Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

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

---

Add Joe Montana

Joe Montana is one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. He won four super-bowls and was an extremely large figure in sports history. In addition, there aren't any modern quarterbacks on the American football list. There should be at least one modern quarterback in that list, and I feel that Joe Montana should be there.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: There are too many American football players as it is pbp 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose:--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose: There isn't a need for more american football players. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per pbp. Neljack (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Rsm77 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I actually think the number of American footballers looks about right (it certainly doesn't look overrepresented when you compare it to the number of baseball, basketball, tennis and ice hockey players we've got) and Joe Montana's certainly a very good choice to represent the sport, so I'd support a swap for one of the other figures. Cobblet (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I am also open to a swap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add History of writing

Had this on my mind for a while, I believe writing to be one of humanity's most significant "inventions", we have placed it in the vital 100, therefore I think history of writing to be vital at the 10,000 level, more vital than other histories we have. Things we have history for at present include radio, communication (almost), aviation, maritime etc but the articles for their parent topics are not in the vital 100 like writing is; others have shown an interest in History of writing too which has pushed me to suggest it.  Carlwev  18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support While opponents make some good points, this does seem more important than other "history of [topic]" articles that we have. Neljack (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Prefer as little overlap as possible between overview-style articles (assuming history of communication gets added). Would be more inclined to support adding a more focussed topic like origin of language. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Many of the general history articles begin to overlap in vague information. I am more likely to support articles that provide detail like writing implement, writing material, grapheme, possibly ideogram/pictogram, shorthand and proto-writing. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Should all Level 2 articles for which there is a suitable history article have their "history of" articles listed at this level? Many of them already are but this would mean adding history of construction, history of the family, history of engineering, history of telecommunication, history of logic, history of energy, history of money, history of geometry and history of clothing. There might have been a few that I missed. Communication itself is an article which has a strong case to be added at Level 2. I still need to think about this proposal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Definitely money and energy; probably clothing and construction; not logic and geometry; unsure about telecommunication and the family. The engineering article is so unfocused I can't even tell what it's about. Ypnypn (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Swapping numismatics for history of money is a possibility. Then again, I think both that and history of economic thought should be subsumed by economic history of the world. 2-for-1 swap then? Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Darling River

Having the Murray River on the list without also having the Darling River is like listing the Mississippi River but not the Missouri River. When combined together the Murray-Darling is the longest river in Oceania and the fifteenth longest river in the world. It makes no sense to list 69 rivers and tributaries without including this one.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Really, Maunus? Why not? Frankly, I find this kind of laconic response frustrating, since it does nothing to build consensus. It ought to be self-evident that this is a more significant river than several others we've listed. Also I daresay this is a more important article to have than at least 500 of the biographies we list. Cobblet (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe in automatic or inherent vitality much. Inherent vitality in the senseof "this is the third Xest Y of the world ergo it must be vital". The worlds fattest, stupidest or hairiest person is not vital by virtue of that feat. In the same way a river is not vital simply by virtue of being really long. Encyclopedic vitality for me is a function about how significant a given phenomenon is for an educated human being to know about. It is more than possible to be considered a well-educated human being while not knowing that there is such a thing as the Darling river. This is not the case with the Thames, the Eufrates, the Tiber, the Nile or the Amazon, or even the Avon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Geographical features determine the large-scale patterns of civilization: thus most large geographic features are inherently vital. The Murray-Darling basin is home to much of Australia's agriculture and is critical to its economy. Reasonable comparisons of the Thames and Tiber can be made to the Po or the Tyne or the Seine or the Huai or the Hudson or Sydney Harbour or the Venetian lagoon or San Francisco Bay... it's pointless to list such features when the cities that depend on them are already listed. And comparing the Thames and Tiber to cradles of civilization like the Nile and Euphrates is absurd: sure, London wouldn't exist without the Thames, but England had plenty of other ports and would've done just fine without it. Rome's survival over other city-states on the Italian peninsula probably owed more to the ability of its generals and the defensibility of the Palatine hills than to the presence of the Tiber. Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I also dont see encyclopedic vitality as a function of supposed historical significance. Following that reasoning Hitler or Einstein's mom and dad would be vital sincewithout them these two historically important figures wouldnt have existed. As I say, the core mission of an encyclopedia is to provide the information that a reasonably educated person can be expected to know about in a given society. Geographical features are not vital merely because they gave a shape to some notable human activity taking place in them. They are vital if humans expect other humans to know about them. What makes the tiber vital (or at least more vital than the Darling river) in my opinion is not any impact it had on roman civilization, but the fact that if you want participate in conversations about Ancient Rome, which is a topic that pops up now and then among reasonably educated people, then you will be at a disadvantage if you dont know of the Tiber. No such stigma accrues to not knowing the Darling river outside narrow interest fields such as among geographers. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

