks refers to the race they belong to. Also Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the word negro, hence it is no politically incorrect.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You really believe everything you read on Wikipedia, don't you? Cobblet (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I had heard of Booker T. Washington before you mention this man. The reason why I hadn't nominated him before you mention him is that I was then a little lazy, don't misunderstand me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Maria Montessori

This Italian female educator and physician best known for her educational philosophy and writings on pedagogy. Nowadays some private and public schools in the world adopt her educational method.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Perhaps her contributions to pedagogy and the philosophy of education may not have been as fundamentally influential as those of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Johann Friedrich Herbart or Friedrich Fröbel; but I suspect more people are aware of the Montessori education method than of the contributions of these other people. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

User:GuzzyG mentioned Louis Braille in our conversation below, who is also worth thinking about in the context of education although we do list braille. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Peter Drucker

An Austrian-American whose writings contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation. He was also a leader in the development of management education.

Support

1. As nom. The fact that he has been called the founder of modern management makes him vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Swap: Remove Gilles Deleuze, Add Alexis de Tocqueville

We're a bit heavy on French poststructuralists – we already have Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, and I don't think Deleuze, who is as notorious for his impenetrable prose as for anything else, has been quite as influential. We also don't list philosophers of the previous generation like Jacques Lacan and Roland Barthes who are also probably a bit more widely studied.

But before we start adding any more 20th-century philosophers (we've added Arendt, McLuhan and Said recently) I think de Tocqueville, author of what is still probably the most influential critique of American society, Democracy in America, should be listed first.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Thomas Kuhn

We already list The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and I don't think Kuhn's really known for anything else. I think he's a weaker choice for the list than someone like James George Frazer (whose magnum opus The Golden Bough is listed but whose biography isn't) or Joseph Campbell (we have neither his biography nor The Hero with a Thousand Faces). There are at least half a dozen scientists I'd rather add in his place.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Heinrich Schliemann

We don't have any archaeologists on the list. Schliemann discovered Troy and Mycenae. His methods may have been brutal by modern standards (we can add Flinders Petrie if there's a need to have someone who represents more modern archaeological techniques) but there's no denying the significance of his accomplishments.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Religious figures

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

Swap: Remove Columba, Add Anselm of Canterbury

As the first philosopher to be associated with scholasticism, Anselm was far more influential as a theologian than Columba was as a missionary.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support the swap is an improvement. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support At least remove Columba. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Politicians and leaders

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

Military leaders and theorists

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

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

Remove Sojourner Truth

Nominated once for removal before, and got much support, 7 in fact but just fell short. (see here). In fact vote was 6-3 for about 2 weeks in early November, which could have been closed as a pass by today's rules, but not then. That general area of history is covered by many biographies and other articles, and there are other more important articles missing. See is known primarily for one speech, which is fairly well known but not vital, and her other work and her influence are not the same importance as other people listed. Also article woman's rights failed (see here) which is one idea she supported. Articles like racial segregation are missing too, and I think may be worth considering.  Carlwev  18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per prior consensus. One of the earliest influential activists against both racial and gender inequality. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

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

Add Albertus Magnus

The greatest scientific mind of medieval Europe and also a distinguished theologian.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi

I'll just quote what I wrote earlier: Rhazes was a polymath especially known for his contributions to medicine. George Sarton and Britannica call him "the greatest physician of the Islamic world" which is a bold claim with Avicenna, Geber and al-Zahrawi to contend with, but perhaps not unjustifiable – for example, he was the first person to note the difference between smallpox and measles.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Georges Cuvier

Founder of comparative anatomy and paleontology.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Alfred Russel Wallace

Independently developed the idea of natural selection and founded the discipline of biogeography. The Wallace line, Wallace effect and aposematism are all concepts credited to him.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Robert Koch

Pioneer in the study of infectious disease and a founder of modern bacteriology.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Rudolf Virchow

Founder of modern pathology and also made contributions to anthropology and anti-Aryanism.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Alfred Wegener

Apart from biology and medicine we're also short on people who made contributions to geology. Wegener conceived of the idea of continental drift; like Mendel, his theory was ahead of its time but has since been shown to be one of the most profound ideas in modern science.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Casimir Funk

Christiaan Eijkman and Frederick Gowland Hopkins were the two most prominent biochemists who worked on figuring out the biological role of the compounds we now call vitamins, for which they shared the 1929 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Funk's only significant contribution was to coin the term "vitamin": when it came to actually performing chemistry, his only notable contribution was being the first to isolate niacin, although he mistakenly identified it as thiamine. He's by far the least noteworthy of the 200+ scientists we list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

A fairly comprehensive but non-technical overview of the discovery of vitamins, including a discussion of why Eijkman and Hopkins ended up sharing the Nobel, is on the Nobel Prize website. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sports figures

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

Swap, Remove Gary Player, Add Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Gene Sarazen, Walter Hagen and/or Bobby Jones (golfer)

The current list of Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Annika Sörenstam and Tiger Woods smacks of recentism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Richard Petty

The winningest NASCAR driver of all time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Al Oerter

The first Olympian to win gold in the same individual event in four consecutive olympics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Man o' War and Secretariat (horse)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

History

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

Basics

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

History by continent and region

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

History by country

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

Prehistory and ancient history

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

Add Ancestral Puebloans

Probably the most well-known group of early native North Americans, even more so than the Mississippian culture which we already list. I'll note that we also list Mesa Verde National Park, the most famous of Puebloan sites, but the Puebloans' architectural legacy is much more extensive than that one site and is also just one part of their legacy as a whole.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Weak Support I do not mind adding this group, but we should probably also add Iroqouis, which is of a similar importance to Native American history. I am not sure Ancestral Puebloans are as important as the Iroqouis, but I am willing to support this proposal because it is a good start to covering Native American ethnic groups. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I was thinking about proposing to add an indigenous group from South America to the ethnic groups section. It's the only inhabited continent with no representation. Quechua people and Aymara people are among the leading candidates. Also thinking of swapping Sami people for Sápmi (the latter is not a politically autonomous region and only notable because of the Sami people). Maybe do the same with Kurds and Kurdistan but at least some of Kurdistan is autonomous. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can support adding the Quechua and Aymara and swapping Lapland for the Laplanders. In the case of the Kurds and Kurdistan I don't think it would be inappropriate to list both (but maybe swap Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdistan as that is the modern political unit commonly associated with the term) – off the top of my head we already do this for Tibetans/Tibet and Uyghurs/Xinjiang. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Post-classical history

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

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

---

Swap, Remove Boyar, add Conquistador

Boyar does not appear in any other languages. It is a aristocracy rank of Bulgaria and surrounding regions. We don't list Tsar, we removed Pharaoh, we don't even list King or Queen. I think Conquistador and their actions are of historical importance. In my head I compare them to Knight, Samurai, Ninja, Mamluk all of which we list, a system or class of culture specific soldier, who's actions have been documented and are of importance. Although they are mentioned in other articles about the same time and events, we have overlap in other areas such as we have Knight along with Knights Templar, Crusades and Crusader states, but no one has tried to remove them so far.

Support

1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Unlike knyaz which we removed earlier, it's more than just a rank: it was in fact the upper level of Slavic society and in that sense is similar to knights and samurai. I'm not sure why the Wikidata link doesn't show up on the English Wikipedia but the article definitely does exist in many languages. As I said to you in the earlier discussion, conquista redirects to Spanish colonization of the Americas (which is listed) and conquistadors are simply the people who carried it out. I think the two articles are largely redundant with each other. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Agree with Cobblet. FWIW, Boyar exists in 44 languages and Conquistador in 62. This is not bad considering that Bulgaria has a lower internet access rate than Spain (See List of countries by number of Internet users. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Also whilst on historic soldier people. We list Viking Age in the 1000 list and 10,000 but not Vikings anywhere. Arguments could be made for both but I've always wondered if we should have Vikings too/instead? It is what I would up first, and is the title of sections of history books I have. Much of the content is the same, but they are two articles, although arguments to merge them or keep them separate could be made.  Carlwev  20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a problem with Wikidata at the time, I should have guessed as much. Boyar does exist in other languages, appearing in 44 in total, as Gizza states. Pharaoh was kept too.  Carlwev  09:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Early modern history

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

Modern history

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

Add Post–World War II economic expansion

This article is, no less vital, if not more vital, than Financial crisis of 2007–08, since it documents a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s.

Support

1. As nom. The fact that it only has seven language editions does not mean it is not vital, just like another article structure and agency, which only has four language editions and is still included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Per nom. This is a good example of a vital non-war modern history article. There have been comments made before saying that the history section is heavy on war and disasters and light on other things, especially positive events and periods like this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support A good spot - clearly of major importance. Neljack (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Green Revolution (another good modern history article not about war) is listed as vital but it's in technology. I think it should be moved to history. We don't put other technological breakthroughs like human control of fire, the Manhattan Project and industrial revolution in the technology section. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right I'm sure Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolution or Neolithic Revolution rather are treated as history here and in most published books and in formal education, as comparison so yes I think I agree  Carlwev  05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the move. Cobblet (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Great Recession

This article is no less vital than Financial crisis of 2007–08, since it documents the global economic downturn during the early 21st century, rather than the detailed background on financial market events dating from 2007, which is covered by Financial crisis of 2007–08.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I am shocked that this is not included. I think it is recentism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

   Oops. I misread that as the great depression.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose a straight-up addition. I'd support a swap. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

The Great Recession is not the same thing as the Great Depression. If the Financial crisis of 2007–08 was included but not the Great Depression, then that would be a clear case of recentism. The Great Recession refers to the largest economic downturn since WWII which happened in the first decade of the 21st century (i.e. quite recent). It is still a decent article to have. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Microcomputer revolution

Support

1. Support as nom. This revolution seems as important as many that are listed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Shouldn't Information Age cover this? Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Historical cities

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

History of science and technology

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

Add history of anthropology and history of political science

These two articles are no less vital than history of psychology and history of sociology, however they are not included in the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Not my favourite articles but there are less vital histories listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think it's better to list history of the social sciences than each of these separately, since it's only been in the last hundred years or so that they've been considered separate disciplines. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I had made this proposal before, however these two article were not added to the list due to having no more vota for 30 days (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 42#Add history of anthropology and history of political science)--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC) added a parenthesis

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.

Possible rearrange?

This may or may not be a good idea. Overtime the geography section has become more locations/regions than topics. What I mean is lists of individual examples of political and physical locations/regions/things on Earth are there, but the articles about the type of thing itself is elsewhere. Nile Mississippi Ganges and Amazon are in Geography but river itself is in Earth science. Same goes for mountains deserts etc. Country, state, city-state, are in social sciences, while individual countries themselves are of course in geography. Looking at basics and urban planning they contain many non place articles like cartography, Remote sensing are more arts or science. Urban planning contains city town slum urban planning, urbanization, urban design and zoning and more. These are not places, but are kind of geography topics, but so are river mountain and country, but we moved them. Urban planning stuff could be moved to social science along with country, city state, do people think this is a good idea? Also why is Central Park the only actual place in urban planning, although not a wildlife thing it could go with the other parks, no? And, we still have continent in geography after the move thread was closed as passed. Was it forgotten or moved back?

Basically do we want non places in geography? if so which ones and why? and which ones are we going to have elsewhere and why?  Carlwev  00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I moved continent out of earth science when that section was above quota, not remembering the consensus we had. I'll move it back. Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care whether we move urban planning topics to Social Sciences or cartography topics to Earth Sciences as long as we adjust the quotas accordingly, since both sections are basically full. I'm also indifferent to where you put Central Park – I personally have no problem with park and national park being in different sections. Cobblet (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I think that Hainan should be moved to the section "Regions and country subdivisions", since Hainan not only refers to Hainan Island, but also refers to the Hainan Province, and this province has more than one island.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Basics

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

Remove Reference ellipsoid

Look at the article, doesn't seem like a top importance or vital geography topic as a stand alone article, a bit too fine grain. The general idea could be covered by many more general articles in some form that we have, like cartography, Geoid, GPS, globe but most of all the included article Geodesy covers this and more.

