Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vital Articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.
 

Introduction[edit]

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.

In general 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 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: 10:16, 05 February 2018 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 10:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 10:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

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


People[edit]

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

Entertainers[edit]

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

Remove George Carlin[edit]

Maybe we need only one stand-up comedian at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose if there was only two comedians to list it'd be him and Pryor. Some people rank him higher then Pryor. As for the rationale even if there should be one he'd go last, not first. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per GuzzyG. He was a pioneer and standout in his field. Jusdafax (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

If we're removing stand up comedians these 3 are probably the last ones that need to go George Carlin is always rated number two or one (behind Richard Pryor), Lenny Bruce is the first historically important comedians of an older age (Along with Frank Fay) and Bill Cosby is the only black person listed and was also supremely important in television. GuzzyG (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The community also wanted to keep Carol Burnett. I withdraw the nominations. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I know this is closed, but was Richard Pryor not black? we also have no Asian comedians despite Asia having over 50% of world population, is this a problem?  Carlwev  15:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I forgot Pryer but i still think Cosby's contributions to television and comedy qualify him for this list. Yes, actually. Zhu Shaowen, should be listed if we were being representative, certainly more then Robin Williams or Peter Cook. GuzzyG (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussions about Robin Williams and Peter Cook were started, so let's leave these open too. --Thi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Lenny Bruce[edit]

His disciple Richard Pryor is ranked as best stand-up comic of all time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose significantly important early comedian only on the level of Frank Fay. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Vital, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Bill Cosby[edit]

Bill Cosby was among the world's top comedians in the 1980s. Not sure about him now. [1]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Historically important for his work for black people and their roles and coverage in television and also one of the top comedians of his time, up there with Bert Williams. His recent exposure may make him severely unlikable but that does not take away his contributions, . GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cosby created Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids (1972-1985), one of the longest-running animated series. Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Robin Williams[edit]

Not a top ten comedian or actor, many more notable actors that are not on here then him. Highly famous but not influential, suited exactly for the level 5 list. This current generation of actors should be evaluated for this list in around 2060/2050.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support not at the same level as the others now that people like Seinfeld have been removed. Gizza (t)(c) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - per DaGizza. Jusdafax (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Peter Cook[edit]

He may have been voted number one in one poll but he is outdone by Monty Python, and he is not more significant then Frank Fay or Three Stooges who we do not list. He only has 17 different language articles on wikidata.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add George Balanchine[edit]

We only have Petipa out of ballet choreographers and he deserves it as the main one of the 19th century but i think we're a little underrepresented in ballet due to systematic bias so i propose the father and main influence of 20th century ballet: Balanchine. He had nearly total control over American ballet and many of the top dancers were his. He's in 35 different wikidata languages which is saying something for his field. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Vital in his field. Jusdafax (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Balanchine was trained by Pavel Gerdt and he went on to become the ballet master of the Ballets Russes. Quoting from our article: "...the Ballets Russes is widely regarded as the most influential ballet company of the 20th century, in part because it promoted ground-breaking artistic collaborations among young choreographers, composers, designers, and dancers, all at the forefront of their several fields. Diaghilev commissioned works from composers such as Igor Stravinsky, Claude Debussy, and Sergei Prokofiev, artists such as Vasily Kandinsky, Alexandre Benois, Pablo Picasso, and Henri Matisse, and costume designers Léon Bakst and Coco Chanel. The company's productions created a huge sensation, completely reinvigorating the art of performing dance, bringing many visual artists to public attention, and significantly affecting the course of musical composition. It also introduced European and American audiences to tales, music and design motifs drawn from Russian folklore. The influence of the Ballets Russes lasts to the present day." Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap Ed Sullivan for the The Ed Sullivan Show[edit]

This may be a bit controversial but i strongly believe that the television show is more important to history then it's namesake, if an encyclopedia could only cover one they'd pick the show over his biography. I don't think much more needs to be said then that. If the television show doesn't deserve to get on here then why does he? The same could be said for Carson, Ball and Burnett but i guess television needs some representation. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I again insist Sullivan is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Ed Sullivan has been proposed for removal twice: once when I was starting here at /Archive 53#Remove Ed Sullivan and at /Archive 34#Remove Ed Sullivan. In both the swap was proposed. J947(c), at 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Add Izumo no Okuni[edit]

Originator of Kabuki, vital topic of non-western dance (of which we have no coverage). If we have a french comedian for diversity reasons then one example of non-western dance should be alright.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I would say that the inventor of kabuki is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Okuni was an actress, dancer, and singer, and she trained many others into her art. "Gathering up the female outcasts and misfits of the region, particularly those involved in prostitution, Okuni gave them direction, teaching them acting, dancing and singing skills in order to form her troupe. ... As mentioned above, Okuni's troupe was exclusively female. Thus, she required her actresses to play both male and female roles. As her troupe gained fame, she was emulated by many others, particularly brothels, which offered such shows to amuse wealthy clients, as well as to gain prostitutes who had marketable acting and singing skills." Dimadick (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Visual artists[edit]

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

Writers[edit]

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

Journalists[edit]

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

Add Anna Politkovskaya[edit]

Russia's most famous journalist. [2] The article appears in 63 languages. Another investigative journalist, Ida Tarbell, has 14 language versions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Diversifying this list would be good. GuzzyG (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add David Attenborough[edit]

"One of the most widely respected TV broadcasters and has become known as the face and voice of natural history documentaries." (Biographyonline) According to BBC, "Sir David helped invent the natural history documentary as we know it today." [3] See also Archive 32#Add David Attenborough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Highly influential and the stand out name in his field. GuzzyG (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Hey, I was going to nominate him! :) J947(c), at 22:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

Remove Gilbert and Sullivan[edit]

We don't need it at this level anymore, we have Level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Although i can be convinced otherwise. GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Previous discussion at /Archive_9#Swap:_Remove_W._S._Gilbert_and_Arthur_Sullivan,_Add_Gilbert_and_Sullivan. J947(c), at 04:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the nominating rationale. Level 5 in no way effects Level 4. J947(c), at 04:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Swap Diana Ross for The Supremes[edit]

Diana Ross is mainly and chiefly notable for being apart of The Supremes, her solo career does not compare to John Lennon who we removed. It's almost unlikely a band member would also be notable for something outside of their band. This raises an issue for this list Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly and Bob Marley's recordings are almost entirely apart of a band but the frontperson is listed, we are giving them an exception to the rule kinda.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support the removal only. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support both parts. Gizza (t)(c) 04:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as a swap. 12 US number-one hits and the premier act of Motown Records during the 1960s power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five[edit]

