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: 02:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC) ()
• 30 days ago: 02:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 02:35, 15 September 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.

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 Waheeda Rehman

Waheeda Rehman (born 3 February 1938) is an Indian actress who has appeared in mainly Hindi films, as well as Tamil andTelugu films. She is noted for her contributions to different genres of films from the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. She has received a Centenary Award for Indian Film Personality, a Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award, a National Film Award for Best Actress and two Filmfare Awards for Best Actress, throughout her career. She has been cited as the Bollywood's "most beautiful" actress by various media outlets, a title for which she has received substantial publicity.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Personally a big fan of Waheeda Rahman but she is not at the same level as the other three. If we are going to have three Indian actresses, at least one has to be from another generation (like Hema Malini, Sridevi or Madhuri Dixit) Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Also I am not sure that any national award justifies inclusion into this list of globally vital articles, so please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 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 Nargis

Nirmala Dutt (1 June 1929 – 3 May 1981), born Fatima Rashid but known by her screen name, Nargis, was an Indian filmactress working in the Hindi cinema. She made her screen debut as a child artist in Talash-E-Haq in 1935, but her acting career began in 1942 with Tamanna (1942). During a career from the 1940s to the 1960s, Nargis appeared in numerous commercially successful as well as critically appreciated films, many of which featured her alongside actor and filmmaker Raj Kapoor.

One of the best-known roles of Nargis was that of Radha in the Academy Award-nominated film Mother India (1957), a performance that won her Best Actress trophy at the Filmfare Awards. In 1958, she married her Mother India co-actor Sunil Dutt, and left the film industry. She would appear infrequently in films during the 1960s. Some of her films of this period include the drama Raat Aur Din (1967), for which she was given the inaugural National Film Award for Best Actress.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Also I am not sure that any national award justifies inclusion into this list of globally vital articles, so please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 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.

Add Meena Kumari

Meena Kumari (1 August 1932 – 31 March 1972), born Mahjabeen Bano, was an Indian film actress and poet. She is regarded as one of the most prominent actresses to have appeared on the screens of Hindi Cinema. During a career spanning 30 years from her childhood to her death, she starred in more than ninety films, many of which have achieved classic and cult status today. She is regarded as one of the geatest Hindi movie actresses of all time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians, ie beyond the Indian context Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Edmund Kean

I think the only pre-1900 British stage actor worth listing is Henry Irving. I can't see how Kean's more vital than writers of the time like Mary Shelley, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Emily Brontë or Robert Browning; or artists like Dante Gabriel Rossetti, John Everett Millais or William Morris; or a politician like Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey; and none of these people are on the list even though they all get at least ten times as many page views as Kean.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

User:Arnoutf, does this swap work for you? The other pre-Irving stage actor we list is Richard Burbage who I think is similarly non-vital – yes, he acted for Shakespeare, but there's no way he should be listed when far more well-known and important figures of English culture like Henry Purcell or Alexander Pope aren't. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Cate Blanchett

I'm surprised Cate Blanchett is not on the list, especially when there are less accomplished and/or renowned subjects (great in their own right) listed, like Gérard Depardieu, Marcello Mastroianni, Shintaro Katsu, and even Isabelle Huppert. If necessary, I propose removing any of first three. Lapadite (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Lapadite (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Visual artists

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

Writers

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

Swap: Remove Alan Moore, Add J. K. Rowling

If we have to include a pop culture writer, the creator of Harry Potter is surely a much better choice than the creator of Watchmen. I'd also prefer including people like George Herriman, Charles M. Schulz or Art Spiegelman before Moore.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. The addition. Her Harry Potter series have been quite popular.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support I have some doubts about adding Rowling, but she is surely more vital than Moore. Neljack (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Something about the books whether Harry Potter itself or Rowling should be on the list. No less vital than Star Wars, Star Trek, The Simpsons and Pokémon. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since Alan Moore is considered to be the best graphic novel writer.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I am aware of the effort to include more women, Rowling is definitely a contender but I can't help wonder if in this instance, the article on Harry Potter itself would be better or worse. Harry Potter is by far the main if not only reason for the author's importance, Harry Potter itself is very well known, and I haven't checked but I would expect it to appear in more languages and have more page views than the author. For example by comparison we list Superman but not he's creators Jerry Siegel or Joe Shuster, we list Spider-Man but not Stan Lee, Batman but not Bob Kane or Bill Finger, Peanuts but not Charles M. Schulz, Tarzan but not Edgar Rice Burroughs, James Bond but not Ian Fleming, Frankenstein but not Mary Shelley (although Shelley is a decent idea for another notable woman to include though), Count Dracula but not Bram Stoker (or Dracula, the novel), Asterix but not René Goscinny or Albert Uderzo, Conan the Barbarian but not Robert E. Howard. Simply put authors with one main series/work/book/character are often overshadowed by their character which often gets listed more than themself including here. I would consider Potter v Rowling the same, although Rowling is still quite a decent proposal. There are also some that have author and main character/work listed too like Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle, and The Adventures of Tintin and Hergé.  Carlwev  17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Both the People and Arts sections are essentially full (there's still another 50 women I plan on nominating and Mary Shelley's one of them), and I'm having a much easier time finding biographies that aren't really vital as opposed to arts articles. The only person among my circle of friends who actually reads graphic novels, a pretty niche genre to begin with, thinks it's ridiculous we have Moore on the list. Cobblet (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Stan Lee is also a more significant figure in the genre than Alan Moore. Moore may receive somewhat greater critical praise, but his body of work is much smaller and much less iconic that Lee's body of work, which includes the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk (and other characters in The Avengers shared Universe), and the X-Men. bd2412 T 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Meera

No doubt User:DaGizza can explain her significance better than I can, but she's a highly popular mystic poet of India. Her biography gets more hits than Tukaram's or Tulsidas's and we list both of those figures as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Much more vital than the obscure and forgotten Bhavabhuti if space has to be made in the future. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Meera is indeed more vital than Tukaram whose influence and popularity is confined to western India. In addition to her well-known poetry, she became a symbol for pacifism among people like Gandhi and a women's rights icon for Indian feminists later on. In spite of this, Tulsidas is definitely more important than Meera though both writers should be here. The critical reception section in his article can explain his importance better than I can. A Renaissance Homer. He would be in the top ten of most important Indian people of all time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:DaGizza. While we're on the subject of Indian writers, can I get your opinion on some modern English-language writers in India? I'm specifically wondering whether R. K. Narayan and Sarojini Naidu are worthwhile additions. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about English language writers from India before. R. K. Narayan is more famous of the two. Arundhati Roy is a famous modern writer but she's not vital yet. I also notice that Salman Rushdie is listed so this area isn't unrepresented at the moment. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Journalists

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

Swap: Remove Ernie Pyle, Add Anna Wintour

There are several American journalists more influential than Pyle not listed, from Ambrose Bierce and Ida B. Wells to Tom Wolfe and Truman Capote. But perhaps even more influential than all of them is Anna Wintour, who's become a legendary figure in the fashion industry, which also happens to be poorly represented on our list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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.