Support

1. Suuport as nom.  Carlwev  22:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Redundant to the articles that Carlwev mentioned and many more like geographic coordinate system, longitude, latitude and elevation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Physical geography

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

Parks and preserves

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

Countries

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

Regions and country subdivisions

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

Swap: Remove Balochistan, Pakistan, Add Sindh

Removing Sindh was one of the biggest mistakes during the mass cull of regions a few years ago. Central to one of the oldest civilizations in the world with a rich history since, Sindh is far more important to Pakistan than Balochistan in nearly every way imaginable (economy, population, cultural influence, etc.). In fact, Balochistan is the least vital of Pakistan's four provinces. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is more vital too as it is the unstable Afghan border region known worldwide for being the part of Pakistan most affected by the War on Terror (though the instability dates back to British colonial times if not earlier). Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support addition only. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'm fond of geography topics, and I wasn't a fan of the region cull. More sure of the add than the remove. But yes we have to make choices. Balochistan only wins in area which isn't too big a deal, Sindh has almost triple population, almost, and does seem more significant in most things.  Carlwev  05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not opposed to listing all four of Pakistan's provinces though I doubt there will be consensus for that. As matter of priority, Sindh and even Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should be in before Balochistan. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No question Sindh is absolutely vital. I'd even consider the Thar Desert which is partially located in Sindh to be vital. But Balochistan is the main homeland of the Baloch people and a low-intensity separatist conflict in the region has been going on for much longer than the War on Terror. And it should be noted that we list Peshawar but not Quetta. If you ignore the armed conflicts in either region I actually think Balochistan's a slightly better choice for the list, although I'm not opposed to listing all four of Pakistan's provinces either. (But we should definitely be adding more Indian states and Chinese provinces if that's the case.)

A long time ago I argued Darfur was less vital than War in Darfur; I feel the same way regarding Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the War in North-West Pakistan. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Depending on how this goes, I might delete the removal from the proposal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Shanxi and Shaanxi

The ancient toponym Xia (夏) consisted of present-day Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan, and Henan is included in the list, hence they are all crucial.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hubei and Hunan

Since core region of the ancient state Chu (楚) consisted of what is now Hubei and Hunan, Hubei is the province in which the vital city Wuchang belongs to, and some vital figures, e.g. Mao Zedong and Peng Dehuai were born there, hence both Hubei and Hunan are crucial.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Zhejiang

This province is in fact no less vital than jiangsu, however it is not included in the article.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Fujian

This province should be added to the list, since many Overseas Chinese persons come from there.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Definitely vital. One of the best known provinces of China. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The geography section needs some serious rethinking, and I'd like to see some subnational entities (re)-added to the list, e.g. all of the Chinese provinces Rekishi mentions are more vital than Hainan (although that doesn't necessarily mean they should be added – some of the major cities in these provinces like Ningbo or Xiamen might be better choices); I'd argue Tasmania is the least vital of Australian states; that we consider Sierra Nevada (U.S.) vital but New York not doesn't make much sense. But after seeing some of my previous proposals fail due to a lack of !votes I'm not sure enough of us have an interest in world geography to get a solid consensus on what should and shouldn't be considered a vital geography article. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Specifically in this situation, I'd say that if we include both Fuzhou and Xiamen (currently only the former is listed) we may not need the province, while if we add the province we may not need either city. Not that there's anything wrong with having all three either. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Gibraltar

Although not a huge city or a sovereign state, it is basically a self governing over seas territory of the UK. Although not a sovereign state, it has a higher population than some sovereign states we list, such as Niue, Nauru, Cook Islands and more. Compared to the Niue article, the Gibraltar article appears in more languages and gets about triple page views, and in general just receives more attention in encyclopedias, literature and the in media than the smaller sovereign states. We also list some islands with less history, culture and population that are not sovereign states. Gibraltar's history also goes back over 1000 years. Also we list the Straight of Gibraltar but not the territory itself, which seems a little odd. (Although I understand it's an important narrow passageway from the Atlantic to the whole Mediterranean, well, the only one in fact, and is only named after it, of course not actually part of it.)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Gibraltar does seem to be in similar territory to the Falkland Islands. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there are similarities, but Gibraltar has over 10 times population than Falklands, its history is 2 or 3 times as long and it just seems to have more of an identity.  Carlwev  05:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands is actually listed, I didn't intend to make a comparison in a negative way. It strengthens Gibraltar's case if anything. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't suggested removing the Falklands is that we don't list the Falklands War. At least England and Spain haven't actually gone to war over the Gibraltar dispute. I suggest better parallels might be Ceuta and Melilla, and those aren't listed, although admittedly Gibraltar's historical geostrategic significance is greater than those two cities (but in terms of Carlwev's mentioned criteria they're pretty close). Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cities

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

Add suburbanization and gentrification

Both are definitely vital, especially the former, since many people are familiar with suburbanization, just like urbanization.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Suburbanization is redundant to suburb and I doubt we should be listing specific processes associated with urban renewal if we don't even have urban decay. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

Swap: Remove La Strada, Add Temple Mount

It's been noted before that we list the Kaaba in Mecca but none of the sacred sites in Jerusalem, and in a previous failed nomination of Dome of the Rock it was suggested that the article on the entire Temple Mount complex, which incorporates structures like the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall, might be the best one to include.

I've specifically chosen to swap it for a film to highlight the fact we list more films than we do architecture, which doesn't seem right to me – one form of art's been around for 100 years, the other's been around since the dawn of civilization and is experienced by people in a much more direct way. Fellini is the only filmmaker with more than two films on the list (odd, considering he's not among the four filmmakers we deemed vital enough for the Level 3 list) and out of 8½, La Dolce Vita and La Strada, the last seems just a little less significant than the other two.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  17:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Literature

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

Add Biography

There's more to non-fiction than reference works and this is a particularly good example – one can also speak of biography as a branch of history. From hagiography through to psychobiography there's much to be written about the development of this genre.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Carlwev (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Music

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

Add Fight song

I was about to nominate "Victory March (fight song)" and "The Victors" because when I was younger I did not associate them with a school. I just felt that they were songs played at college sporting events. They are universally recognized. However, I realize that fight song is not even recognized. Let's add this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Performing arts

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

Add Bharata Natyam

The general move towards globalization on the list has not been felt by the dance section so far. At the moment there is only one truly non-Western dance form in belly dancing. To fix this, I propose adding one of the oldest and most popular forms of Indian dance.

I considered Indian classical dance instead. However, the umbrella term will inevitably focus on the politics of particular dance forms being recognized as "classical" by various academies and not describe any dance in sufficient detail. There is not much encyclopedic and educational value in listing it. Of the classical dances, Bharata Natyam, Kathak and Kathakali are the most popular while Bharata Natyam and Odissi have the oldest traceable histories. There are also famous "folk" dances like Bhangra and Garba but they surprisingly don't get as many page views. So I figured that Bharata Natyam would be the best choice.

This is in contrast to Indian classical music, of which there are two uncontroversial forms which means you could actually learn something substantial from the article about each form.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Indian dance undoubtedly deserves representation. This looks like a great choice to me. Cobblet (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't think every major country or cultural region needs representation for every single art form. For example, Indian comics or any Indian comic is not vital. The only vital comics would probably come from North America, Japan and Europe. OTOH, dance is an iconic part of India's culture famous throughout the world and not just within its own borders. As such it should be represented on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Bolshoi Ballet

We seem to dislike companies. This is a company, if it were listed under companies it probably wouldn't still be here. We removed the other dance company 2 years ago, not sure why we didn't remove both. We removed the only circus company we had, Barnum and Bailey. We don't have any theatres nor theatre companies or orchestras, no music companies, no fashion companies, no film companies, like Disney or 20th century Fox, outside of arts there are electronics companies like Nintendo Sony are missing and more.

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  01:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support We did replace the circus with P. T. Barnum. But I agree, film studios at the very least should be considered more important than ballet companies. Cobblet (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Performing arts is an area I've had my eye on for ages but haven't gotten around to propose anything. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Visual arts

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

Add Whaam!

Arguably Roy Lichtenstein's most notable work and one of the most important pop art works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans to represent pop art. Other notable post-WWII art movements or genres like abstract expressionism, installation art, art photography and performance art aren't even represented by a single work. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

• Should Whaam! be included?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about pop art but it may be better including Roy Lichtenstein than either Whaam! or Drowning Girl. He gets more page views than the two paintings combined (traffic rank of 9751). We also have pop art itself and Andy Warhol at the moment. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think this page should be guided by page views.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree, it's only one of many factors. Based on past discussions, it seems that consensus prefers including artists before their artworks, especially if the artist is notable for multiple works as Roy Lichtenstein is. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
        • After skip reading the articles, I agree in this case if we were to include any article from here I would prefer to have the artist if anyhting, but I'm not 100% sure about him either. Even the nominator says the picture is "arguably" his most notable work, so it's not agreed which his most notable is, Drowning Girl has already been mentioned as another.....On the topic of comics people, I notice we do have Jack Kirby but not Stan Lee. I would maybe have Lee before Kirby, although I'm aware Spider-Man is in.  Carlwev  09:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably support removing Campbell's soup cans too  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Carlwev, What better to represent pop art?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It all depends on what art styles we think need representation and how much. Some styles are not mentioned at all (body painting). Some have only the article about the style itself and nothing more (origami), some have the style and one or two artists, then some have the style and some artists and a work or two (cubism). We have pop art and Warhol, that may or may not be enough. We have many art forms that don't have a work representing them such as rock art, origami, collage, photography and engraving. Just saying not every single style needs a work here when some don't even have an artist and some don't even the parent article or style itself.  Carlwev  07:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of those art forms that you mention is as important as pop art except for photography (and I have nominated two works below). Campbell's Soup Cans was added with this edit by Mercurywoodrose on 06:22, 29 October 2011. Currently, over half (8) of the 13 additions in that edit remain (although 2 van Goghs are on the chopping block). I don't know if there was discussion in support of that edit. Also, as I say below I did not know that the art form and an artist had to be added before a work could be added. How much consensus is there for that?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't always the case – it depends on the relative prominence of each, and several of the works listed are exceptions – but still it's worth keeping in mind that often there are broader topics of greater importance than this one particular thing that otherwise seems unique and hence perhaps vital. For instance, when you nominated Joanne Gair it occurred to me that we don't even list Sports Illustrated to begin with. I personally would consider the magazine more vital than the artist. The current system of seeking consensus before every addition and removal from the list did not exist in 2011. FWIW, I'm completely fine with keeping Warhol's soup cans. Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Cobblet, If you want other recent art movements, what about adding representing body painting with Demi's Birthday Suit?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to convince me first that body painting needs to be represented. (I've thought about adding Annie Leibovitz to the list of people, but I don't think there's any body artist or their work that's vital.) If I had to add one more piece of 20th-century art to the list I think it would be Duchamp's Fountain. I'm not sure there's any single photograph that's done as much to change the way we make and think about art as that one readymade has. Cobblet (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd support Fountain. I did not know that the art form and an artist had to be added before a work could be added. I don't necessarily think body painting needs to be represented although I think Joanne Gair may be worthy of consideration because her work on bodypainting has become quite prominent. Her annual contribution to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue since 1999 have made her quite well known. She has done a lot for Trompe-l'œil art in her body of work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Sunflowers (Van Gogh series) and Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series)

The Starry Night should stay, but it's excessive to have three entries on Van Gogh's art when no other post-Impressionist or early Modernist is represented at all. For instance, Cézanne's series on apples and Mont Sainte-Victoire are examples of still life and landscape painting from this period that are probably even more influential on the history of painting. Nothing by Gauguin (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?) or Matisse (Le bonheur de vivre, Dance) is listed either.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support, I tried to remove Wheat fields a while back, this makes sense  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
6. The Starry Night is definitely the most beautiful of the three Van Gogh paintings listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Ukiyo-e

A Japanese art movement that had an immense impact on the development of Western art.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support More non- Western is a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support, prefer genres/movements to works, and sometimes even artists. This seems like a pretty significant style, and good for non-western representation.  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Bayeux Tapestry

A piece of early medieval art (the only other example we have of this is the Book of Kells) of exceptional artistic and historical value. There are currently no examples of the textile arts on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or V-J Day in Times Square

I think an important photograph should be on the list since currently 31 of the 32 specific works are paintings and sculptures.

Support

1. Support any of them as nom. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support V-J Day in Times Square.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support V-J Day in Times Square. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose If another piece of American art needs to be listed American Gothic is more significant than any of these photographs. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

History of photography might be worth considering....maybe?  Carlwev  07:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Carlwev and Cobblet, what are your thoughts that all but one of the selected works is either a painting or a sculpture?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not surprising since they've been the two most important Western art forms. The history of photography is comparatively short and while I'd very much like to add a deserving photograph, I'm just not convinced there's one that has the kind of importance that the works of art already listed have – and we're omitting some fairly deserving paintings. Like when it comes to American art I'm not sure these photographs make better choices for the list than American Gothic. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thinking out loud about this, sorry if it's a bit long.