That reasoning only follows if you believe that the only force that can possibly influence a person is their biological parents, and I don't think anyone here is that stupid. Obviously one should know about the Tiber when talking about Rome. But equally, one should also know about the Seven hills of Rome, Ostia Antica, the Via Appia, the aqueducts of Rome, the Roman Forum, the Pantheon, Romulus and Remus, the Great Fire of Rome... an encyclopedia has to cover more than just Rome, and I think the discussion of Rome's geography in Rome and Ancient Rome will generally satisfy a "reasonably educated person". By the same token, if you try to participate in an informed discussion about Australia's economy or history while remaining ignorant about the Darling River, you're going to be ridiculed as well. But there is a distinction between wanting to list the Darling River and wanting to list Port Jackson: one is subsumed by Sydney while the other is not subsumed by anything at all. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral about this proposal. Murray–Darling basin might be a better addition since the it is basin which is the breadbasket of Australia and what makes the country one of the biggest producers and exporters of wheat in the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's reasonable, but we don't currently list any river basins. If a basin is defined by a river then I think the river should usually take priority – for a specialist in geomorphology or physiography the basin may be more important, but to a general audience the river is more recognizable and any discussion of it will include the drainage basin as well. (I should point out that drainage basin is not even listed right now – another proposal I've been meaning to get around to.) Cobblet (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Cobblet on this one. The river is more important than the river basin. Drainage basin is still a good article to add though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove: Sistine Chapel

It is not architecturally notable. Its exterior is is entirely un-notable, having no facade, no main door and no decoration except for the guards' walkway near the top, which has caused more trouble as a water-cathment than it is worth. The value of the building lies in its four stages of decoration, which should be individually listed as vital articles in the appropriate categories:

1. The frescos of the Life of Moses and the Life of Jesus, which do not have a separate article but are a section in Sistine Chapel. This should be included as vital, under painting, not architecture.
2. The Sistine Chapel ceiling - Michelangelo's masterpiece
3. The Last Judgment (Michelangelo) - his later masterpiece- this is an extremely influential work in the subsequent development of Mannerist and Baroque art.
4. Raphael's tapestries.

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support a swap with Sistine Chapel ceiling and then moving it into the Painting section. If it wasn't for the ceiling, in particular the Creation of Adam, the Sistine Chapel would not be a household name. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Extremely vital building.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  13:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose, vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose removal, but move out of architecture as discussed below Melody Lavender (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Why don't we just move this under Visual arts then? Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but if we expand the architecture section, then I would keep Sistine Chapel in this section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with moving it to the visual arts section, where we already have the general term mural. --ELEKHH^T 23:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No. The Sistine Chapel is of no architectural significance whatsoever. It is the painted plaster on its otherwise featureless walls and ceiling that is significant. It doesn't belong in the "architecture" section. The individuals works should be listed in "painting". Amandajm (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling is the important article - for painting of course. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me that the outside of the Sistine Chapel is not important. It is pretty vital in itself. Just because the inside is more notable doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included. The Sistine Chapel is one of the most vital articles on wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be removed, I wouldn't mind this being moved to visual works of art. I would prefer to have the main article not the ceiling one, Wikipedia is the only place I remember seeing a separate article dedicated to and named after the ceiling alone, not that I've read all the books ever written on it. But I can see it's a longer article in a few but less languages, I can see the argument to have it instead, but I just prefer the original.  Carlwev  13:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove: Individual listing for 6 of the 7 wonders

This is a radical proposal. Two of these works are not architecture. Only one, the Great Pyramid of Giza, still exists. Of the others, fragments of the Mausoleum of Harlicarnassus exist. The greater part of what is written about all the proposed deletions is speculation. I propose that the article Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is retained.