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 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)
3. Oppose The number of psychologists is very high compared to other social scientists. The number of economists as an example (where's Friedrich Hayek?) is low in comparison. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:08, 25 October 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)

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 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)
6. Support both. Both Booker T. and Du Bois are vital to an understanding of the civil rights movement of the late 19th century. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
7. Support Du Bois.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
8. Support - Piling on. Jusdafax 03:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
9. Support both pbp 12:35, 2 November 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)

@Cobblet:@RekishiEJ: Booker T. Washington is vital in the same sense as Martin Luther King Jr. in that both were the de facto leaders of the African-American community for a point in time: Booker T. Washington in the late 19th century, and DuBois in the 1910s and 1920s. Other people who served in this role were Frederick Douglass, A. Phillip Randolph, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama; Douglass and Obama are already on the list. However, I am inclined to agree that not all those leaders of the African-American community are equally important. MLK Jr. is obviously the most important (and successful) leader of the African-American community; he unimpeachibly belongs on this list. Next tier down from him are DuBois and Douglass. Washington is slightly less important than Douglass or DuBois; he has been receiving a bum rap since DuBois' day for not advocating radical change in the manner that DuBois and Garvey, the latter of whom really did much of his work outside of the United States, did. However, it's easier to point to concrete achievements on behalf of Booker T. Washington than it is for DuBois, particularly in the area of education, as DuBois' contributions tend to be more philosophical and cultural than political and he was largely unsuccessful at achieving radical change; the concrete social changes came in the 1940s, 50s and 60s when the African-American community was lead by Randolph and King. As such, I'm fairly comfortable saying that Washington was more influential than Ida B. Wells, or than Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman. BTW, from time to time, we bring up the Atlantic Monthly 100 Most Influential Americans list, which I don't agree 100% with but I agree with more than any other published American ranking. Booker T. Washington is 98 on that list, DuBois is 43, Douglass is 47, King is 8; and Randolph, Jackson, Malcolm X, Wells, Truth, Tubman and Obama didn't make the list (the list is from before Obama's presidency) pbp 12:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
4. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since Deleuze was considered to be one of the greatest philosophers by A. W. Moore.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

---

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)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support - Good choice, clearly vital. Jusdafax 03:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:07, 20 October 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.

Religious figures

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

Add Pope Francis

We discussed it above in the Xi Jinping discussion. pbp 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support while it is very much recentism, I'm in favor of including a set of current world leaders. Pope, leaders of some countries (G8? permanent security council members?), UN secretary general maybe? Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Pope Francis, besides being the first Latin American Pope, has brought many issues to light. He has campaigned to fight climate change, argued for the poor, improved interfaith relations, and opened the debate on numerous social issues. That in addition to the fact that he is a current influuential world leader, which for me is justification to include no matter what. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose What has Francis actually done that makes him so vital? There are plenty of important popes from the past that we don't have. To take one relatively recent example, John XXIII established the Second Vatican Council, resulting in huge reforms to the church. Even Benedict XVI arguably had a bigger impact in his many years first as John Paul II's right-hand man and then as pope than Francis has had in his 2 1/2 year pontificate. Of course, it's possible that Francis will ultimately be a sufficiently important pope to warrant inclusion, but it would be precipitate to add him at such an early stage. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't think there's any harm in waiting a couple of years more before we get a better idea of his impact. Right now his only concrete achievement is the US-Cuba thaw. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  08:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose If we have to have someone from the 2010s on the list, considering the current push to have more women and more non-American human rights activists, I think someone like Malala Yousafzai is ahead of Pope Francis. Gizza ^(t)(c) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too early to see whether his pontificate will have lasting importance, warranting inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

While I'm sympathetic to the argument that the first Latin American pope is kind of a big deal, it would be nice if more people like Neljack would take a look at the list of popes we have and see how Francis compares with them and whether there are other noteworthy omissions, e.g. I've long noticed that Pope Urban II isn't on the list, and calling for the First Crusade seems like a big deal to me, although frankly I didn't have a clue about the Middle Ages before I started helping out here. Cobblet (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We could always swap one pope for Pope Urban II in a separate proposal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Who do you suggest? Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

On the second thought, we do not have many popes. We should swap out a person from the Western Christianity, Catholic Church. Anselm of Canterbury, John Wycliffe, and Tomás de Torquemada are options for the swap. Alternatively, we could always just do a straight decision. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dunno if you noticed but there are more popes among the political leaders. Also we literally added Anselm yesterday... Cobblet (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Pope Julius II seems to me to be a good choice for the swap. He may have commissioned the reconstruction of the basilica and the painting of the Sistine Chapel, but we have other artcles about those two events. In your opinion, would this be a good choice for a swap? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. I've tried to remove Cosimo de' Medici before who seems to me even less vital than Julius II. If I had seen a pope that was clearly less vital than the rest I would've suggested removing them already, but I didn't find one. History isn't my strong suit. Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

History is my strong suit. I'm of the opinion that it would be a bad idea to remove John Wycliffe, FWIW. pbp 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, while you're here, what are your opinions on Torquemada, Menno Simons and Charles Spurgeon? I'd like to add more women associated with religion to the list, e.g. Esther, Rabia Basri, Olga of Kiev, Catherine of Siena, Meera, Annie Besant. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Let me first off say that I think religious figures are underrepresented on this list, so I'm less concerned about cutting it (I'd rather cut athletes or Hollywood figures). I would certainly agree that the three men you've mention are in the lower quartiles of this list. I'd say keep the first two; one was the leader of the Spanish Inquisition and the other founded a sect (the Mennonites). Spurgeon maybe you can drop; the other weak link in Protestants is maybe Melanchton (sic)...while he was early, he's hardly the most important; he's second banana to Luther in Lutheranism and there is no Melanchtonism. I know Protestanism isn't as large or as old as Catholicism, but IMO there's not really that much room to cut it...we only have 13 guys, most of whom founded sects or were transformative world figures. I'm inclined to say that the fat is in Eastern Orthodox (just like we have/had fat in Eastern Europe and Central Asian political leaders), but that might be because I have little familiarity with it. Sorry for the slow response; I was AFK most of yesterday. pbp 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is true that Francis has highlighted and promoted many social issues (poverty, climate change, inter-faith dialogue, etc), but it seems to me too early to judge how big an influence his advocacy will have on these issues. If we want a pope who has had a big influence on social issues, I would suggest Leo XIII as a better choice - he issued Rerum novarum, the foundational document of Catholic social teaching, and played an important role in reconciling the church to the modern world in his long pontificate. If we want a great reformer (and while Francis has talked a lot about reform of the church, again I think it remains to be seen how successful he will be in that regard), how about Paul III? He was the great pope of the counter-reformation, reforming the curia, creating the Inquisition, promoting new religious orders, and commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Last Judgement. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 2 October 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 Pope Paul VI, add Pope John XXIII

This one hasn't really made a lot of sense to me. Seems the sainted pontiff who started Vatican 2 is more important than the non-sainted pontiff who finished it. pbp 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I think this makes sense. John XXIII's was a revolutionary pontificate; Paul VI's was one of consolidation. John XXIII, in launching the most revolutionary process of reforms in the modern history of the church, surely had a bigger impact. Neljack (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Agreed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 18 October 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 John of the Cross, Add Teresa of Ávila