1. In general, I think the number of works of art has been too many, although we have reduced it from what it once was; I have suggested and supported removals from it in the past, I am supporting some removals now, and might even support removing more in the future. I do think we should have some works, not sure how many exactly, but tend to prefer artists or movements/styles/genres over individual paintings/works most of the time, but not all the time, I look at each suggestion as it is. I would support works of other forms if I genuinely believed them to be vital. Bayeux Tapestry is up for voting, for example, I consider this a decent idea and am supporting it. (I don't think it's more vital than the Battle of Hastings itself which it depicts, but that battle is already on board so it's OK in my brain, if it were missing I would have had a little moan about it.)

2. Cob said "I'm not sure there's any single photograph that's done as much to change the way we make and think about art as that one readymade has" In general I think individual photographs, (not only being recent compared to multiple centuries of painting, sculpture and other methods) just don't seem as famous/influential/important/vital as some paintings and other forms do, most of the time. I would support a photo if I genuinely believed it to be vital, but I don't view the ones you suggest as such, and I can't imagine many/if any I would, but I would look at each one individually.

3. Although not works we do list many other art forms/styles themselves; FWIW I added some of these to the list myself before the voting method started like collage, tattoo, cosmetics, Manga, Anime and engraving, and have suggested and supported some since like prehistoric art and origami. Again not works but we also list artists of several other forms, photographers, architects, comic artists, illustrators, designers, other traditions and one instrument maker. Body painting I don't think is that bad an idea, but it may fall short of vital, Demi's Birthday Suit and Joanne Gair just don't seem vital in the slightest to me personally. (for one, Demi's Birthday Suit appears in only one other language, and Gair herself in no other languages at all, unless that's another wiki language link problem, suggesting people of other languages don't think them vital enough to even start an article at all.)

4. Depending on how far ones definition of visual art goes, we also list buildings/structures/works of architecture in their own section, I think they were previously under visual arts, but now a stand alone section. My self and others suggested several works of architecture to add through voting. We also list some examples of Comic strips, a few books known primarily for their illustrations, video games, movies, animated/illustrated/videogame characters, TV shows (plus genres of some of them too) which are, at least in part, visual art of a kind too.

5. Finally on a completely biased view, photographs that interest me on a personal level are things like. View from the Window at Le Gras, Pale Blue Dot, Hubble Deep Field. But that's only my own interests, and these photos are interesting for historical, technological, scientific, even slightly philosophical reasons but not really artistic. I don't think them vital to photography and they are definitely not vital to astronomy or history standing alone either. Perhaps Astrophotography would stand half a chance, but probably not. History of photography I already mentioned might also be worth at least considering. Perhaps maybe Photojournalism too. Adding photography genres would at least give the medium a bit more representation, even if not through single photos.  Carlwev  09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I been involved in very little art on WP that is over 100 years old. Thus, my concerns are a bit slanted. However, what is the best mosaic candidate? It would seem to me that there must be important mosaics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S., I don't view View from the Window at Le Gras, Pale Blue Dot, or Hubble Deep Field as famous as I had never heard of any of them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The mosaics of Ravenna, e.g. in the Basilica of San Vitale, are the first thing that came to mind. I'd have thought Earthrise was the most notable space-related photograph. Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Add View of the World from 9th Avenue

Since paintings and sculptures represent 31 of the 32 specific works at VA, I think we should broaden our perspective. This is another attempt to do that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Neljack (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This is definitely an interesting choice. Adding a magazine would indeed broaden our perspective. I could support this. For magazines covers, there's also Afghan Girl. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There's more than one way to broaden our perspective – is this really more vital than a piece of journalism like "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold", Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Into the Wild or Into Thin Air, or even an advertising logo like I Love New York? We list The New Yorker which has some coverage of its covers including this one. Cobblet (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Shroud of Turin

This is the most famous work of textile art that I know and since textile art is under consideration above, I thought about this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not a work of art - especially for its fans! But nice to see you nominating something that isn't American, Tony. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Johnbod. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Based on the categories the article is in, the Shroud of Turin is not treated as a work of art, it is treated as a religious relic. It's not in any art categories in itself or through other subcategories. Would this be better under religion somewhere, if it gets in? No one knows how it was made, it's not famous for artistic reasons, even if one believes it was deliberately drawn on, which is only one theory of many, it still isn't really an art piece. Also this does seem quite notable, much much more than magazine covers, I'm thinking about whether this deserves a place above other relics. Not sure, maybe....There is also the article Relic itself, not sure if that's vital, I'll look through the article.  Carlwev  17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be very strange to be listing the Shroud of Turin before the Gospels. Cobblet (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Add American Gothic

Cobblet keeps mentioning this as a marginal piece that should be considered before other pieces that I have nominated. The fact that this discussion has not been held should not be a reason to oppose other works. Let's have the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Fountain

Cobblet also mentions this work as one of the pieces that is near the front of the line for consideration. Let's have the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Arguably the most influential piece of 20th-century art, period. Cobblet (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Modern visual arts

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

Fictional characters

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

Philosophy and religion

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

Philosophy

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

Add Dignity

Another important concept, recognized world wide, throughout history, relevant to many types of people in many situations. Relevant to social science, philosophy, religion and psychology.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support The paradigm by which modern Western society evaluates the self-worth of an individual. The other two major paradigms are honour and face which are both nominated. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Face (sociological concept)

The paradigm by which East Asian society handles the concept of self-esteem. Similar to honour in that the motivating emotion is shame, but whereas in honour cultures shame falls on the person who's lost their honour, shame in face cultures falls on the person who causes another to lose face.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think dignity, face and honour should be placed in the same section, probably sociology. Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Religion and spirituality

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

Add end time

The concept of the end time/end times/end of days has been consistently raising its head every few years for two millennia. pbp

Support

1. pbp 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - I'd consider the ultimate destiny of humanity and the universe as somewhat vital, certainly. Jusdafax 01:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose redundant to eschatology, the study of end time. Maybe we can do a swap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would rather nominate Apocalypse because it is important religiously and in pop-culture. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Specific religions

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

Esoterics, magic and mysticism

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

Mythology

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

Everyday life

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

Clothing and fashion

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

Color

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

Cooking, food and drink

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

Remove Gouda cheese

I'm not sure whether we should be including more cuisines or not, but there are certainly about a dozen cuisines I'd rather list before a semi-notable type of cheese like Gouda.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support I've always felt that there are too many cheeses on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Food is a very inconsistent section at the moment. We have hot dog in addition to sausage and sandwich but don't have kebab or barbecue, breakfast cereal but no toast or omelette, hamburger but no fried chicken, veal but no goat meat, turkey meat or duck (food), biscuits and potato chips but no doughnut, 13 articles on alcoholic drinks (including distilled beverage when we already have distillation and the prime examples of distilled beverages) but nothing on cigarettes. Even within alcoholic drinks, is there a reason why tequila is not listed while gin and sake are? Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree the section needs a rethink. I don't think there's anything wrong with listing gin and sake but I agree tequila's as notable as the other spirits on the list. How do you feel about listing tequila vs. Mexican cuisine or kebab vs. Middle Eastern cuisine? Cobblet (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The food section had a review a while back, we can review it again of course, I'm interested in that, I helped last time and would be happy to do so again. We had 10 types of cheese at one point, which was way too many, we removed many, this can go too, was nominated before but failed, this time it'll probably go. Many of the things you suggest are worth thinking about adding and removing, although one or two I don't like, but most sound good. Some cuisines are worth thinking about Mexican cuisine has been bought up twice but failed, although there was some support for it but not enough, but it still may have a chance. I think goat meat, cigarettes, kebab, Mexican cuisine, tequila, and more are worth thinking about. I'm not keen on fried chicken though, we have no other food by cooking method I believe, and we have chicken, chicken (food), and poultry but we don't have frying or Deep frying.  Carlwev  17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree fried chicken isn't vital while frying is a good choice (as is barbecue when it comes to techniques), but we do have french fries and potato chips which are both specific ways of preparing potatoes. I don't think any of the meats Gizza mentioned are vital, including veal, around which there's issues of animal cruelty but I'd argue foie gras and shark's fin are more notable in this respect. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Family and kinship

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

Household items

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

Add table knife

Both fork and spoon are on the list, why isn't the table knife? Daylen (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need both knife and table knife... also, in the US at least, cutlery (which is also listed) refers primarily to knives. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality

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

Add promiscuity

Our coverage of sexuality and relationships has become quite detailed. I consider promiscuity to be vital, and of greater importance compared to other articles we include in those sections. We cover the multiple partners from a marriage or official POV with articles like concubinage, bigamy, polygamy, and also infidelity ("cheating" in marriage or non-marriage relationship). But the general idea of casual sex with multiple people regardless of marriage or honesty is not covered. It is of interest to sexuality, sociology and psychology and to religion and ethics, and it does get written and read about and studied. There are articles in the area of sex/relationships that seem equally or less vital, like foreplay, oral sex, moiety, endogamy, exogamy.

I won't suggest to remove any at this time though, as some were fairly recently added successfully by voting, and many I think deserve a place. There are other articles about multiple partners in various contexts that I need to read through to see exactly what they are how widespread and vital they may or may not be, and how much they overlap; articles are Polyandry, Polygyny, Polyamory. Anyone have views on them?

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  22:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think I'd more readily support this if we didn't also list casual dating in addition to dating. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sports and recreation

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

Nordic Skiing?

I was thinking of suggesting removing this under the argument below, I'll still keep it as I took the time to write it, but I'm not sure, I noticed Nordic Skiing is a parent topic of other events as seen in the template, a main division of skiing as it were but it's been a stub for ages, and previously had a list of winners that were removed.

We have Skiing, and another 3 types in addition to this one. No offence to Nordic countries, this just doesn't seem that vital in my opinion, view the article. I can think of several sports or events that seem more vital and are missing, or been removed already. We removed the gymnastics events, the fencing events/swords, and a few more things here and there Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_10#Sport. We don't list things like 200 meters, Parkour. Also, I won't list them all, but if you view Template:Skiing and Category:Types_of_skiing it will show there are numerous 10-20 other types of skiing we don't have which are arguably the same importance or higher than Nordic Skiing. I'm not sure Nordic Skiing has a place here. What do others think.  Carlwev  19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest swapping it for cross-country skiing which is the original form of skiing and probably more popular than ski jumping which is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Add free agent

A term definitely vital for athletes, sports fans and analysts.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose The most vital article in similar territory is agency (law) but there are 20 other articles that should go into the law section before that. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Stages of life

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

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 Julian calendar and Buddhist calendar

The former had been used widely in the Western world, until the 16th century. However in Russia it still had been used until the October Revolution. The latter was once used commonly in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Burma, but now only used in Theravada Buddhist festivals. Though both are either obsolete or only used in Buddhist festivals concerning their historical significance both should be added to the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Julian calendar. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support The Julian Calendar. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support The Julian Calendar.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Julian calendar. Cobblet (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Buddhist calendar. The Hindu calendar upon which it is based is definitely more vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Buddhist per Cobblet. Also a more accurate description of the calendar would be Theravada Buddhist calendar, making it less vital than it originally sounds. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

Society and social sciences

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

Basics

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

Anthropology

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

Business and economics

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

Remove corporate tax

Currently there are six articles on tax: tax itself, corporate tax, income tax, property tax, sales tax and tariff. Corporate tax for all intents and purposes is just an income tax applied to companies. There are 96 articles in the business and economics section and even if there are 100, to be frank there isn't space for six articles on tax.

As previously mentioned, there are many gaping holes in business and economics. Things like productivity, subsidy/protectionism (welfare covers different territory), something on economic growth/business cycle/recession (this is about to be rectified), franchising, bankruptcy, government budget or fiscal policy, interest rate or monetary policy, actuarial science, human resource management, privatization, mortgage, double-entry bookkeeping system, valuation (finance) or mergers and acquisitions or investment banking, etc. You get the idea.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I think it's more important to list either economic policy or fiscal and monetary policy before listing their components. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per nom; a corporate tax is indeed merely another tax on income. bd2412 T 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

---

Add industrial organization and international economics

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

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose International economics is redundant to international trade, international relations and exchange rate. Industrial organization is redundant to microeconomics and the listed market structures (monopoly and perfect competition). Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I had proposed it here before, however my proposal din't get passed due to insuffient support (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_39#Add_industrial_organization_and_international_economics).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Culture

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

Education

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

Ethnology

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

International organizations

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

Language

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

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

---

Add Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic

The former is crucial since it is the language used in the Hebrew Bible. The latter is crucial as well since its modernized version, Modern Standard Arabic is currently the lingua franca among Arabs.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
2. As far as classical languages go, no doubt they are both up there in vitality. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Classical Arabic, Oppose Biblical Hebrew. Per Edward Sapir: "There are just five languages that have had an overwhelming significance as carriers of culture. They are classical Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek, and Latin. In comparison with these even such culturally important languages as Hebrew and French sink into a secondary position." (Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, 1921.)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Arabic  Carlwev  17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

On this subject, Vulgar Latin, also entered my thoughts as fairly important; although we have Latin itself, and Romance languages, which it led to...I am only thinking out loud as there are many forms of Latin seen here: Category:Forms of Latin  Carlwev  20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

By my count, there are 11 extinct languages on the list. Two of them, Middle and Old English, are significant mainly because this is the English language Wikipedia. The remaining nine are Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Pali, Sanskrit, Latin, Old Church Slavonic and Classical Chinese. Hebrew language, which is listed, discusses the entire history of the language and not just the Biblical or Modern forms. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Law

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

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

---

Add censorship

This article is absolutely vital. It is closely related to freedom of expression.