If we were to balance this list out, i think at this point Hip-Hop has been the main music genre of the newest century so two representatives does not seem that bad an idea. They were the first hip-hop group in the rock and roll hall of fame and are the most vital people in the development of early hip-hop. The only other rappers that would be on this level are Run-DMC, Eminem and Dr. Dre and the Furious Five are the earliest so they would be the better choice.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

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

Add Lars von Trier[edit]

One of the most influential and debated filmmakers of the last 25 years. [4]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support His filmography indicates that he is an active director since 1977 (debut film: The Orchid Gardener) and his first hit film was The Element of Crime (1984). Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Influential European director. GuzzyG (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Businesspeople[edit]

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

Explorers[edit]

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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

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

Religious figures[edit]

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

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

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

Add Blackbeard[edit]

The most notable pirate who has become apart of folklore, had a major impact on shipping and trade (thus the economy) in his time and area. We lack crime figures other then Guy Fawkes and Al Capone and he is more notable and vital then both. Majority of people if they had to name one pirate it would be him, i think all dominant household names of a field should be listed. He has 48 different language articles on wikidata. I also think Jack the Ripper, Pablo Escobar, Lucky Luciano and Charles Manson are notable enough in the field of crime, but i will start here as Blackbeard has had more effect on history than just crime.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support "inspiration for an archetypal pirate in works of fiction across many genres"; per nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. The most known pirate should definitely have a place on this list. J947(c), at 03:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per above and previous discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

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

Sports figures[edit]

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

Remove Gary Player[edit]

The list contains four other representatives of this sport: Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Annika Sörenstam and Tiger Woods.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Yeah, international golf tours are redundant encyclopedically, and Golf isn't that notable for 5 (should be 3) representatives. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

If we're going for international influence he's more important then Palmer. Especially considering his major impact on golf course design and his golf books etc.

Agreed. If we have four golfers, we shouldn't have more than two Americans. pbp 03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
If you nominate Palmer i'll support that and retract my support for this. GuzzyG (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Chris Evert[edit]

12 tennis players is too much at this level. ”In 2012, Tennis Channel conducted a poll of players and experts to determine the 100 greatest players of all-time, in which Evert ranked ninth overall, and fourth highest among women (finishing behind Graf, Navratilova, and Court in that order.).”

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Bjorn Borg and Billie Jean King need to go too. GuzzyG (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Henry Armstrong[edit]

Honestly, he's one of the least vital on this list (which is over the limit with more notable people left off). Boxing is not as vital as some sports with less (Cycling), and even if so there's way too many modern boxers and lighter weight class boxing has never really had a mainstream impact. Only 20 different language articles on wikidata. Not known worldwide. More insider technical boxing knowledge then something a general encyclopedia needs.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per Gizza. :) J947(c), at 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan for Sydney Barnes[edit]

IMO neither Muralitharan or Warne are overtly vital at this level. We've got 3 batsmen, 2 all-rounders, and two spinners; I'd say at-least one fast bowler needs to be there and I'd choose Sydney Barnes for In 1963, Barnes was named by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in its hundredth edition as one of its "Six Giants of the Wisden Century". In 2008, he had the highest rating among bowlers in the ICC Best-Ever Test Championship Ratings. I could be convinced to change Warne to Muralitharan but there needs to be at-least one fast bowler.

Swap for Warne
Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Warne Warne is listed on the Wisden Cricketers of the Century list, as the only bowler listed he shouldn't go before Muralitharan. I'd probably support that swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talkcontribs) 19:39, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as Warne features on the WCOTC list. J947(c), at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Swap for Muralitharan
Support
  1. Support as nom, either; I can't really decide, really. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support this addresses recentism too, Barnes being born around 100 years earlier (good to add someone not born in the 20th century). I agree on Warne being marginally ahead of Muralitharan. Gizza (t)(c) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per Gizza. J947(c), at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

In general for the cricket list, Bradman, Sobers, W.G Grace, and Tendulkar are definites, while the others can be debated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

My 4 definites would be the same as yours but with Grace before Sobers. Barnes, Warne, and Richards in that order would be my other ones. I'm thinking about Jack Hobbs as well. The third WCOTC and a representative for English batsmanship after Grace should make the cut IMO. In coming years L5 will be way easier to decide with future stars like Smith, Root, and Williamson coming in as young captains. Brian Lara always comes to my mind when I think of great batsmen but we've already got two batsmen from the West Indies. I'm also thinking along the lines of perhaps Hadlee/Anderson/McGrath as a modern representative of fast bowlers but they are probably best suited for L5. J947(c), at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, Dale Steyn could be an option in coming decades as he is considered by some to be the best quickie since WWII. J947(c), at 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@JP47:, he could be though we would have to wait for some time I think. The proposal to add Richie McCaw didn't go through partially because he had only recently retired (and therefore there were recentism concerns). Gizza (t)(c) 21:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah; that's why I said in coming decades. J947(c), at 04:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

GuzzyG I've reformatted it for both options; hard to tell IMO because both are modern and so rankings are less available + impact; that list was mid career for both. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think until time passes it's best to go with such lists, if opinion changes in a couple years we can always do a swap. But we don't create history and we only go off what the proper authorities think and that appears to be Shane at the moment. GuzzyG (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
👍 Like. The list if there is one in 2063 will really set the standard but that is 45 years away. J947(c), at 04:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

History[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

History by continent and region[edit]

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

Add History of the Mediterranean region[edit]

I think this article is equal in vitality with other regional history artilces that we list such as History of the Caribbean, History of Scandinavia, and History of Southeast Asia. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support, though tentatively. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support It has been a crossroad of civilizations for millennia. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - The subject is vital, and after looking at the well-written article, I’m moved to support for this level. Jusdafax (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I think I'd prefer History of Southern Europe and History of North Africa separately. And maybe History of the ancient Levant. FWIW, we can have redlinks on the list (e.g. moiety used to be redlink). Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Mediterranean area is a very historically significant area and should be listed. Yes, there will be some overlap with History of North Africa, as there is some degree of overlap between it and the History of Africa article, but proposing the addition of History of Southern Europe which doesn't even exist, is rather absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I am on Gizza's side on this one. History of Southern Europe sounds like a good add to me as we have so little history of [region] articles that are here but not at L3. All the bloat will have to go, though. J947(c), at 02:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you offering to write that article? Because we don't have one on the history of Southern Europe.Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No, because I am not that good at writing content and it would be a big task. Southern Europe#History has a start if anyone wants to have a go at it. J947(c), at 05:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

History by country[edit]

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

Prehistory[edit]

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

Ancient history[edit]

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

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Early modern history[edit]

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

Modern history[edit]

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

Historical cities[edit]

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

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

Geography[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Physical geography[edit]

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

Parks and preserves[edit]

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

Countries[edit]

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

Regions and country subdivisions[edit]

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

Cities[edit]

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

Add Nampula, Soweto, Gaborone, and Windhoek[edit]