Both were notable Carmelite reformers and made important contributions to Spanish literature; but given the dearth of female Catholic figures (even though Catholics as a whole are well represented), the presence of another male Spanish saint in Ignatius of Loyola, and the greater overall popularity of St. Teresa (her biography gets about twice as many views and historically there was a short-lived movement to make her the patron saint of Spain), I think she's a slightly better choice for the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support addition St John of the Cross is one of the most important figures in Spanish literature. When this is considered together with his religious work, I think he is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. I agree that St Teresa is a figure of comparable importance. Given the under-representation of women both in this area and generally on the list, I certainly support adding her. Neljack (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support addition per Neljack. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Politicians and leaders

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Politicians and leaders 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 Xi Jinping

If we are adding Angela Merkel, then we should certainly add Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping is presiding over the second-largest economy in the world, and is one of the most powerful Chinese presidents in a long time. He is also a controversial leader with his island-building in the East China Sea and allegations of cybertheft by his government.. Xi Jinping is at least of equal importance to Angela Merkel, and is arguably even more important. He is arguably the second most powerful world leader if not the most powerful after Barrack Obama, who is on the list. Not to mention adding another Chinese leader can reduce Western bias on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support following my support for adding the current pope, which I see was inspired here. Commenting more below. Plantdrew (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too early, IMO. Merkel's been around since 2005; Xi's only been in power since 2012. He will be judged by how he handles China's slowing economic growth and it's far too soon to say how successful he's been. Cobblet (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. We removed Hu Jintao and I can't see how Xi Jinping is more vital than Hu. I would oppose Pope Francis, Narendra Modi, David Cameron, François Hollande and Shinzo Abe as well. All too recent. Personally, I believe that Obama was added too quickly to the list (before the end of his first term) but I think he's done enough now to make himself vital. Of the popes listed in the pope section (some might be listed elsewhere, three out of the six are modern even though popes had more power in pre-modern times. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose Another leader of China. Yawn. What is so special about him? sst✈ 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I get the recentism objection. But his status as the current leader of China should alone guarantee a spot on the list. If he turns out not to be important, he can be replaced by the next Chinese president. While I normally would agree with your objection, current politicians of major countries should be exceptions to the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, although you're welcome to nominate people like Narendra Modi and David Cameron if that's how you feel. There are several Chinese emperors who are clearly more vital than Xi – Emperor Xuanzong of Tang and Emperor Guangwu of Han being particularly egregious omissions. Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

China has disproportionately less leaders than other other countries on the list. I would be open to your suggestions above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want recent leaders, we could try again to get the other guy in Washington and New York this week on the list. I'd support adding some Chinese leaders and swapping out some of the obscure Central Asian leaders we have on this list. pbp 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Pope Francis seems like a good addition to the list for many reasons. I would also support some swaps in order to add Xi Jinping. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely recentism, but I'd like to see a set of current world leaders listed. But I'm not sure what that set should be. Pope and UN secretary general included? Leaders of the 5 permanent UN security council countries? Or G8 leaders? With ~2000 people on the vital list, surely there's room for more than a couple current leaders. Yes, there will be some churn as politicians leave and enter office, but I don't understand why 10 of the last 13 US presidents are on the vital list if not for a tendency to recentism and US bias (the US presidents being all those from FDR-Obama, except Ford, Bush senior and Clinton not listed). It's out of the ordinary for how VA/E usually runs, but I think we could possibly come up with a dozen or so political and religious leadership positions where the incumbent person is the vital topic rather than the position itself (pope is on the vital list, but President of the United States is not, and I don't think it should be, but I learn towards defaulting to include the incumbent US president before debating which of their last 12 predecessors to include). Plantdrew (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I second that, plantdrew. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Plantdrew: I agree that 10 of the last 13 U.S. Presidents is excessive. I've been trying for awhile now to get it down to 7 (FDR, Truman, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Obama). pbp 14:48, 6 October 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.

Swap: Remove Babak Khorramdin, Add Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor

There are a number of Mazdakist/neo-Zoroastrianist rebels against the Abbasid Caliphate besides Babak, the most notable of whom are Sunpadh and Al-Muqanna. None of these rebels are as vital as Mazdak himself, the Zoroastrian reformer who we don't list. Alp Arslan is another figure from this period of Persian history who's more important than Babak and isn't listed.

But I think the two most notable omissions from the history of Central Asia are Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor, the first of the Muslim invaders of India. The former's repeated plunder of India allowed him to establish Ghazni as a cultural centre that rivalled Baghdad in its wealth and glory: scholars in his court included Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. The latter laid the foundation for sustained Muslim domination of India by defeating Prithviraj Chauhan (who we added earlier) at the Second Battle of Tarain, a crucial turning-point in Islamic and Indian history. Both are considered national heroes of Pakistan.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support additions. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Jiang Qing

If we're going to add a recent Chinese politician, the wife of Mao Zedong and leader of the Gang of Four during the Cultural Revolution is an obvious choice. If Hong Xiuquan is vital she is definitely vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Nursultan Nazarbayev

I don't see why we need to list the president of Kazakhstan.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support It makes no sense to have this guy, but not have Bill Clinton, David Cameron or Pope Francis. pbp 15:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose outright removal. Kazakhstan is the largest country in Central Asia and deserves representation. Open to a swap with Abai Qunanbaiuli, Ablai Khan or Töle Biy. Note that the English Wikipedia articles for these people are pathetic. You get a good idea of their vitality on the Kazakh and Russian versions. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@DaGizza: Kazakhstan is only 26 years old, though. pbp 15:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

By area, Kazakhstan is Central Asia's largest country. But to keep things in perspective, Uzbekistan has almost twice the population and is historically far more significant, and even then I think it's only represented by Ulugh Beg. (Figures like Timur and Babur had much wider historical impact beyond the borders of modern Uzbekistan.) I don't think we have any Uyghurs either, or any Mongolians after the great khans (and we don't even list Ögedei Khan or Möngke Khan). I feel like I've seen biographies that are better choices than the Kazakhs mentioned. Compare Ablai Khan to Yermak Timofeyevich or Yaqub Beg, Töle Biy to Yunus Emre or Ali-Shir Nava'i (BTW we have a modern Central Asian writer in Chinghiz Aitmatov), and Abai Qunanbaiuli to Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani or Zanabazar. Cobblet (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we have Ögedei Khan... pbp 21:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, we do. Cobblet (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Kazakhstan has a much larger economy than Uzbekistan which has to count for something if we selected Argentina before Colombia on the Level 3 list. Every country with a bigger economy than Kazakhstan has at least one leader on the list. Most countries with a slightly smaller economy have one or more too. And the Kazakh people trace their history to the Kazakh Khanate 550 years ago and are celebrating the anniversary this year [1]. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because Kazakhstan has oil – do elevated oil prices in recent years really matter more than the presence of Kokand, Samarkand and Bukhara, all major Silk Road trading cities? And maybe I missed it but I thought we didn't have a leader of the UAE. Besides the Kazakhs, other notable successor states to the Golden Horde were Crimea, Kazan, Nogai and Sibir and I don't think we have leaders of any of them either. However we do list Batu Khan and Tokhtamysh of the Golden Horde. I agree with pbp that Central Asia is not badly represented as a whole – I'm not inclined to add any more Central Asian leaders when we're missing people like Xuanzong of Tang and Jahangir. Cobblet (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right about the UAE. I stand corrected. I looked at this list more thoroughly and note that every other country is represented by a leader except for Colombia which is still indirectly represented by Simón Bolívar. I support adding the founder of the UAE Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. In addition to being notable for other reasons, the UAE's political system is unique, being a federal absolute monarchy. Federalism is usually associated with democracy.