• Statue of Zeus at Olympia - wasn't a work of architecture; it was a statue. It shouldn't be on the list of architecture.
• Colossus of Rhodes - also a statue, but larger, more in the same category as the Statue of Liberty
• Hanging Gardens of Babylon - were perhaps mythical
• Lighthouse of Alexandria - has gone
• Temple of Artemis - was entirely ruined, and replaced. The later temple exists only as scattered fragments and 1 1/2 columns.

• Mausoleum at Halicarnassus - some large fragments of its sculpture exist, and some foundations.

Keep

• Great Pyramid of Giza still exists and needs independent listing.

Support

1. Amandajm (talk)
2. Support I've said that I support a moderate increase in the coverage of architecture articles on the Vital Articles list but it cannot grow too much. Ultimately, we have to balance it with everything else on the encyclopedia. Removing the six wonders that no longer exist will free up space for other articles. More to the point, the six destroyed/mythical wonders are only vital because they appeared on Antipater of Sidon's poem. Their current inclusion also creates a strong Hellenic bias (5 of the 7 were built by the Greeks). I believe that we should not be dictated by a list compiled so long ago covering very little of the world and which even omits the Parthenon, a vital Ancient Greek landmark in its own right. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I think it's preferable to have articles on sites that still exist and are the subject of archaeological study (e.g. Paestum). Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I was about to make the same proposal. Some are not architecture, others we know little about so is little to learn from, and overall they are summed up in the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World article. --ELEKHH^T 08:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose pbp 15:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Maybe some of them, but if these are removed then the list has way too little on ancient architecture. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose These are topics that are all significant on their own. Not necessarily as architecture, but as history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose, all of them are important. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I would put all 7 wonders in their own category, regardless on the type of wonder it is. That included the Great Pyramid of Giza. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should at least be moved from architecture. History could be a better section. Maybe the general Seven Wonders of the Ancient World article is enough. I'll think about it a bit more. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. There has been a suggestion that an Archaeology section could be created. This could absorb all these. If this happens then Giza could go into this section, covering the whole architectural group. Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I would do that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add: Florence Cathedral

Brunelleschi. The building of the dome changed the role of the architect forever. No wider dome was built until the Modern era. He did what others thought impossible.

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support absolutely, good catch! Some may know this as Santa Maria del Fiore, and the architectural significance has to do with the construction of the dome. The cathedral includes a Dome, a Cupola, that is the rounded structure on top. It is significant because it was the biggest such structure at the time and it took a long time to build it. The designs by Arnolfo di Cambio had already been lying around for a century or so, until Brunelleschi finally dared to actually engineer the real thing. Melody Lavender (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

How many examples of Christian churches in Western Europe do we really need? We already have three (Chartres, Notre Dame and St. Peter's) and Amandajm is proposing the addition of ten more. However, outstanding examples of church architecture elsewhere are being ignored (St. Vitus Cathedral, Saint Basil's Cathedral, the churches of Lalibela or Ouro Preto) and we also have no examples of architecturally significant abbeys or monasteries (Mount Athos, Mont Saint-Michel, Westminster Abbey). Even worse, it's self-evident that representation of other religious architectures is severely lacking. While I agree the Architecture section needs expansion, much greater discretion needs to be exercised in our selections (and attention needs to be paid to secular architecture as well) if we're not to end up with the same issues of balance that we've been trying to fix in other sections. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Florence Cathedral is not just a Christian church of Western Europe. It is a turning point in the history of architecture, architectural engineer, and architectural practice. The fact that it doesn't already appear on the list is a serious omission.

This is about architectural significance. The Medieval period in Western Europe was a time of great building projects and produced many of the buildings that are now listed as of World Heritage Significance. What this means is: for a period of 700-1,00 years, the greatest buildings constructed in each and every of today's European nations were Christian churches. Most of these great churches towered over every other building and could be seen for miles. Only the most important have made it to this list of suggestions. Omitted from the list are many of the world's greatest buildings. For the medieval period, secular architecture was much less significant.