Southern Africa is under represented. Also, I would like to move Mozambique, Angola, Zambia, and Zimbabwe into that sub-section as it is too small for my liking. J947( c ) (m) 05:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 05:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Windhoek and Gaborone pbp 00:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Windhoek and Gaborone Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I think that any city/suburb with over 1 million people should be included, thus justifying Soweto. Definite support for Windhoek/Gaborone as there are no reps of Namibia/Botswana. Nampula I only have a weak support for, but still so for a rep of North Mozambique; as we have South and Central. J947( c ) (m) 19:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have withdrawn it. J947 (c · m) 04:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing Soweto and Nampula. I am unsure about their inclusion (leaning oppose on both) but as no one has commented on them apart from me and they could probably be better discussed in a different proposal I am withdrawing them. I have also moved Gizza's comment to this section for clarity. J947 (c · m) 04:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Any comment on the sub-section proposal? J947 (contribs · mail) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Any comments at all? J947(c), at 07:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Add Haiphong and Phuket Province[edit]

Southeast Asia (except Indonesia) is very under represented. These 2 are major centres, and will bring Vietnam up to ~24,000,000 per city, and Thailand to ~23,000,000. J947( c ) (m) 05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Also, don't let the size of the Phuket City article fool you; it is a major tourism centre. Another city in Thailand with an underwhelming article is the much bigger Nonthaburi. J947( c ) (m) 05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support for Phuket Province. --Thi (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Adding Phuket Province (Phuket island) to Regions subsection is maybe a better choice. --Thi (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. We might as well see how this goes, though, and perhaps propose a swap afterwards. J947( c ) (m) 03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I've changed it. Note to closer – put Phuket Province in the 'Islands' sub-section. J947( c ) (m) 19:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Dire Dawa[edit]

Ethiopia appears to be the only country with over a population of 100 million with only one city on the list (being the capital Addis Adaba). Dire Dawa is one of the two chartered cities in Ethiopia along with Addis Adaba, signifying its importance to the country. Every other part of Ethiopia is administered as a regional state.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Full support and trout whoever made this. :) J947( c ) (m) 05:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I think I would support Gondar as the second Ethiopian city. More populous and a former capital. pbp 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Dire Dawa has a larger metropolitan population although to be frank, as we're 36 articles under the current quota (and there are still some inconsequential seas and straits that could be removed or amalgamated) Gondar should be included too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've proposed it. J947( c ) (m) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Gondar[edit]

Per above. Ethiopia is under-represented and has a high enough population in my opinion to automatically warrant three cities included. J947( c ) (m) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 16:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Arts[edit]

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

Architecture[edit]

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

Cultural venues[edit]

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

Literature[edit]

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

Remove The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care[edit]

An example of nonfiction literature. Probably not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since this book has been very influential since its publication (being one of the best-selling books of the 20th century), it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The book completely changed methods of raising children, by advocating that parents should pay attention to a child's emotional needs. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose never heard of it, but one of the best-selling books of the 20th century, and pretty influential. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose as pretty much what Galobtter said. It was vital in transforming childcare and that is enough in my opinion. I'm weak here because I think modern books and works in general are rarely themselves vital. J947(c), at 06:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I noticed we don't list the topic of the book "child care", nor do we list Child development should we list these instead or as well? Do people refer to this book because the want to study child care? Or do they study the book alone for it's literacy merit? But I admit it was influential and had high sales though. We do however list Pediatrics.  Carlwev  07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Add John Keats's 1819 odes[edit]

Keats' most notable works, though Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art might be more famous. John Keats is listed as a biography, that might be enough at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Music[edit]

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

Remove This Land Is Your Land[edit]

Not sure why we need a folk patriotic song of one country. It's not even the most popular patriotic song among Americans. The American national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, gets more than eight times the number of eyeballs. [5]. We could add national anthem if we want to cover this space though there are probably other genres that are more important.

Support
  1. Support as nom Gizza (t)(c) 22:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. We need to remove the American bias here. J947(c), at 06:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support I'd include God Bless America before this if we're discussing American patriotic songs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support My Country, 'Tis of Thee, America the Beautiful, The Stars and Stripes Forever, Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Dixie (song) are all more vital than this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
PASSED:
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2018 (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.

Remove Pet Sounds[edit]

The Beach Boys, two American albums (What's Going On & Thriller) and Sgt. Pepper's are listed. Level 5 suits better for albums. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support only a handful of songs and albums should be listed on Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as I agree with Thi and Gizza that Level 5 suits better for albums and only a handful of songs and albums should be listed at Level 4. J947(c), at 21:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I would remove "What's Going On" too. We removed people like Stevie Wonder, I don't see why Marvin Gaye should get an album in addition to himself.  Carlwev  20:36, 2 February 2018 (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.
PASSED:
7-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2018 (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.

Remove What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album)[edit]

See above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support only a handful of songs and albums should be listed on Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support for the barrier – Albums and songs IMO on should be secondary to musicians here at L4. J947(c), at 06:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
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.

Remove Scheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov)[edit]

The quota is over and we should probably make cuts also in the classical music section. Debussy's La mer is an example of orchestral work and there are other representatives of Romantic music on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak support – I don't think cuts in this sub-sub-section are as important as modern music as we are still slightly recentist here, but we are over quota here. For the barrier. J947(c), at 06:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove White Christmas (song)[edit]

Both Irving Berlin and Bing Crosby are listed elsewhere.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't think Christmas music needs a song listed, though the genre might be worth including. (Christmas carol is included, but is slightly different) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

If there's only one single listed it should be this....GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral for now. J947(c), at 06:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Add New World Symphony[edit]

Mildly biased towards Dvorak, but it is one of the most popular symphonies of all time. "universal favorite." It was performed [as of 1978] more often "than any other symphony at the Royal Festival Hall, London" and is in "tremendous demand in Japan." Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Performing arts[edit]

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

Visual arts[edit]

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

Remove Fountain (Duchamp)[edit]

Not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support not more vital than urinal  Carlwev  21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support as per Carlwev. J947(c), at 07:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I would recommend replacing with Laocoön and His Sons since there are currently no works of Greek or Roman sculpture on the list, but that is for another discussion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    I apologize for my error above; the Venus de Milo is on the list, which is probably sufficient. I still support removal, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Being a major landmark in 20th-century art means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Campbell's Soup Cans[edit]

Not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. A representative artwork of pop art.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Remove The Passion of Joan of Arc[edit]

Probably the least well-known of the listed historical films.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. I was going to oppose as this is a silent film and we are underrepresented in that film genre, but then I thought that we need space to add genres as they are more vital in my opinion than some specific films currently on the list. Thus, weak support. J947(c), at 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support we have Battleship Potemkin and Birth of a Nation as silent films in that category. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Metropolis (1927 film)[edit]

Fritz Lang is listed in Peoples section. Three science fiction films on the list is much. In my opinion, we can list the general article Science fiction film.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    Agree per my comment at #Add Science fiction film. J947(c), at 02:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    Withdraw support as per Gizza. J947(c), at 07:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. It's a German silent film. I'd rather remove 2001. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Power. Metropolis virtually created the sci-fi genre. If we are to have two sci-fi films, I'd have Stars Wars and Metropolis. Gizza (t)(c) 02:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, counterproposal is on my todo list here. J947(c), at 07:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Very influential film.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 03:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
1-9, failed and not removed Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 19 February 2018 (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.