Support

1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev  08:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

It may be too closely related to freedom of speech. I could support a swap. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add counterfeit

This article is, in my opinion, no less crucial than fraud.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose A poorly focused topic. Besides, we need trademark before we start talking about trademark infringement. And even that might be too specific: maybe what we need before that is brand. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

You have a number of proposals on this page with three or more supporting !votes and the Society section will be over its quota if they all get added. I won't support any more of your proposed additions if you do not propose deletions or an increase in the quota. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Particular types of counterfeit, counterfeit money being the obvious one, are probably more vital than the broader unfocused topic. I wouldn't mind counterfeit money replacing one of the currencies we have. It is touched upon in banknote and coin but only ever so slightly. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Add bribery

This article is no less crucial than fraud.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by corruption. Cobblet (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add perjury

This article is, no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Should be covered by witness. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose It's a small crime in the scheme of things. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Mass media

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

Add The Economist

This news magazine is no less influential than Der Spiegel on earth, but currently the former is not in the list, unlike the latter, which is quite strange.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

These proposals deal with a part of the list that has not been touched in a long time. Whatever the outcome of these four individuals proposals, thank you for bringing this area to attention Rekishi. The questions we have to ask ourselves are first of all, how many newspapers and magazines are vital and then which ones are vital. What sort of variety do we want in terms of categories, country, circulation, prominence and language? Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We cut the TV networks down to one some time ago. I think we should be similarly selective when it comes to newspapers and magazines. Different types of media within the same news genre should be compared – is it necessary to list both WSJ and the Financial Times when we don't have Forbes, Fortune, CNBC or Bloomberg L.P.? Also, I suggest that the most important factor for inclusion should not be online traffic (in which case Xinhua News Agency, People's Daily and China Daily take the top three spots globally; how are they more vital than other highly-viewed websites?) but historical influence, which is usually tied to journalistic quality – in that sense it's obvious no Chinese paper has any real significance while I think The Times and The New York Times are ahead of the pack among English-language papers. It's also the reason why Punch and Mad are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Financial Times

This paper is quite popular among most senior financial decision makers in the world's largest financial institutions, and was regarded as the most credible publication in reporting financial and economic issues among the Worldwide Professional Investment Community audience, hence it is vital, in fact more worthy of being included in the list than Wall Street Journal.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add The Guardian

The fact that its online edition was the second most widely read in the world as of October 2014 guarantees its vitality, however The Times is currently on the list, but the Guardian is not, which is quite weird.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. --Thi (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Add USA Today

Since this paper is the USA's first national, general-interest daily middle-market newspaper virtually everywhere except New York and Washington and the word "McPaper" was coined to refer to this newspaper, and it is quite influential there, it is as crucial as WSJ.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Museums

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

Politics and government

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

Psychology

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

Swap: Remove authority, Add Power (social and political)

Look at the article and you'll see that it is almost a disambiguation page. More of a dictionary term than a topic in an encyclopedia. Authority has different meanings in politics, sociology, religion and philosophy. Something like sovereignty and power (social and political) would be better choices for the list. Also it doesn't make any sense to have this in psychology.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'm uncomfortable with a straight-up removal. While different disciplines take different approaches toward studying where power derives from and how it controls people, the questions they are asking are all naturally related. Britannica has a decent overview of this very subject, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an extensive article on political authority. The Milgram experiment is a classic psychological experiment investigating the nature of authority. Perhaps the article belongs better under sociology and maybe power (social and political) is the better article to include (it does get more hits), but something on this topic ought to remain on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the proposal into a swap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Temperament, Add Attention

In a modern context "temperament" is basically a component of personality and is studied as part of personality psychology. With both of those articles on the list I think we can afford to do without this one. The historical concept of four temperaments is less vital than the four classical elements which itself is not a topic we list.

Attention refers to one's ability to focus or concentrate on something and has been studied by psychologists since the 19th century. It has huge implications on the study of mental health – you can't have a discussion on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (which we also list) if you don't talk about the neurological basis of attention first. Issues related to multitasking are also part of the study of attention.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support addition.  Carlwev  09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I support adding attention, IMO it's better than temperament, but I'm still thinking about whether we need temperament or not, it's true it does overlap personality, but I'm not sure if it's completely redundant, until I read through them a little more.  Carlwev  09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mood might be even weaker than temperament – it seems fairly redundant with emotion. Affect (psychology) might be worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Honour

A concept pretty much universal to majority of, if not, all cultures. It is important to and has had much representation in literature, religion, law, philosophy, and social sciences historically and up to modern day. Not sure if this belongs in the social/psychology section or the philosophy section, as it relevant to both. I would support putting it in either section.  Carlwev  14:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support One of the major paradigms surrounding self-esteem. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Prideand Shame, Add Self-esteem

I think the concept of self-worth is more vital than the emotions related to it, and that listing the more general article is a better way of covering these and other unlisted but related concepts like assertiveness or narcissism. Self-esteem gets about as many page views as pride and shame combined.

I've withdrawn the nomination to remove shame since this is the emotion that motivates people's conduct in honour and face cultures – compare guilt in dignity cultures (which is also synonymous with guilt culture).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Addition  Carlwev  17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support I would support removing the opposites too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Some of the concepts that are antonyms of other concepts on the list don't look so vital to me. I feel empathy ought to cover egocentricism and trust ought to cover betrayal, just like how altruism covers selfishness or aggression covers deference. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely support the addition, there is some overlap, but they aren't the same thing, I consider emotions important and vital and believe a little overlap is acceptable. Need to think a bit more if I support removals, not sure if I do? Pride and shame do seem to get a lot of attention among literature, psychology and philosophy.  Carlwev  17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that's the thing – everything on this list of emotions receives significant attention, and our task is to cover as much ground as we can with as little overlap as necessary, given the 10,000-article limit. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Egocentricism

Lack of empathy ought to be covered by empathy and psychopathy.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The two unlisted members of the dark triad, narcissism and Machiavellianism, might be more vital. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Betrayal

Breach of trust ought to be covered by trust.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Society

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

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

---

Add Domestic violence

An important social issue. Covers everything from economic abuse to honour killings.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Domestic violence is a unique issue of its own historically very distinct from non-domestic types of violence. There are more specific forms of violence included in the list nowhere near as important as domestic violence. Duel for instance. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Though domestic violence is just a type of violence, it is still crucial since children are more likely to be harmed by domestic violence than other types of violence, e.g. school violence and legislative violence.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) fixed

Oppose

1. Oppose - Violence is already listed. Though violence could perhaps use some expansion, domestic violence could be adequately covered there, and is already to a certain extent.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I didn't realize duel was in, within the war and military section; that does seem less important. Among crimes there is also assault, battery, robbery, rape, torture, piracy, all violent crimes, most if not all of the time. We do list other things covered by violence in some way already. Completely different but, not to mention all the types of warfare and other military topics, from the war side of violence.  Carlwev  12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Sociology

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

War and military

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

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 surrender (military)

Much like declaration of war which was removed awhile ago, surrender isn't really vital. Nobody needs to read an entire article on how armies raise a white flag. It is one of many laws of war, all of which are redundant to the main article.

Support

1. As nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support We could be listing truly vital encyclopedic topics like mercenary, military use of children or jihad instead of words that people can just look up in the dictionary. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  17:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

FWIW, surrender is a disambiguation page. That usually means that the people who made the page thought that military surrender isn't important enough to be the primary topic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Combat

Redundant with war and violence.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support smaller scale combat is also redundant to martial arts. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Offensive (military)

Redundant with invasion.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support the articles cover the same ground. Beyond Vital Articles' scope but they could even be merged. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Swap: Remove Military campaign, Add Peacekeeping

"Military campaign" is redundant with war and military strategy. I propose replacing it with an important type of MOOTW.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support we already have the other main MOOTW in emergency management. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Biology and health sciences

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

Add Cigarette

One of the most widely consumed drugs/items. We have Smoking and tobacco, but for alcohol for example we have, alcoholic beverage, alcoholism, pub, bar and about 14 individual alcoholic drinks. Cigarettes are more widely consumed than Gin or something else like mustard. Although smoking is in, the article on the commercially manufactured item and it's history, design, advertising and influence on culture and health is not excessive compared to the alcohol topics we have (I don't necessarily want to remove any alcohol topics just making a comparison).

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I might start discussion on the 1000 talk page were it belongs, but whilst on the topic I am thinking about the inclusion of tobacco at the 1000 list, seems more vital than another crop like soybean, thoughts.  Carlwev  18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But we have smoking on the level 3 list. And I'm sorry, but there's no way I can support swapping soybeans for tobacco. That might be even worse then swapping cheese for opium. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK fair enough, Soybean seams for vital than I realized too.  Carlwev  18:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Basics

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

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

---

Remove biological classification, add taxon taxonomic rank

The former was merged into taxonomy (biology), which now belongs to the list. The latter is by no doubt vital, however it currently does not belong to the list.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that taxonomic rank is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC) changes the proposal: The taxonomic terms, kingdom, genus and species are called taxonomic ranks rather than taxa.
2. Support removal. Oppose addition. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

While obviously the redirect isn't vital, I think both taxon and taxonomic rank should be adequately covered by taxonomy. I would suggest adding cladistics instead, which is a specific modern approach to phylogenetic analysis, distinguishable from phenetics. Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the cladistics article is that it and phylogenetics aren't scoped very clearly and defining the scope has been contentious. The phylogenetics article claims that "cladistics" is a term for the methodology employed by phylogeneticists, while cladistics article claims that "phylogenetics" is a term for the methodology employed by cladists. If the articles ever settle on a clear definition and scope, I do think cladistics would be worth including. I wrote a little more last time cladistics was nominated. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 27#Add Cladistics

We shouldn't keep biological classification if it's a redirect, but I'm do think the list needs some formatting. Right now all of the classification stuff is treated as subtopics of phylogenetics. That's not right. Biological classification would make a better header for organizing these topics. We do have headers in bold that aren't on the vital list themselves, so maybe we could use biological classification as the header here. Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Plant's header idea, I would just go ahead and alter it, if you think you need support I give mine. There are headers which are not articles themselves, I presume in an effort to be correct like this, within biology and probably elsewhere too. I know of many within organisms for example, at least one I created myself. I altered Dinosaurs header to prehistoric reptiles and dinosaurs, as the extinct flying and swimming reptiles we list are not technically dinosaurs although usually lumped with them and often thought to be so by some people. I didn't ask or inform on the talk page about it I just did it, as I saw the previous header as incorrect. Was it wrong? I don't think so, no one mentioned or complained at all, no articles were added or removed and I have seen other users make similar adjustments.

But on the other hand I suggested through a vote thread to alter the inventors list header to inventors and engineers as some of the inclusive listed people and candidates are usually described as engineers not inventors and may have technically invented little or nothing themselves. I though the change was simple, logical, and correct but not enough votes agreed, maybe we'll revisit? who knows? I'd still alter this one biological classification one though.  Carlwev  19:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Anatomy and morphology

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

Add Sense

Is of interest to biology, psychology and philosophy. We have all 5 traditional senses, this is an overview article that covers them. But it also covers other non traditional senses of humans that we don't cover individually and probably shouldn't such as sense of time, balance, pain, temperature, hunger, and more. It also covers other animals and other life form senses which aren't otherwise covered like echolocation as in bats and marine mammals and others, and perception of electricity, magnetism in bird migration and others and more. The topic about how life forms sense and perceive their environment/surroundings in general is an important topic that could be covered well this overview article but may not be covered in as much depth the same way within articles about individual senses.