To consider your suggestions individually:

• St Basil's Cathedral is included under Kremlin.
• Mount Athos probably needs to go in. It is a Heritage Site, rather than a single architectural work, much as Macchu Pichu
• Mont Saint-Michel is a fascinating place, but because of site rather than architectural distinction. Architecturally it is less significant than Chartres, Notre Dame, Saint-Denis, the two Romanesque Churches of Caen, Rouen Cathedral, Amiens Cathedral, Noyon Cathedral etc etc.
• Westminster Abbey is again, a famous site. If you had to chose, you would probably rate LIncoln Cathedral, and Canterbury Cathedral ahead of it. None is included in the proposed additions. BTW: In England, many of the ancient cathedrals were monastic, so a line can't be drawn between a church that is known as "abbey" or "minster" and those churches that are "cathedrals" . Durham Cathedral, which is on the list, was a Benedictine Monastery.
• St. Vitus Cathedral. Peter Parler's vault design was new and influential for Europe (already happening in England). For the tremendous significance of this building in Central/Eastern Europe, it probably needs to be added.

Amandajm (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on my suggestions – we need more expert input and your comments are well taken. I agree the most important works in the history of architecture in Christian Europe should be included and Florence's cathedral ought to qualify as such. But in an absence of any discussion of architectural works from other religions, it's impossible for me to figure out how many cathedrals we really should have, and I oppose adding any more until we have such a discussion. Like Elekhh, I think we should be concentrating on adding more styles than adding individual buildings. I'm sorry for being so obstinate but the first architectural styles to be added to the list were also European, so this is becoming a real problem. I see there's support for adding the Alhambra; I'd be curious to see whether people would also support adding notable mosques like Umayyad Mosque, Selimiye Mosque, Jameh Mosque of Isfahan and Great Mosque of Djenné (I'm just as ignorant of Islamic architecture as I am of Christian, but am trying to pick examples representing different styles and time periods within it); or notable Southeast Asian temples besides Angkor like Bagan and Borobudur. By the way, my understanding is that St. Basil's and Red Square are adjacent to the Kremlin and not actually part of the citadel, and our article on the Kremlin only mentions St. Basil's in passing. Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Under those circumstances, St Basil's needs to go on the list. Yes I agree that the list is not balanced. It needs some of the more significant mosques etc. However, I don't think that you ought to be opposing the inclusion of buildings without a full understanding of where they fit into the changing styles of architecture. Amandajm (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If somebody proposed adding ten Mayan ruins, a comprehensive understanding of pre-Columbian architecture shouldn't be needed to see how unreasonable that is for such a short list. That more has been said and written about Western architecture than any other is reflected in the way Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article with that title, since it has detailed articles on every style that occurred within its history; by contrast, many other traditions receive the summary treatment and not much else. While I don't think we should propagate this inherent bias towards Western culture into the list of specific buildings, I promise to flip some of my !votes if we do more to include articles on other architectures. You've listed about a dozen architectural styles over on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Level 3 Architecture that, while unlikely to garner support for the level 3 list, I think I'd support adding here. Cobblet (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add: St Mark's Basilica