Remove Star Wars[edit]

Not vital in encyclopedia. At this level these (bad) films are pop culture bloat.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Due to its high impact, it should never be removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC) added the rationale 13:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per RekishiEJ. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  15:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I'd expect an encyclopedia to contain articles on both critically acclaimed literature and pop culture literature/franchises. Surely if something has to go, it should be one of the superheroes and comics which is where the biggest pop culture bloat is. Gizza (t)(c) 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I will agree that the films are horrendously written and they have plot holes the size of Jupiter, but they are historically significant and have practically defined the scifi genre for over a generation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. I was going to give more consideration to this one but Carlwev, Gizza, and Katolophyromai have more than convinced me. This sci-fi movie series is the second/third most popular movie series ever and the most popular operating on the same characters. Star Wars' significance is huge. J947(c), at 02:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Oppose though listing it in a "media franchises" section with Pokemon and Harry Potter instead of under films might be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Oppose.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 03:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I think we shouldn't just have movies that have won several oscars had critical acclaim and are studied by art critics. Even if one could describe it as a bad movie, very few movies if any are as influential and have had as much impact on popular culture than this one. Movies/franchises don't generally get there own entries in encyclopedias, but if they did I'm sure this would be one of the first listed, if we are listing movies at all, which we are at the moment we should list both movies with artistic and cinematography brilliance and acclaim and movies with huge impact on popular culture. We already list many more movies important for artistic reasons than popularity. We also list other popular culture things which are big but probably have less impact on society like Mario, Pokemon, Harry Potter, Peanuts, X-Men and many more.  Carlwev  15:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Carlwev, this is not an article about a single film. This is the article of the entire 41-year-old franchise. Which I consider important to film history, even if it is not among my personal preferences. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You are effectively arguing the same thing that he is. :) J947(c), at 02:29, 5 February 2018 (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 Science fiction film[edit]

One of the main film genres. "Science fiction often expresses the potential of technology to destroy humankind and easily overlaps with horror films".[6] I suggest adding both.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support; I've changed from oppose. Film genres are generally more vital than specific films in my opinion and there are already 3 SF films on the list. J947(c), at 20:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we already have science fiction as a literary genre. This is a sub-article of that. I don't think this is more vital than science fiction comics, science fiction novels, science fiction television, etc. And then for balance you would have to add it for all other genres. Gizza (t)(c) 08:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'd prefer sacrificing a few films for film genres rather than not. Also, in my opinion comics are less vital than films and I'm guessing that SFC occupies a smaller proportion of comics revenue-wise than SFF and films. SFN is a redirect to a list and SFT has significant overlap with SFF and is (probably) less common. J947(c), at 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. The number of articles currently included in the art sublist already exceeds the quota, and the sublist still lacks some vital articles (e.g. Iranian architecture). Film genres do not have to be included, as many of them are mere subtypes of a fiction genre (e.g. science fiction film and horror film).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'd question the addition of Persian architecture for pretty much the same reason as you have questioned this addition. J947(c), at 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose mainly per Gizza and RekishiEJ, with my caveat above. A sub-article of an L4 article is not vital in my opinion when there are many similar articles that are not on L4. We're under quota here. If we were 4 under quota and Gizza's note was made then I'd investigate this further. But that is not the case. J947(c), at 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Science fiction is already listed. There is no point in listing a more specific subcategory of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes there is if (in my opinion at least) it is top 2000. This is IMO. J947(c), at 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose there's not enough room to add film genres here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    Then remove specific films as IMO they are better suited for L5. Which is more important, genres or films? J947(c), at 04:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Horror film[edit]

See above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support (changed from neutral) per my comment on the proposal above. J947(c), at 20:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose horror is listed. Same reasons as above. Gizza (t)(c) 09:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @DaGizza:, you absolutely meant horror fiction when you made a link to horror, right? Since the only article in the art sublist whose title contains "horror" is horror fiction. Be careful not to link to a disambiguation page when you want to indicate an article is listed. You can alter your user preference to make links to disambiguation pages orange ones (I discovered your mistake because I've changed my user preference so that all links to disambiguation pages become orange ones).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've enabled that preference as well. J947(c), at 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @RekishiEJ: yes horror fiction sorry. I'd prefer adding more overall genres like Fantasy, Western fiction and Thriller (genre) before adding these articles and others like Fantasy film and Fantasy comics. Gizza (t)(c) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. The same reason as above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Gizza. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for the same reasons as above. Horror fiction is already listed, so there is no benefit to listing a more specific subcategory of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose there's not enough room to add film genres here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    Then remove specific films as IMO they are better suited for L5. Which is more important, genres or films? J947(c), at 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Neutral currently; it is a common film genre. I'll think about this case more later. J947(c), at 20:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Philosophy and religion[edit]

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

Philosophy[edit]

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

Add Logical positivism[edit]

An important school of modern philosophy. Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap and others (see Vienna Circle) are important names in 20th century philosophy, but they are currently not listed in Peoples section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The main doctrine of this school was verificationism: "the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies). Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics." Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Logical positivism was of some historical significance, but fizzled out fairly quickly. There are virtually no logical positivists or verificationists these days, and haven't been since W.V.O. Quine's devastating critiques in the early 1950s. We don't list many philosophical schools and this wouldn't be where I would start if looking to add more. Neljack (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose "Per Neljack and "The movement flourished in the 1920s and 1930s in several European centers" a movement that was for say 20 years of some importance and eventually fizzled out by 1960 doesn't seem to have the importance that would be needed for inclusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Specific religions[edit]

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

Western esotericism and New religious movements[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology[edit]

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

Add a "Mesopotamian mythology" section with Inanna, Enki, and Enlil in it[edit]

I was reading through the list and I happened to notice that there is no section at all about ancient Mesopotamian mythology. I think that there should be a section for it, since Mesopotamian mythology is the earliest attested mythological tradition in world history and the only major world mythology that is not listed. The section for it does not have be a long one; it could just have three names in it. I would deem Inanna, Enki, and Enlil to be probably the most significant deities in Mesopotamian mythology, so I think those three names would be the best ones to put on the list. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