Although this cover stuff we already have, it covers new ground too, I still think the concept is vital, and it also may be worth at least considering at the 1000 level considering nearly all life has some form of a sense, and eye and ear are there already, as are things we can sense heat/temperature, light, color, sound. The section about senses already has overlap in that it has olfaction and olfactory system, and auditory system and ear and hearing and more for the other senses. I am aware one is about the primary organ, another the whole system, and another the minds perception of the information, so I'll leave them alone. Biology is under quota too, plus more groups of species are up for removal soon also.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Good overview article. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I've also noticed that there is also an article sensory system which we don't list, that is also a very decent overview article. It would obviously overlap with sense, but the overlap would be the same kind as the other individual senses I've pointed out above (eg nose olfaction and olfactory system are listed for smell, and other senses have at least 3 articles each too).  Carlwev  10:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do list sensory system, which is why I've stayed neutral on this one. Cobblet (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

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 Conservation biology

We have several nature parks in geography, I think the over view article about conservation in general is needed too. Of interest to experts and general readers, and obviously an international issue as well. There are several articles I looked at, this was the best one I could find. Others I looked at and considered were Conservation (ethic), nature reserve, protected area, Conservation movement. I was mostly looking at nature reserve, I would consider starting a thread for that too, but I'm conscious of the overlap with national park which we include already; although nature reserve includes small areas that are not actual national parks. Also the general idea of conservation, seems to be split across at least 2 articles, conservation biology and conservation (ethic), this concerns me a bit, but I still think this is the better article.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Conservation biology is the scientific study of biodiversity and ways to protect it, so it's redundant to biodiversity and wildlife conservation. If we want this sort of redundancy then our priorities should be to add cell biology, evolutionary biology, and possibly even some of the omics (especially genomics since we don't even have genome yet). If not, the next field of biology I'd add is biogeography. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Environmentalism is included here and in the 1000 list as well. I'm aware there is overlap, but I think environmentalism is a wider concept and conservation a bit more specific and it's not unusual to expand upon topics present at the 1000 level.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed that we have wildlife conservation, that only appears in 3 languages English, Esperanto and Ukranian, and has 16 references. Conservation biology is present in 32 languages and has over 3 times the content of wildlife conservation and has 140 references. They definitely overlap in content, and I can understand only wanting one, I suppose it just depends on which article or term one prefers. In English and other languages people seem to pay much more attention edit wise to Conservation biology. But on the flip side the opposite it true if one looks at page views, wildlife conservation gets more views, sometimes 2 or 3 times as many page views compared to conservation biology. So I don't know?  Carlwev  22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really care which one we list, but we don't need both. You might also want to see how environmental protection compares to those. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Zoology

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

Organisms

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

Remove Grebe, Mousebird, Sandgrouse, Tropicbird, Treeswift, Hamerkop, Spoonbill, Bee-eater and Jacamar

I don't see any convincing reasons why these birds should be considered vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support removing treeswift, hamerkop, spoonbill, bee-eater and jacamar. Oppose/neutral on the first four for now (see below) Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Grebe, mousebird, sandgrouse and tropicbird correspond to orders (i.e. the major subdivisions of birds/class Aves). There are 33 extant orders listed at bird]. Not all are on the vital list, and while I think orders are fairly important for birds, I don't think the vital list should include all 33. I'm not quite sure of the logic for including particular orders at present, or where the cutoff should be. The vital list does include hoatzin, presumably because it is a well known enigmatic evolutionary relic at the family level. Well maybe not "well known", but I'd heard of them before. Mousebirds are an enigmatic evolutionary relic at the order level (that I personally hadn't heard of before). I'd keep them for now, but could become convinced to delete once the vital birds get cleaned up further. Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't considered the taxonomic levels particularly important since they're so fluid these days. For instance the tropicbirds weren't given their own order until a couple years ago. There are strong indications that the grebes are related to the flamingos although it's still common to classify them as two separate orders. I think it would be easy to find a dozen examples of well-known extinct species we should consider including (look at how few prehistoric reptiles or mammals we include; aurochs, thylacine and Megalodon are three species I've come very close to nominating in the past), so just being a living fossil on its own isn't enough to persuade me to keep a taxon. The hoatzin is a particularly good example of a living fossil though since its chicks have claws on their wings. I don't have any further plans to work on the list of organisms in the near future, except maybe the odd addition or two, e.g. I think it would make sense to add sea urchin and sea cucumber. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to cry if somebody else comes along with a 5th support for removing all 9 of the nominated articles. I'm just not quite ready to go quite that far myself. Plantdrew (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As always I look forward to reading your feedback. I realized my original rationale was a bit lacking and wanted to explain myself a little more. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove True owl and Barn-owl

I don't think we need to list the two owl families. Owl plus one notable species from each family is good enough.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We now have both barn owl and barn-owl! Cobblet (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Swap: Remove Callitrichidae, Cebidae, Night monkey and Atelidae, Add Spider monkey and Capuchin monkey

For the apes and Old World monkeys, we include notable genera and species like baboon or common chimpanzee, but not families like Cercopithecinae or even Hominidae. So I think we should do the same for the New World monkeys. I propose removing the four families we list and adding the two most notable genera, the spider and capuchin monkeys (although whether the latter should be one genus or two is currently controversial).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Colugo

The two species of flying lemurs make up their own order, but are they really more notable than the flying squirrels or the sugar glider, which are other gliding mammals we don't list?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Not all mammal orders are listed (treeshrew and elephant shrew are unlisted and have more species), and order status is about all colugo has going it for it vital article-wise. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Fagaceae

Per Plantdrew's comments above. Oak and beech are listed; other major members of the family are Lithocarpus and Castanopsis which occur in Asia, but there must be many better examples of Asian trees to include, say banyan, larch, sugi, ume or Osmanthus fragrans.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support as having suggested it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Pine nut

Do we really need both pine and pine nuts? Pistachio gets more views and isn't listed. Sure, pine nuts are used in pesto, but we don't list capers or rosemary either and those are also important in Italian cuisine. Also, the pine sap-related products historically known as naval stores are at least as vital as pine nuts – things like turpentine, pitch (resin), pine tar and rosin were crucial during the Age of Sail and still retain specialty uses today. (The article on turpentine actually gets more views than the one on pine nuts.)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support pistachio is a better choice of nut. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Add Henna

Used in much of the old world since ancient times.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Brown rat

Perhaps the most successful mammal (along with humans) in terms of its ubiquitous distribution. Fancy rats and lab rats are both descended from it.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Alpaca

Somehow we have all the other South American camelids (llama, vicuña, guanaco) except for this one, which has been domesticated for its fur for thousands of years.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support I'm not sure that vicuna and guanaco should be listed. Alpaca should certainly be listed if vicuna and guanaco are. Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Atheriniformes

When it comes to mid-level taxa I think we should only be including those that are either comparatively large among their peers or have some sort of special significance. This is a relatively non-notable fish order of below-average size. (FishBase classifies about 33,000 species of fish into 62 orders.) We already list at least half a dozen other types of whitebait.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Stomiiformes

Another fish order with a below-average number of species. We list deep sea fish and have a specific example in anglerfish. Lanternfish might make a better choice due to sheer biomass. A concept such as bioluminescence would also be more vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Sea urchin and Sea cucumber

We need more echinoderms besides starfish. Besides being just generally well-known, these animals also have culinary and economic importance in Asia.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

Physical sciences

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

Basics

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

Measurement

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

Astronomy

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

Chemistry

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

Earth science

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

Physics

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

Technology

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

Agriculture

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

Biotechnology

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

Computing and information technology

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

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 Provable security, Add Computer security

Whether an encryption method can be mathematically proven to be "secure" (and what that even means in the first place) is a topic for cryptography and P versus NP problem; I don't think it needs to be listed on its own. Far more vital is the notion of security as it applies generally to computer networks and data. Computer virus only describes one of the many means by which security might be compromised.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support this was on my list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We probably should have physical security too. And if encryption is vital cryptanalysis ought to be as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of the remove more than the addition, but it's still a good swap. We have security itself already, physical security, not sure about it, but it's worth considering at least. I was thinking about computer-ish topics more relevant to the everyday person. We have several operating systems in computing, several articles within computer software, and internet, programming and programming languages. The everyday person may not be effected much or at least aware of the influence of different programming languages, but things that use computers and telecommunications that are used by many people in the developed world are not included like, Automated teller machine for instance. Yes covered by banking I suppose, but all the computer articles would also be covered by a parent article too, but we go into detail there. For security type articles we could consider things like surveillance, authoritarianism. Are any of these less vital than say Berkeley Software Distribution, which we have in addition to Unix. Even things like vending machine or image scanner, or even barcode seem better than BSD.  Carlwev  16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

I wasn't aware we already listed security. I'd consider swapping that out for physical security then. And maybe swap BSD for open source (although I just noticed we have open-source software). For security subtopics I'd consider surveillance and cyberwarfare. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think open source is worth considering, maybe cyberwarfare too, but I'm not as sure on that one.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Berkeley Software Distribution

It has been said several times computer section is bloated. This article I think stands out as less vital, it maybe important but it is simply not as notable as windows dos and mac. We have Unix and Open-source software which cover some of the same territory as this or at least are reasons for its notability. There are many information or computing articles missing, such as image scanner which I'm nominating below. An article like this may be of interest to specialist encyclopedias, but at the moment our Computing and information technology section has 80 articles which includes software and hardware, programming and languages, internet and network topics, data and cryptography topics, and general computer science topics. With all that to cram into 80 slots I don't think BSD is within the top 100 computer articles IMO. We have 7 articles under operating systems, which is nearly one in ten of all our computer and information tech articles. From websites we have removed fairly significant sites like Twitter and eBay, which are probably equal if not higher importance.

Support

1. Support as nom. Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Unix and Linux are enough to cover this family of operating systems. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Unix is vital, but not a particular version thereof (with the probable exception of Linux, yes, I know Linux is not Unix, but it's pretty close). Rwessel (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Image scanner

Computer scanner, image scanner or just scanner. IMO as we include all the basic computer hardware, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer and more, this should be in too. Scanners are not really covered by anything other than basic hardware, but actually we don't list computer hardware anyway. In addition to many specific or specialist topics in computing, we include more similar articles of electronic devices and components under media and communication section and electronics section, and also optics. Many of the articles are more specific or specialized or are not as widely used as scanners. There are too many too mention, but we have things like 7 articles for operating systems, 12 for internet and networks, not including individual websites under another section, 12 articles under programming including languages. We list things like Fresnel lens, mobile device many of these seem less vital, plus many more things, I won't list them all. I think image scanner more vital than many articles in the tech list. I am looking for removals at the moment too.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Good find. I wonder if fax should be listed too. It is probably at the level of blackboard and just misses out. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I would probably support fax, but I seem to like tech articles more than other users, I would support many tech articles suggested here and there on this talk page past and present; Except many software ones. I wanted to keep CD, but we removed it as redundant to optical disc, which does cover it. But to me it seems more vital than C++, Unix and Linux, but maybe its just me. I have a long list on my own talk page with suggestions, some of them are tech articles.  Carlwev  17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's tricky to compare CD with programming languages. When you go to the information technology section of a library, you would find many more books on C++ and even obscure programming languages not listed here than books about the CD. That and the fact the CDs hardly lasted for a generation doesn't make it very vital in my opinion. Cassettes and floppy disks were popular before the CD and nowadays the CD has been replaced by the USB flash drive and digital storage. At least photographic film was around for a much longer time and vinyl record (which isn't listed) died out but is experiencing a modern revival. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Windows 10

I believe that Windows 10 should be added as a subtopic under Microsoft Windows. Daylen (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Daylen

Oppose

1. Oppose While Windows is vital due to its enormous user base, a particular version is not. Rwessel (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Recentism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose Too soon, and no need to have this or any other specific version of Windows pbp 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Add Server (computing)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Microcomputer

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We decided not to add microprocessor last year. I don't see how microcomputer is a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Electronics

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

Engineering

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

Industry

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

Infrastructure

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

Machinery and tools

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

Remove Tube (fluid conveyance)

We list pipe. In general usage pipe and tube are interchangeable. If you search online you can find pages explaining the perceived difference, at least among experts, but in my opinion it's too similar, or not significant enough to include in out list. Tube itself is a disambiguation page, appearing in 10 languages, this article itself in only 5; pipe however is in about 42 languages and is a much better article. I am wondering how many other languages have 2 words like English does. Also we include pipeline transport under transport, plumbing in industry, water stuff. Also we don't have Cylinder (geometry) or Cylinder (engine) or Pneumatics which are other pipe/tube kind of articles that would cover more ground.  Carlwev  20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Clearly redundant to pipe. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support good catch. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Container

A container is such a basic concept that its importance in allowing human civilization to exist is often overlooked. However, it was the container that allowed mankind to spread throughout the world (by enabling the carrying of more food than could be held in the hands alone), and almost everything we consume is now distributed in containers. bd2412 T 15:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. bd2412 T 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We've added bag and basket weaving recently; pottery and canning are listed; and other types of containers I can think of are usually covered by the article related to the material, e.g. an article that talks about the uses and history of glass must necessarily cover glass containers, and the making of wooden containers can be covered by woodworking. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

1. BD2412, you forgot to add a support vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer packaging and labeling to be listed first. I can't see container being more vital than box, bottle, jar,basket, canning and barrel. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

All of those are kinds of container. A box is a square container; a bottle is a usually cylindrical glass container; a jar is another usually cylindrical glass container, etc. How can a topic be less vital than a collection of things that are subtopics of itself? bd2412 T 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This happens quite often. Cutting tool (which is a redirect) is less vital than knife or axe or scissors. Straightedge is less vital than ruler. Writing implement is less vital than pen or pencil. It all comes down to how people typically conceptualize things, how they organize their knowledge or research, and what they end up actually looking for in an encyclopedia. One can choose all manner of umbrella terms to compartmentalize an important subject like tools, but just because these umbrella terms are broader in scope does not mean that we must consider all of them high priorities for Wikipedia. Sometimes we have a choice: for example, let's compare "container" to "packaging". There's no "World Container Organization" or Journal of Containers that I'm aware of; but there is a World Packaging Organization, an Institute of Packaging Professionals, a food industry-funded research group called the Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging, and journals called Packaging Technology and Science, Packaging Research and Food Packaging and Shelf Life. Packaging and labeling gets four times as many page views as "container" itself.