of unique importance as a work of late Byzantine architecture

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. or the Piazza, as below. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Late Byzantine architecture isn't that important a style. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Ypnypn. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• How about Piazza San Marco instead, which is broader in scope and possibly even more notable. There is an overlap here with WP:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Urban studies and planning, 17, but there are no small public spaces so far included there. --ELEKHH^T 14:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As a work of architecture, St Mark's Basilica is enormously important. It isn't dealt with, in the Piazza San Marco article, only mentioned as closing off one end of the square. St Marks is the reason for the square. To add the Piazza and not the square would be the equivalent of adding Bernini's colonnade and leaving out St Peter's Basilica. Amandajm (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think inclusion to to this list isn't supposed to rely on what is currently in the article, but what is ought to be in it. And please don't diminish Bernini's colonnade: it's the frame for all the rest. --ELEKHH^T 10:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not diminishing Bernini's Colonnade. I am making the point that it is entirely dependent upon St Peter's Basilica. It was built as a visual frame for St Peter's, and a forecourt for St Peter's. If St Peter's Basilica is included (which it is) then the article, of necessity), mentions is piazza and Bernini's colonnade. I agree that the Piazza San Marco is noteworthy in its own right, but unlike Piazza dei' Miracoli at Pisa, the genral term is used to describe the actual piazza, the inward-looking space framed by arcades. It doesn't of necessity refer to the ancient building of which it forms a forecourt. The Basilica is not 'in the Piazza. On the other hand, at Pisa, the term Piazza dei' Miracoli designates the entire site, and includes the Cathedral, Leaning Tower, Baptistery and enclosed burial ground. THese buildings are not random additions to the site; they form a whole, carefully planned precinct of matching structures. Amandajm (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add: Basilica of Saint Denis

Abbott Suger's royal church. He rebuilt the choir and ambulatory to combine all the burgeoning elements of Gothic architecture. It is an icon of French architecture, and crucial in the development of the Gothic style.

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

Support

1. Support Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, first gothic cathedral in human history. Melody Lavender (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think four articles on French architecture (Chartres Cathedral, Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame de Paris and Palace of Versailles) represent the country sufficiently. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Gizza. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

hmm. Chartres Cathedral is a bit close, and better preserved. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC),

Well, Chartres Cathedral is the more exceptional building. Amandajm (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add: Cologne Cathedral

The most significant Gothic building in Germany. Its exquisite Medieval choir has the largest height to width ratio of any medieval church. Its west end (not completed to the original plan until the 19th century) has the tallest paired church towers in the world.

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose "The most significant Gothic building in Germany" is a very poor rationale. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose not vital. Melody Lavender (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Ypnypn. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• And, fun fact, during WWII, my grandfather shot artillery at it. pbp 05:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add: San Vitale, Ravenna

The supreme masterpiece in a collection of Early Christian/Byzantine buildings of Ravenna and one of the most architecturally significant buildings in Italy.

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. --ELEKHH^T 14:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I need a better reason than "one of the most architecturally significant buildings in Italy". Are we including the five most significant buildings from every country? Or only Western Europe gets special treatment?-- Ypnypn (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose We dont need more Italian churches.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose We need more non-European buildings. I would also want to add more modern buildings since this list is starting to turn into a list of old architectural achievements. This list should have new architectural works too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Cobblet, if you are opposing this, then you obviously know nothing whatsoever about the building, but are simply opposing it on the grounds that it is a church and in Italy. Amandajm (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you know far more about architecture than I do, you ought to be in a better position to propose a list of buildings that is culturally and historically balanced. Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add: Durham Cathedral

With Pisa Cathedral, it is one of the greatest Romanesque buildings in the world. It is a building of extraordinary magnificence and character. Moreover, it has the first ribbed vault, the first pointed arched vault and the earliest flying buttresses. The significance of this building is not reflected in its article, to which I should turn my attention in the near future.

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Something Romanesque is needed, though there are other candidates. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - I agree with Amandajm's rationale. Melody Lavender (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. oppose.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Johnbod, there are other candidates, but not more important. I don't think including Pisa, Durham and Speyer is overkill. They are very different buildings, and all in different countries, even if they are close in date Amandajm (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Can we add more non-European buildings? I do not mind adding this one, but I would rather add some new ones now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Many sigificant architectural breakthroughs were achieved in Europe in the past two millenia. There are bound to be many European buildings on the list. Melody Lavender (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Piazza dei Miracoli, Remove Leaning Tower of Pisa

This precinct includes Pisa Cathedral, the leaning tower, the Baptistry and the Campo Santo ( enclosed burial ground) The group is of unique importance as a "matching set". The cathedral is the greatest Romanesque building south of the Alps. The famous Leaning Tower of Pisa is the finest of all the many freestanding Romanesque towers in Italy. The Baptistery is renowned not only for its architecture but for its acoustic qualities. As an incidental, the buildings are closely associated with Galileo and his experiments.