To clarify, you're proposing a new section and adding three deities to the list that aren't currently listed? Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing that the new section have those three deities in it. If you think three deities is too much I suppose we could shorten it to just one or two. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see the archives here for a previous proposal to add six Mesopotamian deities. It failed though the situation was a bit different to now (at the time many mythological figures were being added and usually with little rationale, hence the strong opposition). Gizza (t)(c) 04:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. I think that adding six Mesopotamian deities would probably be far too many, but I do not think it makes sense to not have any at all, especially considering that the Sumerians were the first literate civilization in history and their religion is the earliest one recorded. I chose the three deities above as the ones that were most important in the pantheon. If we can only have one of them, I would choose Inanna, since she was the one with the most lasting influence. (Her own cult survived until the sixth century AD in the form of Ishtar and also strongly influenced the cults of Astarte, Aphrodite, and Venus.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus generally for tiny sub-sub-sections in this section (Mythology) so I'll support that at least. We also should add mesopotamian mythology if we add these. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@J947: Ancient Mesopotamian religion is already listed under the "Other religions" section. We could move it to the "Mythology" section if you think that would be a better location for it, but I think that ought to be another discussion for later. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Oops; didn't check. That should not be a priority though (moving it) as we're not here to organise a list of 10,000; we're here to make it. J947(c), at 04:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

Support all
  1. Nom
  2. Support as per nom and my comment above. Also add Ancient Mesopotamian religion (basically Meso. mythology). There seems to be a gap here. Quota-wise this would transform it from 2 below to 2 above so I'll be happy with just two deities as well. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support As Mesopotamian deities were highly influential on religions. I am not certain whether other local deities qualify for additions. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Support new section
Support the deities only
Support Inanna, Enki, and the section
Support Inanna and Enki only
Support Inanna, Enlil, and the section
Support Inanna and Enlil only
Support Enlil, Enki, and the section
Support Enlil and Enki only
Support Inanna and the section
Support Inanna only
Support Enki and the section
Support Enki only
Support Enlil and the section
Support Enlil only
Oppose all
Neutral on all
Neutral on the deities
Neutral on the section

Add section here

Everyday life[edit]

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

Clothing and fashion[edit]

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

Color[edit]

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

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

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

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Household items[edit]

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

Sexuality and gender[edit]

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

Add Human sexual activity[edit]

This is listed in Category:Top-importance Sexuality articles ”This article is about sexual practices and related social aspects. For broader aspects of sexual behaviour, see Human sexuality.” Maybe these and Sexual intercourse are all vital, despite some overlap.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Universal, as well as very historically and culturally significant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add BDSM[edit]

This is also listed in Top-importance Sexuality articles. In recent years it has become more visible in media (Fifty Shades of Grey). [7] It is probably a vital subject.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Sex education[edit]

This is also possibly a vital subject.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support quite a major omission. Gizza (t)(c) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Sports and recreation[edit]

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

Add Brazilian jiu-jitsu[edit]

Century old major martial art. The most important one out of South America. Highly popular worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support for globalisation. We're under quota here. J947( c ) (m) 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Significantly influenced Brazilian culture and its image around the world. Also diverse, as there is a dearth of South American content here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose of course not. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Once again, I do not think this is sufficiently notable. We already have jujutsu on the list; I see no reason why we would want to include a newer, less universal form of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose jujutsu and MMA cover this well enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • How different is this really to jujutsu? I cannot see it being distinct, just a regional variation of the (much older) eastern fighting style/sport. I realize that the rules may have been adapted, but the core style is the same, it founder was a Japanese jujutsu master who used a previously recognized form of Japanese jujutsu, there have been no obvious variations since, particularly as the sport is fairly young. Jujutsu has been adapted into numerous types of judo and other regional variations, so while an overall distinction can be made, i'm unsure of its importance. I note that Jujutsu itself is not a vital article, Is this topic really important enough to make it vital? A Guy into Books (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize jujutsu wasn't a vital article (it should be). The point of nominating BJJ was to diversify the list as it's the most influential South American Martial Art and it was a major influence on MMA (which we list). We're under quota so diversifying our list isn't that bad of a idea. GuzzyG (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Add airsoft and paintball[edit]

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Other
  1. Support Paintball Unique sport/game which is used in military training worldwide, subject to laws in most countries. Tournaments are in use and it's a relatively popular spectator sport. We're under quota quite a bit so i will support this. We can always swap it out again if we miss something when we hit the quota. GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak support paintball; oppose airsoft on the basis that it's not highly viewed. See here. J947( c ) (m) 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak support paintball. Gizza (t)(c) 21:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose airsoft. Very niche and obscure. We're only a little bit under quota and there are easily 10 more important articles relating to everyday life. Gizza (t)(c) 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I do not think these are especially significant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Just to note that it is currently 1–1–3 on airsoft and 4–1 on paintball. J947( c ) (m) 06:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Now 1–1–4 on airsoft and 4–2 on paintball. J947 (c · m) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Now 1–1–5 on airsoft and 4–3 on paintball. J947(c), at 05:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Add Sambo (martial art)[edit]

2-3, failed not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:09, 4 February 2018 (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.

Support
  1. As nom. Now that it's included in the 27th Annual Summer Universiade, it's vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. We're under-quota here and as always it can be moved out later to accommodate more important topics. J947( c ) (m) 02:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Seriously? Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I do not think this one is sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

There are quite a few FISU sports that are not listed here link. It's a slightly strange rationale as there may be important sports missing that should be listed but aren't in the 27th Annual Summer Universiade. Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 2 November 2017 (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 Paper-and-pencil game[edit]

Support
  1. Per nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    Reasoning? J947 (contribs · mail) 05:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    I have thought that "per nom" mean per nominator. Sorry for my English. Anyway I think that paper and pencil game is important concept. Some paper and pencil games like to Sudoku, Battleship and Hangman are are very popular. Paper and pencil games in my opinion is important concept, at similar level to Nine Men's Morris. It should be at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Per nom does mean per nominator. But as you are the nominator, you are basically saying per yourself when you hadn't provided a reason. Anyway, thanks for the rationale. In relation to It should be at the level 5, do you mean at the level 4? (emphasis mine) J947 (contribs · mail) 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support for now so this doesn't get NC'd. The article isn't too good but it seems like a topic that could possibly edge in here. More thoughts from other users would be nice. J947(c), at 03:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Stuffed toy[edit]

Support
  1. It should have level 4. It is the same I important like to Teddy bear Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support – If teddy bear has a place on this list, then the overarching topic for it should as well. DaGizza, what do you think a good section to put this in would be? J947 (contribs · mail) 21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support I would actually favor replacing Teddy bear with Stuffed toy because I think stuffed toys are far more universal; teddy bears have only been around for a hundred years, but stuffed toys are much older. Also, even today, the majority of stuffed toys are not teddy bears. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Mascot[edit]