When I look up "history of containers" the results I get are not histories that begin with something like Ötzi#Tools and equipment; rather they're all about containerization, i.e. container shipping. That's another example of a specific article in the container umbrella that receives over twice as many page views as "container", and is an article I'd be much more willing to add. The question is whether it's more significant than other modern technological innovations we don't list, e.g. electric car, catalytic converter, supersonic aircraft, desalination, center pivot irrigation, smartphone, engineered wood, etc. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Media and communication

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

Add color printing

This technology is now quite widespread, and absolultely crucial.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Colour printing is better since not only is printing more important than photography, but also we don't have anything that describes the CMYK process used in modern colour printing. I'd be OK with listing either colour printing or the CMYK model, but would prefer the latter since it's how basically all colour printing is done nowadays and I think the article on the modern technique is better to have – historical aspects of colour printing should be covered adequately in Printing#History. Also listing CMYK would make cyan and magenta obviously redundant (they have hardly any significance outside of printing) and we could remove those articles from the list. I'll point out that the reason color printing on a large scale is practical nowadays is because of the invention of offset printing, which is based on the technique of lithography – we should have something on those topics if we're going to include something on colour reproduction in printing. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Medical technology

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

Military technology

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

Navigation and timekeeping

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

Optical technology

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

Space

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

Textiles

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

Transportation

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

Mathematics

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

Basics

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

Algebra

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

Calculus and analysis

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

Discrete mathematics

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

Add Sorting algorithm

Quicksort has been nominated before without success, but sorting algorithms as a whole are definitely vital – they're one of the most common encountered types of algorithms and they're taught in any introductory computer science class.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

1. Waffle - The only specific algorithm we have listed now is Numerical integration. I'm not really sure that any specific (or class of) algorithm is really vital at this level. Algorithm leads to all of those. Perhaps that's sufficient (and yes, I'm thinking Numerical integration probably should be moved to the Calculus section). And if we do include sorting, what about graph, tree, search, and a few dozen other classes, at least as vital as sorting? Rwessel (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much one can expect algorithm to say about specific types of algorithms since it's such a broad topic – it has to cover everything from the Euclidean algorithm to Shor's algorithm. Personally I'm OK with including a couple more basic types of algorithms or the types of problems they solve, say Dijkstra's algorithm/shortest path problem, tree traversal, or Monte Carlo method. These are highly-viewed CS articles, and I think many more people would benefit from reading high- quality articles on topics like these than topics like the Atiyah–Singer index theorem or homological algebra.

Numerical integration's definitely misplaced – I think it would fit best under numerical analysis. Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, sorting has the advantage of being a readily understandable concept (for non-specialists), while being a quite rich subject. Does that help make it vital? (That's a serious question, BTW.) And why exactly would we choose Dijkstra's algorithm (or the particular problem), rather than a more generic group like graph or tree traversal/search? Rwessel (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the fact that sorting and searching are both tasks with wide applicability in programming – algorithms for both are taught early on for that reason. It's their usefulness rather than their intuitiveness that makes them vital. Something like graph coloring is also pretty intuitive, but isn't quite as generally useful, so that seems less vital to me. (We list the four color theorem because it's famous, but for reasons that have nothing to do with its applicability.)

Sometimes there are common concepts that I think are actually more vital because they're less intuitive – for example I think recursion's a little more vital than iteration (although maybe both are still vital). Bottom line is, I think the usefulness and complexity of a concept are two of the reasons people look things up on Wikipedia; it's these topics, that many people need to know about and can't easily figure out on their own, that I think we should make a priority for our list.

I think you're absolutely right that Dijkstra's algorithm is too specific for our list in the same way quicksort's too specific. (I mentioned it just because it gets a lot of hits.) How about we just include sorting algorithm and search algorithm then? I suppose most of the common graph-traversing algorithms would fall into the second category. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Just a thought

Hey there, i noticed this list awhile ago and was pleased, as a side hobby i do research into top people who are top influences in fields ranging from the high profile to the extremely obscure. I realize this list is based upon the 2000 most important people that would be in a print encyclopedia... I also acknowledge recentism is a factor but i can't help but wonder if we could represent a small couple of fields that are notable and just have one person to represent them to provide a fuller overview of human cultural existence, even if it is negative. The fact that we have people like Coco Chanel Al Capone Shigeru Miyamoto and Tupac Shakur for instance, as they are one person each representing a small cultural domain. Here's some ideas. (each link goes toward a person who dominates that field).

1. Chef/Atheism/Modeling/New religious movements
2. Circus/Rugby League (the other rugby)/Magazines/Criminal
3. Sexology/Puppeteer
4. Criminal 2 Criminal 3/Martial Arts
5. Extreme sports 1/Extreme sports 2/Professional wrestling
6. Graffiti/Wheelchair tennis (disabled sports)/Squash
7. Table-Tennis/Bodybuilding

Heck even something like porn is a field that could be represented Linda Lovelace

Or even people who are widely known and are unique like Ayn Rand Giacomo Casanova Grigori Rasputin

P.S i know they don't really qualify under normal circumstances and i am not saying "ADD THEM ALL" i am just saying maybe we can represent some fields like chefs/criminals/Atheism or something with one person even if they might not pass the test like someone would have to in another field like politicians or acting. Mainly proposing this as a brainstorm, i know these are silly but it wouldn't hurt to think about what fields it might be good to think about adding (if any). I'd love to discuss as this is a passion of mine.

P.PS The strongest one i think merits inclusion is L. Ron Hubbard, i am not a fan at all but i really think New Religious Movements are a legitimate target for one biography.

Thanks for sharing your ideas GuzzyG. I have thought about proposing to add some of your suggestions myself, in particular Blackbeard and Jahangir Khan. I support topic diversity in the biography section for a "fuller overview of human cultural existence" as you say and I think adding a pirate would diversify the list of people (piracy itself is on the list so there would be no inconsistency in adding Blackbeard).

Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the list but removed (though he was in the actors section and I agree he would at least have a stronger case in bodybuilding than acting). With regards to atheism, I think Charles Darwin along with other comparable scientists and in a totally different way Karl Marx have expanded its horizons far more than people like Dawkins and Hitchens though I can understand the reasoning behind adding them. I would support adding history of atheism since histories of the five major religions are listed. With sexology, Sigmund Freud seems to be most famous and iconic person in the field for non-experts like me but I may be completely wrong. And just to let you know, we did have Hugh Heffner but he was removed too.

As for Dally Messenger, I think you could enter fuzzy territory since you could likewise add Leigh Matthews, Henry Shefflin, Julián Retegi, Phil Taylor, Lin Dan among many other legends of in the grand scheme of things, relatively small sports (except for possibly Lin Dan). We do have some founders of NRM's like A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada though he's in quite different territory to L. Ron Hubbard. I'll have more to say about all this later. :) Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling there will be consensus to add one or two more rappers to the list so Tupac will no longer be alone. If there are 27 rock musicians and 14 jazz musicians, two or three hip-hop musicians doesn't seem over the top in my opinion. Also Harry Houdini may be the only magician/illusionist listed so he's another person in that exclusive group of one. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

These are definitely names all worth considering, and I've even nominated Pablo Escobar before. It might be worthwhile to start separate discussions on specific areas like unrepresented sports or arts, or historical celebrities, so that we can have a more focused conversation. WRT new religious movements I've considered nominating Helena Blavatsky for a long time, who I think has made more of a fundamental impact on modern esotericism than anyone else, including Hubbard. Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The road block with these type of under-representations or expanding hip-hop for existence (which i do support) is that they nearly all fall under recentism or are western so people are understandably a little iffy in adding them. I think one of the missing fields is criminals (i know it was removed, i've read most of the archives) yeah it's not a positive field but there's been criminals since there's been humans, recorded criminal history starts here, ha! so i think Blackbeard best represents that as he is historical and piracy played a big part in merchant trade.

I seen Arnold removed and i honestly did not agree really while he may be more of a pop-ish actor he's also a two term governor and played a big role in the foundation and dominance of bodybuilding and he was one of the figures who arguably brought fitness to the mainstream, that's more then a lot of the actors listed here have done, but now i seem like a rabid fan (not really one).

Yeah, Gizza, i seen you mention Atheism and i do agree with you, that's why i added it as a show of support, ha! Regarding the sports you mentioned, yeah they are relatively small, i mainly added League as a nod to the other game which is commonly not as heard of as Union. I do support unique sports when there is such domination like Jahangir and Kelly Slater for instance, i had heard of the others (Thanks for introducing me to Retigi). I would have added Phil and Lin in my original proposal but the sports are too small and people don't really like athletes being on here (Although American Football has three and that is regarded in one country, although a big one i understand).

Regarding Sexology, yes Sigmund is the most important to the layman i was just offering a specific person that specifically is prominent in the field, as Sigmund was mainly Psychoanalysis. Don't have a strong opinion on Hugh being here although he could represent adult entertainment as a whole. Yes, forgot Houdini but he is the only magician (if it was 40 years in the future, David Copperfield would probably qualify), Marcel is the only mime too. A. C. i must of missed him as i did not see him on the list, my mistake. We do need to have a conversation on underrepresented sports and arts, this was supposed to be a mega-post on that but separate discussions might suffice. I'd support Helena and i do agree.

Regarding on how to handle sports i think we should cut back on some like Auto Racing to 5, Cricket to 5, Baseball to 5, Basketball to 5, Gymnastics to 5 and Tennis to 10, then we can add really dominant people in small-ish sports or something, even sports which are restricted to Eastern audiences like Lin Dan or Tanikaze Kajinosuke, that's why i included Table-tennis, also mainly Olympic ones. I know i added some fields regarded as juvenile or regarded for youths but juvenile history is still history, which is why i added Tony Hawk who has influenced a whole scene of youth extreme sports (even had a impact on video games with his own self-titled series). I noticed Professional Wrestling itself is not on the list by-itself so we can ignore that although i do think it should be as it is big in multiple continents (although only the U.S, Japan and Mexico) mainly.

My main point is to maybe add some fields which might not be historically important (as they are within the new century) but it would be good in my mind to diversify the topics as if this list is used as a point of improvement it could help our encyclopedia to improve upon people in different topics. I forgot some potential fields. con-langs sports inventors, one of the only main sports that has a definitive creator Stunt men or even small-ish fields like talk-radio, Media criticism and i think i we missing Shah Rukh Khan.

My main ones that i think should be added are NRM's, a criminal, some unique sports dominators (like Karelin), graffiti (another centuries old thing), Modeling and Martial Arts (beyond Bruce Lee).