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

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, if the Leaning Tower is already seperately listed, it needs to go.
2. But then remove the Leaning Tower. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support the swap per Amandajm and Johnbod. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The whole area of Piazza dei Miracoli doesn't seem to be as vital as Leaning Tower of Pisa. Zayeem ^(talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2. oppose The list should include the article that people will be looking for not some other article that happens to include it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose The Leaning Tower of Pisa is one of the most vital articles. The plaza is not as vital. Also, I agree with Maunus. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose, the leaning tower is a vital article. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Similar overlap exists between the Parthenon and the Acropolis of Athens. Is this something we should fix? Cobblet (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In the instance of the Leaning Tower, yes. In the instance of the Parthenon, no. The Piazza dei Miracoli is a highly unified site with four buildings planned and designed as a group. The Acropolis is not. The Parthenon is one of the most significant buildings of all time. If something is going to be dropped, in this instance, then it would be the Acropolis rather than the Parthenon. The Leaning Tower is famous for its curiosity value, with the majority of tourists failing to recognise that it is also architecturally important. Amandajm (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt many people have heard of the Plaza, but people learn about the Leaning Tower of Pisa in elementary school. I never head of the plaza until you mentioned it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Speyer Cathedral

One of the most significant examples of Romanesque architecture. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
2. maybe better than Durham above Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Speyer v. Durham- I think there is room for both. They are very different. Amandajm (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Villa Capra "La Rotonda"

Palladio's much imitated masterpiece.

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
4. I think this is one of those very seldom cases where is reasonable to include both the architect and his/her most influential building (if this and Fallingwater go through, we'll have two). In most other cases is either the building (Sydney Opera House) or the architect's overall oevre (Corbu) that is more vital. --ELEKHH^T 09:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add: Ziggurat of Ur

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. I do not see an overlap with the city of Ur. We cover ancient cities and their famous buildings the city and the ziggurat do not overlap. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The city Ur is listed in the history section so adding this will lead to overlap. Perhaps we could have a generic article on Step pyramids instead. Adding the Ziggurat won't be the worse case of overlap on the list but I will need to think about it a bit more. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Amandajm (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Music of Africa, Music of Russia, Music of China, Music of Europe, Music of Latin America and Music of the United States

Why don't we have any articles delineating music by place? We have Latin genres, but we don't have music of Latin America. We have American genres but we don't have Music of the United States pbp 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
2. 'Support Would be a good start towards for dealing with the extreme US-Europe bias in the coverage of music topics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think we need the overall articles. I would rather have specific genres of music than have to music of each specific country. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Latin and Chinese music make for coherent genres, but the others do not and are redundant to what is already on the list. I reiterate my support for Arabic music and Sub-Saharan African music traditions which are similarly coherent topics that currently lack representation. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose, perhaps it's better to make separate proposals for each article. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I definitely support the intention of this proposal. Increasing geographic diversity will represent what is vital in the world of music better. I'm not sure if the best way of doing it is to add general musical overview articles or specific music genres from different parts of the world that have been the most influential and popular. I chose the middle path when I suggested Indian classical music, which has many genres (Hindustani, Carnatic, devotional) but doesn't capture the majority of Indian musical tradition (various folk genres and modern genres).

One problem with some of the general articles is that they say so little of substance and can become list-like. Taking music of Africa as an example, there are 54 countries and 1.1 billion people on the continent. There could be 100 significant genres in Africa. While a group of countries in one region might have musical similarities, there is nothing remotely common throughout Africa. The musical tradition and history in Egypt is radically different from South Africa. OTOH, an article on a dominant and influential genre provides valuable and in-depth information. The reader will learn a lot more from it. But then it means a lot of parts of Africa will miss out. It's a tough decision to make. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments,Gizza. The music section of the vital article list is for genres of music, not over-reaching lists on music in different countries. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Legalism (chinese philosophy)