Support
  1. It should have level 4. It is the same important like to Teddy bear Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support International relevance, broad scope, massive influence.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support – Vital and global. Part of many sports. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


Oppose
Discuss

Cue sports[edit]

We should probably specifically include Pool (cue sports) and Carom billiards, in addition to Snooker (already listed). There are three general families of cue sports subject to global professional and amateur competition (and usually completely separate competition and governance; snooker is under WPBSA and IBSF, pool under WPA, and carom under UMB). Very few pros compete across these lines, but narrower topics like nine-ball, eight-ball, and straight pool within pool are normally competed by the same people. It's similar to the fact that a professional skiier is likely to compete in various forms of snowskiing but probably not also water skiing, or a pro snowboarder is probably not also a pro skateboarder, despite the historical connections between these sports, which have separate governing bodies, different equipment specifications, and involve different skills. The same is true of the three cue sports fields, despite their superficial similarity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss
I tend to agree and would support those additions. Pool in particular should be added. If we can have multiple types of skiing, rugby and wrestling, there is no reason why we can't have multiple cue sports. I have though about carrom too. To be honest, they are all more significant than basque pelota for instance (not that anything needs to be removed). Gizza (t)(c) 21:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal moved by J947 at 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom
  2. DaGizza
  3. Support as per the nom and Gizza. J947 (contribs · mail) 02:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose

Add Carrom[edit]

Popular game in South Asia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose No. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not vital for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Croquet[edit]

Popular sport of the 19th century, we're lacking in historical sports and under quota. Better option then newish paintball. Used to be an olympic sport.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  07:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose why? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    Read the nominating statement that's why. I'm undecided as of yet. J947(c), at 04:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Actually I've become neutral on it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stages of life[edit]

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

Society and social sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anthropology[edit]

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

Business and economics[edit]

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

Culture[edit]

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

Replace New Year's Day with New Year[edit]

This seems to be the best page for a generic term for new-year festivities, independent of the date January 1.

Support
  1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support the new article is slightly better choice, not completely sure we need 2 separate articles at all, see my comments below.  Carlwev  16:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It would be very strange to include Chinese New Year and Rosh Hashanah in the list but not New Year's Day. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as Rreagan007 said, we have the other specific dates. We don't need to pick a cover-all article. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Other
  • Meh. New Year should be a definite add, though oppose removal as covers the main western usage. J947( c ) (m) 02:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss (as "remove New Year's Day")

Perhaps a New Year overview would be good. But that aside, if an overview could cover the Persian, Chinese and modern west and others, why should we list Chinese and Nowruz but not the western singularly if the western one is the most celebrated probably? Either list them all singularly or none?

This article does concentrate on the Gregorian Calendar January 1 holiday, calling it probably the most celebrated public holiday. It then talks a lot about new year traditions in other cultures and includes information on Nowruz and the Chinese New Year and many others.

But...Just for a big headache...I just done a bit of looking around, and I realize it's a bit more complicated. There are separate articles New Year's Day, New Year's Eve and New Year. One could presume the "Eve" should write about the 31 December or equivalent, "Day" about 1 January or equivalent and "New Year" about the whole thing. Which is partly correct at the moment but not exactly. New Year has the most examples of different new years' but they are very short descriptions and list-like, New Year's Eve appears to be completely about the 31 Dec/1 Jan and doesn't mention other dates really. New Year's Day is a mixture of the two talking half about 1 Jan, then several examples of others, less examples than New Year's Day, but each example is a tiny bit more fleshed out. Bottom line is, any of the information, wouldn't necessary be out of place in any of those articles as long as the lead explains what it's talking about, The title "New Year" seems the most neutral at first, as though doesn't have to concentrate on the specific day before or day after but the whole thing, including different cultures' dates more easily.

Page views and languages...[8]

New Year - 110 languages - 538 average daily views

New Year's Eve - 59 languages - 437 average daily views

New Year's Day - 27 languages - 536 average daily views

Not much difference in page views, but New Year leads in different languages, may be as other languages concentrate all content in one article and link it to this English one, just a guess. "New Year" also has by far the most "watchers" how ever important that is?

I recon the topic should be included, but which article is the best for that I'm not sure. And whether we should list an overview article and a specific only 1 jan article as well, I'm not sure either, the articles overlap a lot at present anyway. I would be happy to swap for New Year, being in much more languages, highest page views, but only just, most watchers, and the most neutral encompassing sounding term, that could naturally cover all the other topics.  Carlwev  07:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel the Chinese New Year is notable as a holiday independently of New Year. It shuts down all of China for a week. [9]
I'm not sure January 1 is more of a holiday (at least in the US) than December 31, and both are dwarfed by Christmas. I would support a swap of New Year's Day for New Year. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like I decided the whole thing! 7–4 on removal and 8–3 on addition! :) J947 (contribs · mail) 22:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Close please... It can be closed as keep/add both if my tally is right. J947(c), at 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Education[edit]

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

Ethnology[edit]

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

International organizations[edit]

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

Language[edit]

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

Add Idiom[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    An idiom I think is slightly more important than a proverb and we don't need both, thus weak support. Would like to see other opinions on the matter, though. J947( c ) (m) 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support An important concept in translation studies. --Thi (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. (Changed from neutral) Crazily, I have to change again. I still believe idioms encompass more ground, but the ground that proverbs cover is more dense with the historical importance that they convey and have. Thus, weak oppose. Hopefully I don't change again... J947( c ) (m) 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Proverbs have greater significance, I think. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
As per below. J947( c ) (m) 02:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Proverb[edit]

PASSED:
6-1, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (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.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support An important form of folklore. People have used proverbs in their everyday language more often when printed forms of communication and formal education were rare. --Thi (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. (Changed from neutral) Crazily, I have to change again. I still believe idioms encompass more ground, but the ground that proverbs cover is more dense with the historical importance that they convey and have. Thus, weak support. Hopefully I don't change again... J947( c ) (m) 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per J947. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
An idiom I think is slightly more important than a proverb and we don't need both, thus weak oppose. Would like to see other opinions on the matter, though. J947( c ) (m) 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No, proverbs are as important as idioms, since proverbs convey traditional wisdom and reflect a country, region or ethnicity's values, and proverb is not synonymous with idiom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. This looks to go over quota even with my proposed change, so I'm thus neutral. J947( c ) (m) 02:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per J947. Proverbs and idioms aren't exactly the same but there is significant overlap. We can't include everything. Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 12 November 2017 (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.

Law[edit]

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

Add Inheritance[edit]

This is more general article than Will and testament.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I don't think we need to list both. I would probably support a swap with "Will and testament". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass media[edit]

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

Remove Meet the Press, add Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Eurovision is a major European TV spectacle. Meet the Press is just a weekly news program (though a very old one).