I also don't support adding more Central Asian leaders than the current number but I don't know why Nazarbayev was the first target when there are dictators of smaller countries and for less time like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and when looking at "Early Modern" and "Modern" together there are 6 Burmese leaders listed, vastly more than any comparable nation in Southeast Asia or for that matter the rest of the world. And that's not even including Aung San and Aung San Suu Kyi who are in the revolutionaries section. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can accept the idea that we should have a 20th-century Central American leader since resistance to US imperialism there has been a major theme in Latin American history: we discussed Ortega and others in a failed proposal to add Manuel Noriega. For the record, we've previously removed Bagyidaw and Zhao Tuo while I don't recall us having touched the Central Asian figures before. I count nine political and military leaders for Indochina (including Khmer), four for Thailand and nine for Burma – you can call these the three cultural divisions of mainland Southeast Asia. Based on that I have no problem with us removing more Burmese and Vietnamese leaders although I also believe the Trưng Sisters are worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need to add Jahangir when there are five Mughal emperors already listed (Sher Shah Suri is of the same era too). Rani of Jhansi and Maharaja Ranjit Singh are much better choices. The early to mid 1800s is the only period where modern Indian leaders are lacking. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe having somebody from the Khanate is more vital than this dude. Also, remember that while Kazakhstan the 26-year-old country may have only one leader, there have been a great many leaders who ruled what is present-day Kazakhstan on this list. When you look at political leaders en masse, Central Asia is pretty well represented. pbp 16:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Saparmurat Niyazov

Niyazov was notorious for his eccentricities but his actual influence on history is negligible. Compare Francisco Macías Nguema and François Duvalier who were just as crazy and aren't listed. I'd say someone like Grigori Rasputin, who was once on the list but later removed, would be a vastly better choice.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support If we have to remove a modern Central Asian leader, this is it. Not as vital as Nursultan Nazarbayev. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Popé, Add La Malinche

Popé is simply a bad choice for a native American rebel – Crazy Horse, Geronimo and Louis Riel all figure more prominently in history. But I also think it's worth thinking about adding a native American woman to the list. Americans may be more familiar with Sacagawea and Pocahontas but the most influential native American woman of all time has to be La Malinche, also known as Doña Marina. She was Hernan Cortes's interpreter (and lover): without her diplomatic skills it's quite possible the Spanish conquest of Mexico wouldn't have succeeded. She's a complex figure in Mexican culture, reviled as a traitor to her own people (her name is synonymous with traitorism) but seen at the same time as the symbolic mother of the mestizo ethnicity.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Robert Fisk, Add Gertrude Bell

Frequently awarded Middle East correspondent versus architect of the modern nation of Iraq – Bell's historical impact is far more significant. (Among British journalists William Howard Russell and David Frost seem more important to me than Fisk.)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support addition. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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.

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 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)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:43, 21 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)
2. Oppose Sojourner Truth makes the list less European-American and male biased. She is also important to the fight for racial and gender equality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:14, 5 October 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.

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 Emmeline Pankhurst

Currently all the suffragettes on the list are Americans, which does not reflect the worldwide nature of the movement. Emmeline Pankhurst became world-famous for her advocacy of militant tactics in the fight for women's suffrage in Britain. Malcolm X is listed; she should be as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Yes I had noted the absence of non-American suffragettes too. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support She is pretty vital in the international women's movement. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:15, 20 October 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 Rani of Jhansi

By far the most notable rebel leader in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a pivotal moment in India's history currently not represented by anyone on the list. She isn't any less notable than Diponegoro or Hong Xiuquan.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Some Japanese middle school history textbooks mention her.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I believe Rani of Jhansi, Meera, Indira Gandhi and some figures from film and music (of which we now have Madhubala and Lata Mangeshkar) are the only women from India who are vital from an objective standpoint (their actions make them vital, not their gender). Beyond that, you would have to lower your standards just for the sake of balance and diversity. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarojini Naidu looks vital to me although maybe one or two actresses of Sridevi's calibre might be even better choices. Gizza, would you support adding Amrita Sher-Gil? Cobblet (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any Indian painter is vital. Raja Ravi Varma is a stronger candidate than Amrita Sher-Gil. Naidu is not a bad choice, but Bhagat Singh is an independence activist and writer that left a more enduring legacy and has greater name recognition and status today. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Jane Addams

First American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Influential settlement houser and pacifist; one of the founders of the ACLU. Made the Atlantic Monthly 100 Greatest Americans list; at present is the highest-ranked American woman on that list not on the VA/E. pbp 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:42, 2 October 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)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:37, 4 October 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)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:32, 2 October 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)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Caroline Herschel and William Herschel

This brother-and-sister team discovered the first planet (Uranus) not known from antiquity and revealed that the nebulae catalogued by Messier were in fact clusters of stars, both groundbreaking discoveries in the history of modern astronomy.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove John Cockroft

A second-tier nuclear physicist, of which we already list many (Becquerel, Bethe, the Curies, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Rutherford, Thomson, Chadwick, Teller, Meitner, Hahn) and there are some not listed (Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, Leo Szilard) who are better known than Cockcroft. We don't list Ernest Walton, the physicist who shared the Nobel Prize with Cockcroft; we do already have another specialist in particle accelerators, Ernest Lawrence.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support a huge step down from the likes of Bohr, Rutherford and Oppenheimer. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove John G. Kemeny

I don't think co-inventing BASIC is enough grounds for vitality. We don't list the inventors of programming languages like C++ (Bjarne Stroustrup or Java (James Gosling) and we're not listing co-inventors of more important things like the transistor (Robert Noyce) or Unix (Ken Thompson).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support clearly not vital.  Carlwev  18:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Many more inventors have stronger claims of vitality. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Sports figures

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

Swap: Remove Scott Hamilton (figure skater), Add Marit Bjørgen

A year ago User:Neljack wrote: "The most decorated female Winter Olympian, Marit Bjørgen has won 10 medals, including 6 gold. She has also won 12 World Championship titles (plus seven other medals) and 66 World Cup races, both records." She's now up to 14 World Championship titles and eight other podium finishes, and 75 World Cup races. Scott Hamilton is nowhere close to being as dominant a figure skater as Marit is a cross-country skier, and we have two other figure skaters but no cross-country skiers.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Bjørgen has 10 Olympic medals; Hamilton has one. I'm not sure Hamilton is necessarily even the greatest male figure skater of all time - Dick Button, for one, would be a strong contender for that title. Cross-country skiing has perhaps been overlooked because (unlike figure skating) the countries where it is big aren't English-speaking. This swap will also help with the gender imbalance in our sporting figures. Neljack (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support removal  Carlwev  18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We don't even list cross-country skiing, Bjørgen's main pursuit, I would like to list cross-country skiing itself before listing an individual cross-country skier. She is clearly more notable than Hamilton though, and we had too many figure skaters previously, although we removed some already.  Carlwev  18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Carlwev, I've opened a proposal to swap Nordic skiing for cross-country skiing below. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

History

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

Basics

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

History by continent and region

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

History by country

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

Prehistory and ancient history

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

Post-classical history

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

Early modern history

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

Modern history

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

Historical cities

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

History of science and technology

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

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.