P.S i think if more hip-hop is to be added we should include atleast one group (like Run–D.M.C.) for example. Disclaimer - I am not a big fan of any of these people or fields i just think some diversification of topics and the potential of adding some fun, non-academic type fields might be good for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Although it's important that we have a list that captures the diversity of human experience, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the smaller fields might not be important enough to deserve representation. I'll take the example of Lin Dan since now both of you have mentioned him and I've thought about suggesting him in the past as well. Even though China dominates the sport, badminton has never been the most popular sport in China: it used to be ping-pong and these days it's basketball. Lin Dan is big but not that big in his home country: for example, when you look at page views on the Chinese Wikipedia, he gets fewer page views than Yao Ming or Jeremy Lin. If you're going to pick a Chinese athlete of the current generation to add to the list, it really has to be Yao Ming, who was the first truly internationally famous Chinese athlete of any kind and is responsible to a great extent for the popularity of basketball in China. And still Yao has no chance of making the list since he's not anywhere close to being the greatest basketball players of all time. There may be other areas where the Chinese are underrepresented but I don't think sports is one of them. You can't possibly justify adding Lin Dan to a list missing a figure as vitally important to Chinese culture as Yue Fei for example. Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, Badminton does not make the cut, the only thing that helps it's case is that it's an Olympic sport, although it does outnumber the views on the English wiki 7x the amount of Alpine skiing [1] which has two athletes on the list [2] but Alpine is representative of the Winter Olympics, i am not that fussed about adding new sports, i understand some of them are too obscure and people don't like adding athletes, although ones like Kelly Arnold Esther (Paralympics) Jahangir Tony, Sébastien and Fedor are highly, highly dominant in their respective sports (which each are in the vital life section), with that i do think if we are going to have 14 of great but not super, super amazing players like Pancho Gonzales it might be good to cut back and add some highly dominant people in lesser known sports. I am also in favor of adding a sporting figure from a sport like Sumo which is one of the oldest currently competing sports. But not too big on sports as athletes are not overall that important and consensus is against them.

I was mainly meaning maybe adding in some culture stuff like a performing artist, graffiti artist, model, chef, puppeteer, one or two criminals, maybe someone representing sexuality/adult entertainment, stuntman, radio/talk-radio, media criticism (like film), new religious movements (but i see we have that covered) and i was going to suggest the performance art of Professional wrestling but i see the main article is not in here and has not been voted in before, just fields like that which are centuries old and well known unlike ones like Sailor Jerry or Juan Belmonte. I was also wondering about people's thoughts on people who are widely recognizable by their surnames Rand Casanova Rasputin and De Sade. I am not here as a fan who is trying to put in their "fav celebrity" i have no affinity for anyone i suggest, i am just wondering if we might be missing any fields.

Yue Fei i agree with you on that, before any other fields are added i think we should add an Australia leader (only member of the G-20 missing) and the Hawaiian and Tongan king first, what do you think of them? Or even a top Caribbean politician.

Cobblet what do you think of the fields and names thrown around? Like i said now that we are on our last legs to our limit i am just making sure if we are covered with what we could be. People like Jeanne Calment, Robert Wadlow and Lina Medina might be worth looking into as-well. GuzzyG (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think people one would associate with Ripley's or the Guinness Book of World Records are vital.
• I've never paid much attention to Oceanian politicians but I think I'm OK with adding Kamehameha I unless there's someone even more notable we're missing. I'm not convinced yet we need a second one besides him. The one politician from Jamaica I've considered in the past was Marcus Garvey.
• I don't think there's any chef I'd consider vital. Within any culinary tradition I'd rather list characteristic ingredients, eating habits, cooking methods, and dishes, before individual chefs. If no chefs are vital, there's no way any graffiti artist is vital.
• Hitchens was just a pundit, not someone who made fundamental contributions to the development of Western thought. Dawkins would be slightly better, but I'm pretty sure there are several much more vital biologists we need first.
• When it comes to fashion, there are several designers, movie icons (we removed James Dean and never listed Brigitte Bardot) as well as executives like Anna Wintour or Helena Rubinstein I'd consider to have made more of an impact on the history of fashion than any model.
• People notable for being connected to sex in some way have to be judged against other people of their time. Maybe Sappho could be vital, especially if more of her work was extant and could back up her reputation. I'm not convinced anyone after her makes the cut. Lord Byron and Margaret Mead are people I consider definitely vital; Casanova and Kinsey are definitely less vital by comparison – whether they're still vital enough to make the list, I'm not really sure. We're still missing foundational writers of the Western canon like Rabelais and Tasso; de Sade's far, far down the list.
• I don't remember having thought of Henry Luce before but he seems fairly vital. I thought David Sarnoff was clearly vital and that nomination still failed, and I haven't really thought about media execs since then.
• We list Sesame Street and I'd probably list the Muppets before Jim Henson, but that's just me.
• I doubt there are many people who care about Howard Stern and Ayn Rand outside of the US, and even in the US they're not exactly mainstream figures.
• Rasputin could be a good choice, definitely crossed my mind before. Undecided on Blackbeard.
• Have thought about Emelianenko before, but not really sure I'd take him over Royce Gracie. MMA is a young sport (ditto with extreme sports) and in a sense Bruce Lee is the first MMA fighter. I might not oppose adding professional wrestling as a form of entertainment but I really don't think we need professional wrestlers. I absolutely agree we have too many tennis players and Pancho Gonzales is the obvious person to remove, but I'm not sure who you'd remove after him. Tennis players are generally far better known than, say, squash players, and removing someone like Bjorn Borg or Margaret Court just to add Jahangir Khan or Nicol David doesn't seem right. When it comes to Japanese cultural figures, I'm not sure we need sumo wrestlers any more than we need, say, go players like Honinbo Shusaku or Go Seigen. (Izumo no Okuni seems more vital than any Japanese sportsperson that isn't a baseball player.) Based on impact on society as a whole, if I had to pick one disabled athlete I think I'd go with Terry Fox, and even he doesn't seem clearly vital to me – I don't think he's well known outside Canada.
• I think I'd rather add one more film director from an underrepresented tradition or genre, say Abbas Kiarostami, than Roger Ebert. Has Ebert actually changed the way people make films? Are people going to study what he wrote a hundred years from now? Cobblet (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the vital list is a balancing act between adding people who were/are actually important versus diversifying the list to include underrepresented people and topics like women, minorities, "ancient" history, etc. In an encyclopedia you expect to read about people who made an impact on society but also a wide variety of content so you can broaden your knowledge on everything. Forming an opinion on where to draw the line is one of the most interesting and exciting parts of this project. I agree with most of what Cobblet said above.

With regards to Indian cinema, the biggest hole is the absence of actresses. Three male actors is plenty in comparison. There really should two female actors as a minimum from a country that produces the most films in the world and has done so for a long time, something that 600 million odd people aspire to become one day. And Shah Rukh Khan would face tough competition from Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna for the next male spot. I will probably support John Curtin simply because Australia ought to have representation in political leaders though if we're looking for people with power and influence, Rupert Murdoch would be a good addition too (more vital than Ted Turner in my opinion and gets more views). Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. Just thought that "world's oldest person" could be a vital study in longevity.
• I had both because Kamehameha I was a very influential king in his own right and i suggested George Tupou I because he was one of the few leaders of a country (let alone islands) who managed to keep his country intact and not colonized. Big yes on Garvey, i was gonna nominate him but i forgot, do you think i should?
• I understand
• Yeah, there's not enough evidence of their historical worth (if any) yet.
• I do think one more person could be added to fashion along with Coco Chanel, Wintour or Charles Frederick Worth would probably be right, some models like Twiggy or Kate Moss can have cultural impact but not vital impact i guess, James Dean and Birdot i would not support. Rubinstein only if we were to include cosmetics which might be too small a field.
• I probably would be in support of Sappho as she seems to be quite significant for BCE women poets and fits in as a erotica writer.
• I would support Henry and i would Smirnoff, surprised he failed actually.
• The Muppet's are a big cross media franchise and could be historically important, i guess....
• True, just throwing out names.
• In my mind if they thought he had enough power to kill him, i would say he might be notable (i would vote support if he was up). For sure would support Blackbeard.
• I'd only vote for Royce out of MMA if we are doing are "one of the first important figures" i think historically Fedor out-ranks him. I probably will try Pro Wrestling itself again later. it's extremely popular in 3 major world countries for going on 60 years now. As for Tennis my first two to remove would be Pancho and Pete Sampras they're good but Tennis is packed with amazing players and their accomplishments have been largely left behind. I'm in full support of Jahangir because his record transcends his sport although it's downtrodden because Squash is not a Olympic sport, how about Karch Kiraly? He's got dominance and a gold medal in two Olympic sports (indoor & outdoor Volleyball) apparently the only one to do so. Yeah, Sumo is a one off country and Japan is not up there with the U.S in numbers in order to support a one country sports add, so that rules out Go and Sumo. Izumo looks to be a good add.
• Abbas is more notable then Roger yeah, Roger probably will be read/studied as a starter on film criticism but that's not a really important field, i concede.
• How about this guy Cobblet? Alfred Wegener he seems to be vital and influential in polar research. Nominate Helena too, if you want, i'll support her.
• The biggest problem with the ideas i have pointed out is the recentism in them, although i was originally under the idea it might be good to have some unique/small fields get representation with figures who are/were a dominant force in them (influenced by Al Capone being here, which i agree with), but i concede that historical importance and vitality trumps that. Let's wait a couple years (or decades, haha!) Do you have any fields you think we have not covered Cobb?
• @Gizza How about Madhubala or Nargis? What two other hip-hop artists would you choose to get the nod? I would support a Ted Turner and Murdoch swap. GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois should probably be nominated together as their influence on African-American history is comparable. The trouble with Karch Kiraly is again the relative prominence of volleyball athletes vs. other sports – is Kiraly really more vital than Joe Montana or Kobe Bryant? We definitely haven't paid enough attention to earth scientists and the guy who came up with continental drift definitely needs to be considered. It has occurred to me before that Alfred Russel Wallace isn't on the list.

Fields we haven't covered at all... honestly I've never really thought about it in a global sense like you have (which is why I'm glad you're here). I ought to nominate Wang Xizhi soon. I've also thought about adding someone to represent the decorative arts like maybe Louis Comfort Tiffany or Peter Carl Fabergé. I've also noticed for a very long time that engineers are underrepresented, particularly people associated with the Industrial Revolution like John Smeaton, George Stephenson or Richard Arkwright just to name three possibilities. Remarkably we once had a proposal to rename the "Inventors" section to "Inventors and Engineers" that failed which is why I've personally put those ideas on the backburner. That being said, none of the people who opposed it at the time are still around. Also, I think the only judge we have is John Marshall. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of Du Bois and Garvey we could probably only get one and Garvey would be that one in my opinion. I'd have both though. I'd say Volleyball is a bit more important worldwide then American Football as it's a Olympic sport, it's popular in Brazil and it's along with Netball one mainly played by women. Basketball beats it, but then again Kobe is more important then some of the other sport figures there too, but he is just not historically in the top 5 of basketball yet. I would have said we should cut Basketball to 5 and i would've chose Larry but he's the only person to win a Series in all four roles so i would not pick him..