Support
  1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Good to add a non-US TV show of sorts. Close in scale to some of the sports events listed. Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The contest has been organized since 1956 and is broadcast throughout Europe and in countries beyond it. Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    (Changed to neutral) Support, rather tentatively. J947( c ) (m) 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support inclusion of Eurovision - audience figures of "between 100 million and 600 million internationally". Huge contest. Being longest-running program seems more trivia (and the format has bears little resemblance to the original apparently), so remove Meet the Press too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support swap. GuzzyG (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. (Changed from support) I don't really have a major opinion here. Landing here for now. Definite support for addition. J947 (c · m) 04:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. Meet the Press is the longest-running program in television history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. The removal, per above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    Do you oppose the addition? J947 (c · m) 04:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    Weakly. Ok, has been around since 1973. Is it vital? In terms of pageviews? Hmm. Jusdafax (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I have never even heard of Eurovision Song Contest. I am assuming it must be popular in Europe, but lacks global significance. I do not see why it would be more "vital" than Meet the Press, which, as pointed out above, is the longest-running television program in history. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Katolophyromai: Well, Meet the Press is American only, and Europe is a bigger place than the US, for one. Also, Australia also takes part in the Eurovision Song Contest. And in my opinion Eurovision is more global than Meet the Press. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Now 8–2 or is it 7–2 on addition? It doesn't matter. J947(c), at 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Now 8–2 on addition. J947(c), at 03:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Now 5–1–4 on removal. J947(c), at 03:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Now 6–1–4 on removal. Ooh, I'm considering changing... J947(c), at 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Now 8–1–4. Can be closed as passed. J947(c), at 03:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggested closure: No consensus on removal; consensus for addition. J947 (contribs · mail) 08:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus has changed. Can be closed as both sections of the proposal passed. J947(c), at 03:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow, 12 different users have commented here. What's the record? J947(c), at 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 14 and counting... J947(c), at 03:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Museums[edit]

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

Politics and government[edit]

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

Add National security[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. SupportJ947( c ) (m) 02:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Core concept in public policy.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support This is a subject of clear importance. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Federalism[edit]

Common political system around the world. Easy add.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Support Good find. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Not my find; Gizza's. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Wide-spead political system, covering such significant countries as Australia, Germany, and Russia. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Support --Thi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - Yes, clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Not sure this is a big deal outside the United States.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    See Dimadick's comment. Federalism is actually found around the globe. J947 (contribs · mail) 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I'm changing my vote. We already list Federation at this level, and I don't think we really need both. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

@Mr. Guye and J947: quite a few major countries outside the United States are federations, including Russia, Germany, India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Australia, Sudan and Ethiopia. The only reason why I'm neutral is because we already have federation on the list. Granted, one article is about the type of state while the other is about the ideology but there is a reasonable degree of overlap. Gizza (t)(c) 22:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think swap for federalism, I don't see much difference but that seems to be the more "general" article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • When I hear Federalism, the first thing that comes to mind is always Germany. Not certain whether the United States are particularly significant for the concept. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Psychology[edit]

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

Society[edit]

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

Sociology[edit]

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

War and military[edit]

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

Biology and health sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

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[edit]

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

Botany[edit]

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

Cell biology[edit]

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

Ecology[edit]

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

Zoology[edit]

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

Organisms[edit]

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

Remove Clydesdale horse[edit]

This is just an example of heavy horse and a Good article. There exists only 5,000 Clydesdales worldwide. Draft horse would be more vital article. See Archive 36#Restructure horse articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Draft horse is definitely the broader topic. Per also my comments at #So many organisms Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support mildly significant in Australia but there are far more vital Australian animals missing. Gizza (t)(c) 11:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support appearing in Budweiser commercials is not enough reason to include it here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Health, medicine and disease[edit]

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

Add Contact lens[edit]

Distinct enough from glasses/spectacles, article states 125 million people wear them. Been mentioned before in discussion but never opened as an addition. I don't think a second article on corrective eyewear is too much, we list 5 articles under dentistry for example, we list many diseases/disorders which effect much less than 125 million people.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    Support for the barrier. We should up the quota here though. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm changing to neutral as I am torn for opinion. J947(c), at 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not a vital technology item, it is just a form of eye glasses. Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Maunus; they are just a form of eye glasses. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Changed to Oppose. Tend to agree with Maunus and Katolophromai. Contact lens are just a type of glasses. Something more vital IMO (because it serves a different purpose) is sunglasses which shields your eyes from the sun as opposed to making what you see bigger and clearer. Gizza (t)(c) 21:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Contact lens and dentures are technological devices. They could be in the same section as wheelchair and prosthesis as they are medical. Contact lens can also be placed alongside glasses in optical technology. Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, contact lens should be adjacent to eye glasses. I knew glasses were in and contact lens wasn't but I forgot to check which sublist it was in when I opened this.  Carlwev  05:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Dentures[edit]

We list Dental restoration and Root canal, but not dentures, removable dentures are fairly common, especially in the elderly, seems more important than root canal. Looking up facts about them, I read 57 percent of Americans aged 65 to 74, and 51 percent of those age 55 to 64 have full or partial dentures. 45 million Americans 16% of the total population or approximately 1 in 7 people wear dentures, (11% full and 5% partial). I imagine numbers in other western nations more or less similar.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Regrettably vital. Jusdafax (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as per the detailed rationale by Carlwev. J947 (contribs · mail) 04:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No. Not a vital technology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Also on the topic of teeth, I am wondering about baby teeth, something that effects, well pretty much everyone? Is human tooth enough? maybe.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Baby teeth are indeed a much more important article as it is a a basic biological aspect of human anatomical development.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd support that as well. You should open a proposal for it. J947(c), at 04:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Replace toxin with toxicity[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support dosis facit venenum.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support addition. J947(c), at 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

In case anyone wants to know, toxin (the article) was created in November 2001 and toxicity (the article) was created in January 2003. J947 (c · m) 03:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently thinking that having both might be the best option as toxin is a pretty broad article and we have at least one sub-article of it (venom) one this list. Thoughts? J947(c), at 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Physical sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Measurement[edit]

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

Astronomy[edit]

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

Chemistry[edit]

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

Add Carbon nanotube[edit]

We currently list diamond and graphite, and I think we should also list the article on carbon nanotubes. They have some amazing properties and some really important potential uses, as they are the strongest material that has yet been discovered.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. As the strongest material that has yet been discovered it should be subject to significant scholarly study, which is a degree of vitality to me. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The article states that they are all already in use in a number of ships and aircrafts. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap: Add Hydrogen peroxide, Remove Peroxide[edit]