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)
4. Support addition per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 03:42, 2 October 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 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)
2. Support adding Hunan. TBH I doubt this proposal will lead anywhere with such a poorly articulated rationale, although Rekishi does at least hint at the extensive history of the province: Pengtoushan is currently the world's oldest known site of rice cultivation. Hunan is the most populous province in China not currently listed (it has more people than France), the country's largest producer of rice, and possesses a unique language (Xiang is the most widely spoken language in the world not on our list), one of China's most notable culinary traditions, and a significant population of ethnic minorities; enough to make it vital in my view. I think it's the only Chinese province worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

FWIW, I believe Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka are the only other country subdivisions worth adding on the basis of a similar comparison in cultural/demographic terms with other Indian states. I also think Goa and Penang should be added but that's by analogy with Macau and other historical trading ports on the list. I could accept adding some country subdivisions mainly on the basis of physical size. Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:14, 2 November 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)

Question for those who support this proposal: would you consider Kerala vital? In a way it's similar to Fujian in that inhabitants of the country (India or China) might consider it more of a "peripheral" as opposed to a "core" state/province; but foreigners are more likely to be familiar with it than with "core" historical areas like Henan or Bihar. Cobblet (talk) 18:39, 30 September 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.

---

Add Alabama

This U.S. state is vital, since it is the heart of Dixie.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. More than adequately covered in Southern United States already. Rwessel (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Wessel. If we were adding another U.S.state, Alabama wouldn't be it. pbp 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose We should add New York instead. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 31 October 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.

Add Virginia

This U.S. state is crucial, since it is the first colonial possession established in mainland British America, and eight U.S. presidents were born there, more than any other state.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Virginia was also the heart of the Confederacy. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neither rational given is persuasive. The early founding of a small British colony (followed no more than three years later in Newfoundland), is not significant. The number of presidents is a poor discriminator, and is anyway subject to how one counts. By birth Virginia has 8, but Ohio has 7, so even that is hardly a significant difference. Rwessel (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Cities

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Cities 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 Aberdeen

The fact that this city is abundant in oil makes it crucial.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Aberdeen isn't the next UK city to add to the list IMO. As far as Scottish geography goes, I think it's better to consider Shetland or Scottish Highlands first (swap with Loch Ness Monster?) because these parts are historically and culturally distinct from mainstream Scotland. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd consider the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Faroe Islands to all be more vital than Shetland. And I don't think the Scottish Highlands are any more vital than Cornwall, the Hebrides or the traditional regions of Ireland. Cobblet (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support adding the suggestions I made. I brought up Shetland since because it is even more notable for its oil than Aberdeen but then adding every part of the world where is oil is stupid. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about cities. UK cities that have crossed my mind are Bristol, Belfast, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield; Bristol I think is the better choice. I look at the Global city article for some ideas there are more UK cities there like the ones I just mentioned plus Nottingham, Southampton and Aberdeen too, I think they seem lower priority. (It is only a rough guide though, it appears to favour industry and business over history and culture Tel Aviv is higher than Jerusalem, and it seems capital cities are favoured too like Luxembourg City and Port Louis are listed there) Other cities mentioned there I like the sound of are ones like: Gothenberg, Antwerp, Calgary, Liepzig, Porto, Malmo, Adelaide

• "The fact that this city is abundant in oil makes it crucial." Should we also add Titusville, Pennsylvania and Tupman, California, then? pbp 10:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, Aberdeen should be included not only because of its abundance in crude oil, but also because Scottish National Party argued that once Scotland still belongs to the United Kingdom, the revenue that the discovery of North Sea oil created would not benefit Scotland to any significant degree. Titusville and Tupman do not have to be added because both Pennsylvania and California do not claim independence for complete control of oil revenues.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Aberdeen will become more important if Scotland becomes independent but that's an if. As of 2015, Scotland is not independent. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:29, 15 October 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 Montgomery, Alabama and Richmond, Virginia

Since both were once the capital of the Confederated States of America, they are no doubt vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The only US city I'd consider adding is Baltimore (and since the Second Continental Congress did meet there for a while, you can consider it a former capital of the US, not that that has anything whatsoever to do with vitality). Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose: The Confederacy itself isn't really vital, and the first of these was the capital for less than a year. By the same logic, we should add Princeton, New Jersey, York, Pennsylvania and Annapolis, Maryland. (Why?) But I believe we should re-add Baltimore. pbp 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

There are 30 US cities in the AP Stylebook (which Wikipedia follows) that do not not require the name of a state to accompany them. There are current 26 US cities listed. Charlotte, North Carolina and San Jose, California are the cities listed as vital but not in that group of 30 while Baltimore, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City are the six unlisted cities that do not require states in their names. 24 cities are shared between both groups. Not advocating any change based on the opinions of one agency (and the Associated Press have a different goal to us) but the differences and similarities between the lists are interesting. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Arts

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

Architecture

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

Add Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a tremendous example of modern, contemporary art/architecture. From the article: "The museum was the building most frequently named as one of the most important works completed since 1980 in the 2010 World Architecture Survey among architecture experts." Also ranked one of the 12 Wonders of Spain.

Support

1. As nominator.--DJB3.14 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Literature

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

Add A People's History of the United States

Howard Zinn's magnum opus A People's History of the United States is a bestseller, influencing American and non-American citizens a lot. The book is written from the perspective of the people, rather than the elite. It also emphasizes some unimportant historical facts omitted from many elementary, middle and high school American history textbooks, such as the fact that "elevated" Thomas Woodrow Wilson was a notorious racist, hence a lot of Americans think that if you want to know the truth about the history of the US, buy this book and read it.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - Vital in my world. Jusdafax 04:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see how this left-wing revisionist hack job is any more vital than, say, Ayn Rand's novels. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Probably 50 other works of history or lit I'd add before this. pbp 00:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

1. The facts that some high school and college American history teachers regard Zinn's A People's History of the United States the general American history book which best reflects truth, a lot of schools adopt it as the American history textbook or supplementary teaching material, it was adapted into various texts and inspired some other works, and that in France it was awarded guarantee its vitality (The American Pageant has influenced many Americans a lot as well, but not that vital as its narrative was considered not that true by some teachers, and it was never adapted into other texts).--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) altered some statements