Wallace not on the list is surprising.. I'd vote for Wang but i don't know if he'd get in. Decorative arts sound good, just the type of field i meant to say. Tiffany and Fabergé could go either way, both influential people, maybe more Fabergé. I would have thought Smeaton and Arkwright would be in here, Inventors and Engineers has a nice ring to it. Judge's are hard as they mainly influence one country like Warren and Denning. There's Roland Freisler but i would not add another Nazi as Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring are not on here, you could go biblical with Samson but he's not the most vital biblical figure, we could go with a Nuremberg judge? . Lawyer's are even harder as they are more singular like Giovanni Falcone and Clarence Darrow. We could add Syed Ahmad Khan, what do you think? I am shocked that Cesar Chavez is not on the list either. How about an Indigenous Australian? Bennelong might fit, he's up there with Sitting Bull. It's an interesting discussion but it is hard because most people's importance is relagated to a single country or continent. What did you think of L. L. Zamenhof? How about Aleister Crowley? What do you think of Pancho and Pete being removed from Tennis? GuzzyG (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Göring is listed under military leaders. As for judges, we have John Marshall. pbp 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I just remembered that we did briefly discuss adding William Blackstone. I'd say no to Zamenhof – I don't think Esperanto's that important. Syed Ahmad Khan seems to have a good case – I haven't thought much about 19th-century South Asian history although I've considered nominating Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani under the journalist category. Bennelong seems distinctly non-vital – it seems to me a much closer comparison could be made to Squanto who is way less vital than, say, Pocahontas, let alone Sitting Bull. Never considered Crowley but I think I'd still take Blavatsky over him, since her impact has been more global. I agree with removing Pancho but rather doubt that Sampras should be the next player to bump off, he seems a better choice than Borg at least. Also, I just realized we do in fact list Sappho – for some reason I thought we hadn't. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Either Blackstone or his book is a must, either way it/he was highly influential. I missed the banner on Sappho too, haha! Göring does not have a VA banner on his talk so i assumed he was not here. I'd support adding Himmler actually. Jamal is a good choice. Pocahontas would be a good pick if American history wasn't over represented. I'll nominate Pancho later, how many people do you think would fit tennis good? I'd say 10. But we are under the limit so we probably should wait until we hit the limit. These could be good Francis Galton, Thomas Bayes, Jean-François Champollion, Aldus Manutius, Heinrich Schliemann, William Morris, Wernher von Braun, Gottlieb Daimler, Richard Stallman or Valentina Tereshkova to represent women in space. GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree ten tennis players would be all right. I've tagged Göring now. No idea what to make of Galton. No to Bayes. We list Egyptian hieroglyphs and Rosetta Stone and I think that makes Champollion redundant. Manutius is interesting, Schliemann is vital – what other archaeologists are we missing? Morris – I knew I was missing someone when I was naming decorative artists. Von Braun is OK though Sergei Korolev deserves just as much consideration and I have to wonder if Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky aren't better choices – you could argue that von Braun and Korolev are subsumed to some extent by the articles on their respective space programs. Yes to Daimler, Stallman's too recent and in my last sentence I named two people more important to the Soviet space program than Tereshkova. Cobblet (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer Tsiolkovsky. I am not that knowledgeable on archaeologists but i know the big names are V. Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Louis Leakey, Richard Owen, Othniel Charles Marsh, Edward Drinker Cope then there's the most famous one Howard Carter but he's a one hit wonder. I also noticed Robert Koch is missing, i think he's perfect for this list. There's also some known last names that might make it, that have not been discussed, Louis Braille and Rudolf Diesel, you won't like these next ones but i would think if we got rid of some modern sports people these would not hurt Milo of Croton and Pierre de Coubertin. What do you think of Gizza's suggestion of possibly adding two or one more hip-hop? wait a couple of years? Make Tupac less lonely, ha! I am thinking of nominating Itzhak Perlman and Steve Martin for removal, what do you think? There's also Julian Huxley GuzzyG (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I mentioned Koch in the discussion on the Chandrasekhar-Raman swap and I agree we really need to look at biologists like him and Huxley. Braille is a better choice than Diesel. Leakey seems the best among the choices you gave; I think Georges Cuvier and Flinders Petrie also have a shot. Can't take Milo when we don't have Theseus, Hipparchus or Polybius. (When you warned me I thought you were going to say Gaius Appuleius Diocles.) De Coubertin is interesting but would lose to Henry Dunant. I'm all for adding more hip hop artists but the only one I listen to is Nujabes so don't ask me who to pick. I agree Perlman and Martin can go. Just realized Hugo Grotius is listed so we have a second jurist. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Koch's a must, in my opinion, we really do need to look at biologists. Both are good but out of those two Cuvier seems to be the better shot. Haha, i knew you would think that, there's not much evidence for him but if those times had as much documentation us now he most likely would be a shoe-in, same with a gladiator, just no documentation so it's impossible to judge their impact. Forgot about the Red Cross, i'd say for hip-hop based on significantly changing the industry i would go with Run–D.M.C. and Eminem but you could say the latter is too recent so i am not sure. Yeah, Hugo is really vital, not surprised, ha. Found some more potentially vital people like Igor Sikorsky, Cornelis Drebbel, Mel Blanc, Eadweard Muybridge and Nicéphore Niépce. Also before we add more hip-hop shouldn't we have a punk representative like Sex Pistols? it's been around longer.GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Before adding punk rockers (the Ramones have been suggested before) I'd like to see The Velvet Underground added back since they were basically the creators of alternative rock. Of the other people you mentioned I think Sikorsky's the only one who has a shot. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that (Velvet), especially if we list Nirvana. Really i would have thought for sure Muybridge and Blanc left a pretty big impact. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither of them stand out strongly when compared to their peers who also aren't on the list, e.g. Étienne-Jules Marey and Auguste and Louis Lumière for Muybridge and all the other people associated with Warner Bros. Cartoons for Blanc. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unfortunately Bennelong isn't vital. It would be good to represent Aboriginal Australian culture a bit better on the list but I don't think adding people is the answer. There are other aspects that are more well-known within Australia and around the world. At the moment, Aboriginal Australians itself, Aboriginal Australian mythology and boomerang are listed. Dreamtime for all purposes is just a synonym for Aboriginal Australian mythology. The only article I can think of with some chance is didgeridoo.

Madhubala and Nargis are both great choices. Along with Meena Kumari, they represent the Golden Age of Indian cinema in the 50s and 60s. Alternatively, if we want to have to have two from different eras, we could pick someone like Hema Malini, Mumtaz or Madhuri Dixit but I lean towards two of the first three.

Regarding hip-hop, Eminem used to be on the list but was removed two years ago here. Coincidentally, the most people that have been listed on VA is 2260. See here. That was when the entire list was very much over the limit because anyone could anything they wanted to the list without discussion. It is interesting to note how the list has progressed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not that knowledgeable on Indian Cinema but if you want to pick 1-2 representatives i will trust your judgment and support, as one of the biggest film industries it does need at-least 1-2 actresses. True no Indigenous Australian has really reached worldwide prominence, David Unaipon is probably the closest, it's a shame, the topics you mentioned are good representations though. I actually think Eminem should be on here aswell as Run–D.M.C. for a group, but Eminem is probably too recent. Other then way too many recent comedians/actors/authors/american athletes i do not think that list was that bad, it had a good variety. Thanks for linking me that diff, appreciate it, very interesting to compare it to today. GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: Come to think of it, the most vital Indigenous Australian would be Eddie Mabo since his successful landmark court case resulted in Indigenous Australians obtaining genuine land rights for the first time since British colonisation. He is ranked sixth in a list of 50 top Australians which explains why he is important better than I could http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-greatest-of-all-our-50-top-australians/story-e6frg6n6-1226562801398. It's a shame his Wikipedia article doesn't do him justice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

People from the Islamic Golden Age: a case study on the completeness of the list

Some people seem surprised that I'm very picky when it comes to proposals adding more people to the list, even though we're still below the quota by 17. I want to show how there are many people who are very significant in their discipline or time period that we haven't yet included, and as an example of that, I've decided to examine how well we cover the Islamic Golden Age. This used to be a weak spot on the list, especially in terms of people who were not political or military leaders, but we've made significant progress, having added Al-Biruni, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Geber, Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Aisha over the last couple of years.

Have we done enough? Look at the following people (just intellectuals for now – I'll discuss political and military leaders further down) who aren't on the list, sorted by number of page views over the past 90 days. I don't use page views as an absolute measure of vitality (any two-bit celebrity today will beat these page views easily), but when comparing people belonging to the same culture and historical period, I find it a useful way of seeing at a glance whose importance stands out.

• Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, also known as Rhazes (20,176 page views): polymath especially known for his contributions to medicine. Britannica flat-out calls him "the greatest physician of the Islamic world" which is a bold claim with Avicenna, Geber and al-Zahrawi to contend with, but perhaps not unjustifiable – for example, he was the first person to note the difference between smallpox and measles. I'm not surprised he's missing since we got around to adding two terribly important physicians only recently.

• Al-Farabi (19,163 views) and Al-Kindi (17,692 views): the two most distinguished figures of Islamic philosophy before Avicenna – the Arabs considered Al-Farabi the greatest philosopher after Aristotle and Al-Kindi the father of Arab philosophy. Both wrote on a wide variety of subjects and played an important in preserving, disseminating and building upon the work of the ancient Greeks.

• Al-Jazari (14,509 views): the most famous of Arab inventors (next in line would probably be the Banū Mūsā brothers with only 3214 views), noted for his intricate designs of machines and automata.

• Maria al-Qibtiyya (13,102 views): the only one of Muhammad's wives besides Khadija bint Khuwaylid to bear him a child.

• Muhammad al-Idrisi (13,053 views): geographer responsible for the Tabula Rogeriana, one of the great achievements of medieval geography.

• Rabia Basri (12,908 views): the first of the Sufi mystics, and the only one of four women listed in The Muslim 100 not on our list. The only other notable women of the period who weren't wives or daughters of Muhammad I could find were Al-Khansa (3953 views), one of the greatest Arab poets, and Arwa al-Sulayhi (3276 views), Queen of Yemen for over 60 years (known as the "little Queen of Sheba") and the only significant example of a female Arab ruler in Islamic times.

• Abu Hurairah (12,447 views): one of the most important narrators of hadith, #10 on The Muslim 100 and the only one in the top ten not to appear on our list.

These are all the people I could find with over 9000 page views during the last 90 days. Other people that nearly met this threshold of 100 views/day were Ibn al-Nafis (8981 views), Al-Jahiz (8604 views) and Attar of Nishapur (8381 views). There are still a number of interesting figures whose biographies get even less attention, e.g. Yunus Emre (6934 views), the first great figure in Turkish literature; Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (4092 views), the first astronomer to record observing the Andromeda galaxy and Large Magellanic Cloud; Imru' al-Qais (3807 views), the most distinguished of pre-Islamic Arab poets; Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād (3267 views), the best-known of Persian miniature painters and one of the few plausible choices to represent Islamic art, and Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (2570 views), pioneer of the study of the Arabic language and compiler of the first Arabic dictionary.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves how many of these figures they deem vital. Personally I'm only strongly inclined to add Rhazes and al-Farabi.

That was intellectual history. While our coverage of Muslim political and military leaders of this period is better, there are still some notable omissions:

• Mahmud of Ghazni (48,136 views): the first of Muslim invaders of India, and as brilliant a patron of the arts and literature as he was a warrior. His court entertained such luminaries as Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi, author of Shahnameh which is even on our level 3 list.

• Muhammad of Ghor (23,909 views): another key figure in the Muslim conquest of India, whose victory over Prithviraj Chauhan (added to our list not so long ago) at the Second Battle of Tarain marks a turning point in the history of India. Gizza has mentioned this omission before.

• Alp Arslan (17,476 views): second Seljuk sultan whose victory over Romanos IV signaled the decline of the Byzantine Empire, and whose vizier Nizam al-Mulk (6571 views) was one of the most capable political administrators in Islamic history.

• Tariq ibn Ziyad (16,151 views): Moorish conqueror of Spain – Muslim rule there would endure for another 500 years.

• Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (12,022 views): early opponent of Muhammad's, then converted to Islam. Father of Muawiyah I, founder of the Umayyad Caliphate, who is listed.

I also came across figures like Al-Mansur (10,809 views) and Al-Ma'mun (10,418 views) who I don't think are particularly vital. The Barmakids (3755 views), the great viziers of the Abbasid Caliphate mentioned in the Arabian Nights, seem more interesting to me but the page views would suggest others don't share this opinion. Of the list above, I think the first two definitely make good additions, while Alp Arslan could be swapped with Tughril (3575 views) and Tariq with 'Abd al-Rahman I (6143 views).

So this is how our coverage of the Islamic Golden Age looks: we have many key people but are still missing quite a few, and there is no way we could include every person that has the slightest claim to being vital. I personally think we should consider a net addition of four people and they're all from this one cultural region 800-1400 years ago. Who knows how many people closer to our time we still don't have? Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned Al-Kindi once too. This will take time to research and discuss. Hopefully I'll get the time in the next couple of days. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding some of these guys. If we go over 2,000, we can just cut some more sportspeople. pbp 13:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Out of all pop culture sections in People, modern music has taken the smallest hit. There are 27 Rock musicians, nearly all from only two decades (60s and 70s) and two countries. For comparison there are 15 soccer players spread from the 1940s to 2015 and from all over the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I had to pick four, I would choose Rabia, Al-Razi or Al-Kindi (hard to decide), Muhammad of Ghor and Tariq. I'm less certain with the intellectuals than political and military leaders. Muhammad of Ghor is the foremost symbol of early Islam in South Asia and is revered as a hero in Pakistan and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Assuming there are no other Islamic conquerors of Iberia listed, Tariq should be listed as his conquests lead to the only instance of long-term Muslim rule in Western Europe. I'm guessing he gets low views because Spain and Portugal are no longer Muslim so nobody really reveres him in a patriotic sense but 500 years of history and influence is enough IMO. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Women on the list

Now that Sojourner Truth's been nominated again for removal, this seems as good a time as any to ask a question that's been on my mind a lot lately: how many women should we have on the list? If that's too loaded a question or too hard to answer, how about this: is there a minimum number of women we should be including? Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)