Peroxide has kinda been turned into a set-index article. So remove it and add Hydrogen peroxide, being just generally important in chemistry and in other uses.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. It does look like peroxide has become a semi-disambiguation page. Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support as it does seem to be close to a disambig and should be uncontroversial. J947 (contribs · mail) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove elements past Plutonium, Add Synthetic element[edit]

None of the elements past Plutonium are of great importance - definitely the ones past Californium, which have no use whatsoever aside from research. Can generally be covered under Synthetic element. I've split this into three based on possible opposition. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Americium, Curium
Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose These elements actually have practical applications. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Remove Berkelium, Californium
Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Californium has practical applications, and Berkelium's half life is long enough that I think it should remain listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Remove past Californium
Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. No we don't need these unimportant atoms for a couple of years or more. I'm unsure about the other ones, but this should slow down the rapid growth in this section. Support for the add as well. J947(c), at 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Tannic acid[edit]

Unsure why it is there. Maybe add Tannins instead Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Swap
  1. Swap with Tannin as the more general article. J947(c), at 03:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Polypropylene and Polyvinyl chloride[edit]

Polypropylene is used in "packaging and labeling, textiles, plastic parts and reusable containers of various types, laboratory equipment, automotive components, and medical devices. It is a white, mechanically rugged, and resistant to many chemical solvents, bases and acids."; second most used plastic after polyethylene. Polyvinyl chloride is the third most used plastic. Used in pipes but also in "plumbing, electrical cable insulation, imitation leather, signage, phonograph records" and "bottles, non-food packaging". Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support as the second and third most common plastics deserve a place on this list. This is my 300th edit on this page! J947(c), at 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Earth science[edit]

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

Physics[edit]

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

Technology[edit]

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

Agriculture[edit]

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

Biotechnology[edit]

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

Computing and information technology[edit]

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

Remove MS-DOS[edit]

A discontinued operating system from the 1980s.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Although it is now discontinued, in the past it was extremely popular on earth. A software or website which is now unpopular or discontinued is still vital at this level if it was once extremely popular on earth or had substantial impact.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose From the article: "Ultimately it was the key product in Microsoft's growth from a programming language company to a diverse software development firm, providing the company with essential revenue and marketing resources. It was also the underlying basic operating system on which early versions of Windows ran as a GUI. " Ms-DOS was only discontinued in 2000. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per others, being discontinued doesn't mean it wasn't influential. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

The nominating statement is not stating anything other than a fact. Being discontinued doesn't mean it isn't vital. I'll still take this into account though; we are recentist in this section. J947(c), at 03:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

Infrastructure[edit]

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

Machinery and tools[edit]

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

Media and communication[edit]

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

Medical technology[edit]

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

Military technology[edit]

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

Navigation and timekeeping[edit]

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

Optical technology[edit]

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

Space[edit]

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

Textiles[edit]

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

Transportation[edit]

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

Mathematics[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Algebra[edit]

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

Calculus and analysis[edit]

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

Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Geometry[edit]

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

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

Other[edit]

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

General discussions[edit]

Global proposals[edit]

Hasty closures?[edit]

No offense intended, but I think that some of the closures earlier today are questionable. They all conform to our closing guidelines, but they (especially the no consensus ones) are intended to be bare minimums.

In particlular a closure I find annoying was that of /Archive 55#Add populism and elitism. No one had explicitly opposed the addition of Elitism, but only 4 people supported it. It needed just 1 more support to be added. This in my opinion just justifies why the extension of the no consensus closure guidelines is an excellent idea. That discussion was rather ironically closed and archived today as well.

Also, the closure of 4–2's where one more opinion either way would get a conclusive closure is also rather distressing. And don't let me get started on why closing and archiving in the space of 24 hours is a bad idea...

P. S. I am happy that the same person that did the closures made heaps more discussions along the way. :) J947(c), at 07:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that archiving very quickly after closing is not ideal, especially when the page overall is not particularly large (it was less <200,000 bytes according to history at that stage which is manageable). Though I tend to agree with the closures themselves which were if anything a bit delayed. From above, anything that has failed to obtain 5 supports in 60 days can be closed as no consensus and that proposal was around for 108 days. Also if there are no votes or discussion at all for 30 days, it can be closed as no consensus. It was 96 days since the last vote/comment on the proposal. The discussion came to a standstill really. We could make an exception if the page goes through a period of inactivity but there were a reasonable number of people voting on other proposals during this time.
Also in this case, while nobody expressly "opposed", Aidan did question whether elitism would be suitable and so did Thi. Surely, one of the supporters of elitism (most probably the nominator) could reply to these comments and expand on their rationale of why they think it's vital? I definitely believe it would be unfair if a supporter gave their reasoning in the last few days or so and it was abruptly closed but here I think the discussion was dead long before the closure. On the bright side, the project hasn't yet agreed on any rules on when an article can be renominated so in theory it could be proposed again today (though as a matter of practice it would be good to wait awhile and ideally if it is nommed again, have a longer rationale in the nom). Gizza (t)(c) 08:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this closure to propose the addition of David Attenborough was probably the harshest that I have seen while being here. It was 4-0 support with no people expressing even a bit of doubt and it was closed right on 60 days. Somebody did express doubt about Attenborough though that was after the closure. There have been quite a few passes, fails and no consensuses that have just scraped through on the technical rules we have. That's the nature of the beast. We could adjust the guidelines and percentages and times but that would just move the goalposts and you would get new borderline cases. Gizza (t)(c) 08:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently proposed extending the voting time guidelines, but people didn't seem to like that idea. But I agree these closures go against our generally understood custom of leaving open nominations that have a good chance of success if given more time. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So many organisms[edit]

Why do we have so many organisms? There are way too much; many are reasonably obscure. I don't see why we need 8 different breeds of horses or 7 species of turtles. We have things like Lophotrochozoa; certainly interesting but not vital certainly? Taxonomists faf around with a lot of clades a lot of time, it is just a proposed clade (basically categorization rather than something overtly important). I wouldn't even say Level 5 for it. I think we should limit them to 800 (at the very least, I'd say 700 or 600 maybe), and expand health medicine and disease quota to 300 or 350 with say 30 important drugs, which are surprisingly missing. Things like the antimalarial quinine, which allowed the colonization of africa; aspirin is another important one, plus ones like Benzodiazepine and amphetamine. And vaccines like smallpox vaccine and polio vaccine, which have saved millions of lives. (I was actually looking for DDT which is missing too, though not a drug). While I'm pointing out things missing from biology and health sciences: vitamin A, C, and D too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

More on that taxonomic thing; Ecdysozoa is there too. While it may contain a huge amount of species, in reality it isn't that important, just a categorization/grouping. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You can go ahead with the proposals. I've thought that there are a few too many horse and dog breeds for some time. There are also some organisms that should be listed but aren't here IMO. I would support adding more medicines, vitamins and other nutrients. Gizza (t)(c) 21:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)