"Some". Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

But the fact that Howard Zinn's A People's History has been adapted into A Young People's History, and a television programmed broadcast by History Channel was based on it as well, and Howard Zinn was quite charismatic mean that it is more important than either The American Pageant and A Patriot's History of the United States, another two best-sellers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Music

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

Swap: Remove Guantanamera, Add Music of Latin America

We need better coverage of music outside the European/North American tradition: but the best way to do it is not by listing cliched tunes like Guantanamera or La Cucaracha or The Girl from Ipanema, but by listing the articles on the musical traditions themselves. That is where one can expect to find coverage of genres, styles, composers, performers and instrumentation – in short, everything one expects in an encyclopedic treatment of music. IMO only specific pieces with a substantial impact on the development of music should be included and in this sense Guantanamera is no more influential than Gangnam Style.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would rather add specific genres of Latin American music than an overview article on music in the region. I would support removing Guantanamera if another music genre is proposed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Sub-Saharan African music traditions, Arabic music and Music of China

Probably the best articles to cover music in each of these areas. (North African music groups better with other Arab music traditions than with the music of Sub-Saharan Africa.) Most other significant world music traditions have some form of coverage already: we have Indian classical music and several Indian musicians; Latin music was proposed in the previous nomination and is also already represented by several performers and styles; and Southeast Asian music is represented by gamelan, by far its most important subgenre.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Saint Louis Blues (song)

There are plenty of jazz standards that are just as popular, and if that's the only measure of a song's vitality then we should be adding stuff like Yesterday (Beatles song) and Amazing Grace.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Over the Rainbow

Why do we need this in addition to The Wizard of Oz? We don't list hit numbers from any other musical or any famous operatic arias at all.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support didn't know the movie was listed too. Makes it even less vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

It's described as a ballad, we don't have ballad, is ballad worth thinking about? better than Over the Rainbow I would think.  Carlwev  18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ballad is about the genre of folk song in English-speaking countries. I wouldn't mind adding something like European folk music but that's a redlink. (Even Music of Europe is just a redirect.) Over the Rainbow is a pop ballad which is definitely not vital IMO. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Conga

Bongos and claves are just as important percussion instruments in Cuban music and I don't see how any of these are particularly vital. If we need another drum-related topic I'd suggest drum kit; and other types of percussion could use some attention, such as gong, tambourine, thumb piano, rattle (percussion instrument), clapper (musical instrument) (claves are a type of clapper) or the recently removed slit drum which is not really a "drum" at all.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Performing arts

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

Visual arts

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

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 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)
2. Support One of the most widely known paintings by an American. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We already have Nighthawks. Is it really more important to add a second third American painting than something like The School of Athens? Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that 2 American paintings is too much. 2 is about right considering America's relatively brief history. I have no problem adding your suggestion too. It's just that this painting i particularly important to American art. I can tell you that I see spoofs of it everywhere from kids tv shows to American internet sites. That is why it should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I misspoke – we have Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans too. Cobblet (talk) 04:44, 14 October 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 Perspective (graphical)

The rediscovery and codification of the principles of linear perspective had a revolutionary impact on Western art.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Weak Support I would rather add specific pieces of art, but since this is such an important concept, I will support this addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support I was close to opening this myself.  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think we should add Filippo Brunelleschi to the list of architects. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems decent idea  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of opening this myself, also I was thinking of suggesting the removal of Mercator projection as we list Map projection already but no other single type of map projection (unless you include globe as a projection).  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mercator projection is definitely the most significant map projection (used universally in nautical charts) and its invention was an important development in the Age of Exploration. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern visual arts

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

Remove The General (1926 film)

I see no compelling reason to list the 18th best American film when we have seven other silent films on the list and classic 20th-century American novels like Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse-Five are missing.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

There may be a few non vital old films listed  Carlwev  17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be listing more films than works of architecture, so I'd definitely support more well-reasoned removals of films. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 8 October 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.

Specific religions

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions 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 Seven deadly sins

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think sin is enough to cover this. Neljack (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't think we need this any more than we need the seven virtues. Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Even though sin is already listed, I think this should be added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, this is probably more vital than Pope Francis even if sin is listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:04, 1 October 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.

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.

Add toast, baguette, croissant and doughnut

No doubt a lot of Westerners and non-Westerners have consumed them, hence they are all vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Opppose

1. Oppose for now. Some of these are as vital as foods currently listed but it is more pressing to add common cooking methods like barbecue, frying, steaming, etc. first. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

1. The fact that some vital cooking methods are not included in the list does not mean that for now this proposal should be rejected. Instead, we should propose that they be added to the list as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 31 October 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.

Sexuality

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Sexuality 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 Add Promiscuity, Remove Casual dating

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)
2. Support Casual dating should be removed; promiscuity is the more general and important topic. Neljack (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support adding promiscuity and removing casual dating. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support and casual dating should probably be removed. We could list the removal below or turn this into a swap. I am convinced the removal will pass. I will let you all decide that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support swap. Cobblet (talk) 18:54, 20 October 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)

Altered to a swap kept votes the same, as the 3 votes that aren't myself all mention removing casual dating already.  Carlwev  17:40, 20 October 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.

Sports and recreation

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

Swap: Remove Nordic skiing, Add Cross-country skiing

Nordic skiing is essentially an umbrella term for ski jumping and cross-country skiing, two skiing disciplines that have little in common besides the structure of the ski boot. The other two articles are far better developed but we only list ski jumping, so I think this swap is pretty natural.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Kabaddi and Sepak takraw

We list sports of localized popularity in Western countries (Aussie rules football, Basque pelota, lacrosse, NASCAR) but not ones in non-Western countries, even though kabaddi and sepak takraw are at least as prominent as the first three sports I mentioned. Kabaddi is the national sport of Bangladesh and also popular in India, and sepak takraw is popular throughout Southeast Asia. Both sports have been on the Asian Games programme since 1990.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Sepak takraw seems slightly more important than Kabaddi, but they are both decent ideas. Which ever number of articles we dedicate to sports, I think actual sports should, most but not all the time, be considered more important than listing many many sportspeople/athletes. This is also good for regional diversity, and the sports are actually quite popular and old, not obscure... For forms of entertainment, I still think Professional wrestling should be in, it has failed twice I believe, but if people can get over the fact it is an obvious over the top form of theatrics, a pretend sport almost, and realize it's a hugely popular, industry and form of entertainment in several nations, and it's history is not the longest but isn't just recent, compare with something like roller skating or skateboarding which were invented within living memory. I really dislike wrestling myself, never watch it, but I think it's important enough to include here.  Carlwev  16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Karaoke

A pretty widespread form of entertainment these days, and again one with non-Western roots.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I like it more than individual songs and albums.  Carlwev  16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 13:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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.

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.

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.

Swap:Remove Austronesian peoples, add Taiwanese aborigines

Most major groups of Austronesian people are represented by their countries and islands, making the main article redundant. The most notable of groups not really represented are the Taiwanese aborigines, who are a minority in their country and similar to other indigenous people we list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Taiwanese aborigines should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Austronesian peoples should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't think the Taiwanese aborigines are all that noteworthy compared to other marginalized peoples in Asia like the Ainu in Japan, the Moro in the Philippines, the Shan and Rohingya in Burma, Syriac Christians, or any number of ethnic minorities in mainland China or Siberia. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we should do something with Bantu peoples and a famous Bantu people, possibly Zulu? Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Bantu and Austronesians, why not the Arabs and Slavs as well? I think non-Bantu ethnicities in Africa (e.g. the Hausa, Igbo and Fula in West Africa and the Amhara and Oromo in East Africa) should get some attention as well. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I support removing Slavs. Arabs are more politically unified and have made regional organizations like the Arab League although the Arab League itself is listed so I can understand removing Arabs too. The Ainu are a good choice IMO. Non-Bantu African groups are also a good idea. I have been thinking of the Congo Pygmies, Hausa and a few others. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Slavs are a significant pan-ethnicity, and Arabs are quite influential in history, so both should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Quechua people

There are no South American ethnic groups listed. Every other continent has at least two groups represented. The Quechua are among the most well-known in South America.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This has been hinted upon a few times in the past (I could find the archives if you want) but I honestly think the ethnology section needs to become bigger. These articles are precisely the type of article you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree: but it would be nice if we could establish some sort of criteria for what might constitute a vital ethnic group instead of taking the shotgun approach to this section as we previously have. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Amish

The Amish are the most famous group of simple living people in the world. Ranked 3142 in page traffic. I would personally have the Amish before many American biographies and pop culture topics that nobody has heard of outside the States.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose If we're adding an ethnic group from the United States it simply has to be African American. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Swap: Remove Assamese language, Add Ahom Kingdom

While Assamese has some literate history and has official status at the state level, it only has 15 million speakers, which in the context of the highly populated South Asia region, is very little.

To maintain coverage of this part of the world, I propose replacing it with the Ahom Kingdom, a kingdom that lasted for around 600 years and successfully resisted Mughal expansion into the Northeast of India before finally succumbing to the Burmese and British. It was founded by the Ahoms, a Tai people from Southern China. Over time, the kingdom became Indianized and today the area reflects a cultural and, for wants of a better term, racial mix of all these areas.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support removal only. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Is there any reason you didn't pick the Pala Empire? They seem to me the most noteworthy entity in eastern India that we're missing – they represent the last great flourishing of Buddhism in South Asia and were involved in the Tripartite Struggle. Pala art is quite well known and important in the context of Buddhist and Indian art. There were lots of little kingdoms in Southeast Asia and I've never heard of Ahom, while at least I've heard of places like Lan Na, Pegu and Ava. Cobblet (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Pala Empire is good too. I thought it was already included. It should definitely be in. I was just thinking of a like-for-like swap in this proposal as both articles are about the Northeast. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Law

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

Mass media

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

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)
2. Support This is a very important publication.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support The magazine section is currently very American-centric. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd put investigative journalism at a higher level of importance than political analysis from one particular viewpoint. Like I don't see how The Economist is more vital than the Brookings Institution. Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

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)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Add referendum

No doubt it's vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Psychology

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

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)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:56, 2 October 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)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:57, 2 October 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)

Society

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

Sociology

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

War and military

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

Biology and health sciences

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

Basics

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

Add Trinomial nomenclature

This article is vital since this nomenclature is used to describe the scientific names of taxa below the rank of species, e.g. subspecies of a particular animal species.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Phylum

This article is, in fact, no less vital than domain, since some middle school biology textbooks mention phylum but not domain, and the latter is currently included in the list, which I think should be kept.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add class (biology)

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add order (biology)

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add family (biology)

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add tribe (biology)

This concept is vital in both zoology and botany.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add genus

This article is important, since the first part of the scientific name of a particular species is the genus where it belongs to.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add subspecies

This article, though not as vital as species, still deserves to belong to the list since a lot of species have subspecies.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose this and all the other nomenclature-related proposals above per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 28#Remove Phylum, Class (biology), Order (biology), Family (biology), Genus. As for subspecies, existence != vitality. Cobblet (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Anatomy and morphology

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

Add Prostate

Present in male humans and many other animals, we have begun to list some glands like thyroid and adrenal gland, we already had testes, breast and ovaries that are sometimes described as glands. The prostate is of interest to biology, sexuality and medicine as prostate cancer is mildly common. I believe it to be more vital than some other biology articles we list, glands or otherwise. Also we have prostate cancer, it seems a little odd to have the cancer of something before the thing itself. (To list both, well I assume no one would remove the articles skin, brain, breast or lung because we list the cancers of them also)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
2. We have prostate cancer but not prostate on the list, which is quite strange.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This organ is not important enough to add. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet and Points. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

OK, but the other glands we've added are all far more essential for human physiology than the prostate. I suggest better objects of comparison are cervix, cervical cancer, gallbladder and gallstone, none of which are listed. Even pituitary gland isn't listed. Listing prostate cancer (very common in places with high life expectancy) rather than prostate doesn't seem so odd when you consider we list lung and skin cancer before human lung and human skin, or colorectal cancer and anal sex instead of anus/rectum/anal canal. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If we want more coverage of human reproductive anatomy I suggest adding male reproductive system and female reproductive system. As it stands right now, reproductive system deals with all organisms generally, while the other two articles specifically focus on the human anatomy. Sex organ is redundant to these articles and could be removed. Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Add elbow

No doubt it is vital. It is especially vital to baseball players.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not as vital as knee. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. Then let's add knee as well!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm not sure of these, not the worse ideas, but we've recently added arm and Human leg which could obviously have fairly in depth info on knee and elbow, and possibly hip and shoulder too. Pushing it, if one were arguing for hip, shoulder, knee, elbow, one could argue for wrist and ankle, although they seem less vital and are covered by hand and foot. Also although covered by hand finger and or thumb seem reasonable and could be argued for, as could jaw. Neck isn't covered by much that isn't a wide overview, may have a mention in some articles like head but it's not part of the head. Other anatomy articles on my mind were tendon and/or ligament.  Carlwev  18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Add knee

No doubt it is vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support As vital as Elbow. Perhaps Hip and Shoulder should be added if they are not on the list. Then maybe Neck. That is if we want more joints. Perhaps there are other anatomical parts not on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Hip

No doubt it is vital.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add shoulder

No doubt it is vital.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Neck

No doubt it is vital.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Biochemistry and molecular biology

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

Biological processes and physiology

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

Botany

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

Cell biology

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

Ecology

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

Zoology

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

Organisms

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

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.

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 cigar and electronic cigarette

Both are no doubt vital, though somewhat less important than cigarette since they are not consumed that widely.

Support

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
2. --Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

At least cigar has history. Electronic cigarette is very non-vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

agreed. we have tobacco, and cigarette. those are the central articles that cover the most territory. cigar sales are insignificant compared to coffin nails.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Cigar should be added since cigars are considered high-class and frequently be used by upper-class persons. Electronic cigarette should be added as well since electronic cigarettes are popular in the world recently.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Add chewing tobacco

There have been a lot of MLB players chewing tobacco.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

The fact that there have been lots of MLB players chewing tobacco guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that only a small group chew tobacco guarantees its non-vitality. So many other drugs are more common. Chewing gum is the most common chewing product but still not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But chewing tobacco has been one of the characteristics of American professional baseball since it was established (e.g. a lot of baseball cards have MLB players chewing tobacco), hence chewing tobacco is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:06, 31 October 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 endocrine disruptor

No doubt it is crucial, since news media often talk about its negative effects on human.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose What? pbp 22:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Seems redundant to endocrine system and hormone without further explanation. News media doesn't talk about this at all. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

Not as vital as carcinogen? I don't think so.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cancer's responsible for about 15% of all human deaths. Endocrine disruptors don't kill. The only endocrine disruptor that might be vital is DDT but we already list Silent Spring. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Though endocrine disruptors are no lethal, they are crucial since they are harmful. Specifically, endocrine disruptors may be associated with the development of learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problems; deformations of the body (including limbs); breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid and other cancers; sexual development problems such as feminizing of males or masculinizing effects on females, etc. (taken from the lede of the article)--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Physical sciences

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

Basics

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

---

Add Server (computing)

Support

1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by computer network. Not any more vital than something like modem. Cobblet (talk) 09:32, 22 September 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.

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.

Media and communication

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

Medical technology

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

Military technology

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

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.

Remove Honda and Nissan

Six car companies is too many if we're not listing historically important companies in other areas such as McDonald's or AT&T, and listing one Japanese car company is enough if we're not listing any other Japanese company/zaibatsu.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Mathematics

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

Basics

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

Algebra

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

Calculus and analysis

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

Discrete mathematics

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

Geometry

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

Other

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

Probability and statistics

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

General discussions

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)

Maybe the first question we should ask is how many women and men are currently on the list (and other classifications like nationality and historical era). It will take a long time to count though. Apart from actors and actresses, no other section is divided by sex. That aside, if we do not have a target or quota for women, there are obviously many vital women due to their contributions and actions in a particular field. The fact that they're women doesn't come into it. Curie, Austen and Thatcher to name a few.

Deciding on a specific number of women is difficult because the number is shaped by the number of people we have on different categories. The gender split in acting and musicians will be closer to 50-50 than in areas like sports and military leaders. Therefore if we increase the sizes of the former at the expense of the latter, we will end up with more women on the list but that isn't the best way to go about it.

When a man and woman are roughly equal in vitality in terms of "objective" criteria, I favour adding the woman to reduce the monotony in the list. Same with nationality. I support diversity in the sense of adding variety to the people section (and other section) since this vital list is aiming to summarize all human knowledge. For this reason, I don't necessarily believe a non-political leader needs to change the world to the same extent as a political leader to be vital. On the other hand, you do have the draw the line somewhere and can't add people who have made no real long-term impact in their field just because they're female, non-white, LGBT, disabled or some other minority group. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I basically agree with what you said. If there are men and women of similar vitality then it should be at least be 50/50 as to the gender of the person we pick – you seem to be suggesting we go even further. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

By my count, there are 191.5 women on the list – I'm counting the Williams sisters as one because only Serena has any business being on the list anyway, and the half is because of Kenneth and Mamie Clark. (I did not count mixed-gender music groups like ABBA.) In other words, women make up less than 10% of the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, it's been found that around 15% of the biographies on the English Wikipedia are about women. Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research Cobblet. Did you make a note of other information like whether the percentage of women is lower in ancient history than modern (which is what one would expect) and possibly lower in non-Western countries than Western? Anyway there are vital women from many areas still missing from the list. I've thought of proposing some but am unsure about when and how to propose them (swaps or straight adds).

We generally guard against recentism though we do list people that only became prominent since the mid-2000s like Lionel Messi, Rafael Nadal, Manmohan Singh, Usain Bolt and Barack Obama (while Kofi Annan, the Williams sisters and Vladimir Putin became notable only a little bit earlier). I think you can put forward a strong case for adding Angela Merkel. Chancellor of Germany since 2005 and regarded as de facto leader of the European Union for most of this time. Credited as being a stabilizing force for the continent during tumultuous economic period. Merkel has been ranked as the most powerful woman for nine of the past ten years by Forbes. And the only people consistently above her in the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People over the past five years are Obama and Putin who are listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO Merkel is clearly vital – that her name has never even been mentioned once on this talk page until now says a lot about our priorities. Other women from the 2000s I'd point to are Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, J. K. Rowling and Marit Bjørgen. From the 1990s I think Anna Wintour, Diana, Princess of Wales and Anggun have cases to be made for them. Only Marit's been proposed before.

I have a list of about 60 women for whom I believe I can make a decent case (and have already made it for Maria Montessori), and for whom I can find swaps to keep us at 2000 people. That would bring us up to 250 women, or in other words one in eight people on the list would be female. That's not asking for a lot, is it? It's not hard to find another 50 women beyond that who would also make interesting choices, but finding swaps for them is harder, and it's not like we've included all the deserving men on the list either. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

250 women seems reasonable. Do you think the reason we're low on women compared to Wikipedia as a whole is because this has a different distribution by vocation than the whole project? (not that I'm saying change the distribution of the VA/E/P, I think it's pretty good as is). pbp 21:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Really good question, and frankly I have no idea if that's the reason or not. I don't know if Wikidata analysis has been done on the distribution of biographies by vocation yet. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be fascinating to find out how many modern biographies (1800-present) listed are of a particular nationality. I'm too lazy or busy to do this right now. My guess for the top five would be the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia (not sure of the precise order apart from the US and UK leading). Then probably Japan, Spain, Italy, China and India for the top ten though the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway might make it in the top ten too. It is difficult to look at nationality specifically for earlier periods of history though we can still classify people by empire or well-defined parts of continents. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that information although I do know that the most populous country without a political leader listed is Kenya (Jomo Kenyatta has a good case) and the most populous country not represented by anyone at all is Cameroon (I couldn't find a Cameroonian biography I considered vital). Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with having a specific quota for men and women. That will just cause controversy as we are forced to eliminate important male articles for less important female articles. Instead, I prefer to take a case by case basis, looking into sections where there could be a few important women, but those women must be equal in importance to the men in that section. Adding women just to reach a quota amounts to a watering-down of the list. I do believe there should be more women on the list, such as J.K. Rowling. I will simply decide based on which woman is nominated. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with your points and have no wish to propose a hard quota. The point of the numbers was to illustrate how this list is more biased towards men than Wikipedia is as a whole. Before I propose adding a large number of women to the list I wanted to explain why I think this is necessary and see what others thought about this. I consider Sojourner Truth a rather marginal choice but nevertheless people are willing to defend her. I think there are plenty of women who have even stronger cases to be made for them. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your logic. The list does have too few women. We just have to add some one by one, perhaps swapping women for less important male articles. Perhaps some famous female world leaders could be added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, women are still underrepresented on an objective basis. Well as objective as you can get. Everyone has biases. I don't know how far we can go until we will be adding woman because they're women and not purely because of their accomplishments but we're not there yet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)