Legalism was the guiding philosophy of Shi Huangdi, the first emperor of the Qin Dynasty. It is the only philosophy within Chinese Philosophy that hasn't been added yet. Legalism was used to terrorize the people during the Qin Dynasty and is important as an ancient form of totalitarianism.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support The ideological basis for the Qin dynasty, whose brutal implementation of it led to the demise of both the dynasty and the philosophy. No system of thought, before or after, had such a decisive influence on world history until Enlightenment ideals helped precipitate the French Revolution and Marxism rose in the 19th century. Cobblet (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per Cobblet and nom. Neljack (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I have studied Chinese history with literary Chinese sources, and this makes sense for what the English-speaking world needs to know about Chinese philosophical schools. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

While it did influence Chinese political thought as much as Confucianism and Taoism, it's far from being the "only other Chinese philosophy". I'd support adding it, but I think we should be adding Chinese philosophy and Hundred Schools of Thought first, and perhaps Neo-Confucianism should go in before it as well. Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think its vital though since it was the ideology of a major monarch in ancient China. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Legalism is a disambiguation page, Am I right to presume this is the article the thread is proposing Legalism (Chinese philosophy)?  Carlwev  18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. My bad. I will fix that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cobblet's suggested additions. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Swastika

One of the most well-known symbols of humankind. Notorious due to Nazi use, but religiously important in Indian religions. Ancient usage throughout Asia and Europe.

Support

1. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Unconvinced that religious and political symbols are necessary. For example, do we really want to start listing notable flags? Cobblet (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobbet. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Are there many other religious and polictical symbols on VA? I noticed that Om is on the list while Cross isn't. The Swastika would definitely be up there among the most vital of them. It has been used historically throughout many different regions of the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There aren't any other religious symbols AFAIK. I don't know whether they should be considered vital or not. I think there are more noteworthy topics that are also missing. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that the only religious symbols that are vital are the symbols of each religion in the world. The star of David, the Cross, the crescent moon, etc, would be vital. Other symbols would not be vital. If we are going to be adding any religious symbols to the vital article list, we should focus on the symbols that represent the world's major religions. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PointsofNoReturn, the Swastika is a major religious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, even European Paganism etc. And it happens to be the main symbol of Nazism. It is both religious and political. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gizza Perhaps I am being biased. I have a vendetta against the Nazis that prevents me from thinking straight. You are right, the swatsika is a religious symbol. I will change my vote. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah unfortunately the symbol was hijacked by evil. But it was a religious symbol before that and still is now (although it causes a lot of confusion because of Nazi usage). Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gizza Of course, if we add the swastika to the list, shouldn't we add the Cross, the Star of David, and the Crescent moon? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Philately, Add Collecting

Numismatics is the collecting hobby with by far the longest history. Perhaps we could use the general hobby rather than listing a second specific example, which is also covered in postage stamp. We don't seem to list other equally notable examples like antiques or trading cards.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I think we should have both. Yes, we have both philately and stamp; but we also have numismatics and coin. Also, isn't philately under history rather than under everyday life? pbp 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal, support addition. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I was a little surprised not to find hobby listed, but most of the things it lists are already on the list or are currently being proposed, and I suppose there isn't really much more to say about the subject that hasn't been said elsewhere (e.g. in leisure or recreation). Incidentally, I don't really buy the distinction between numismatics and coin collecting; the distinction seems to have been invented so that more serious collectors can scoff at less serious collectors. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that may have failed a long time ago, but I can find no record of it, so I'm again proposing it. BTW, trading card and antique are also good adds; though antique I'd put in aux of history rather than everyday life. pbp 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Hobby

Per Cobblet's suggestion above. We have a number of specific hobbies, but not Hobby itself. pbp 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I think there is research on hobbies themselves as opposed to leisure or recreation more generally. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my comments above. There doesn't seem to be much you can say about hobbies other than just list them. Cobblet (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Trading card

Per Cobblet's suggestion above. pbp 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm not sure if it widespread enough outside of the USA and Canada to be vital. Especially if collectible card game covers different territory. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

On the "widespread" comment, they're quite widely used in Japan, and also in Europe. Trading card can apply to collectible card games (Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic: The Gathering) as well as baseball cards. pbp 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Rupee

There are too many specific currencies on the list. The fundamental concepts in international finance (such as exchange rate above) should replace them. Rupee refers to the currencies of multiple countries but none of them are the among the top 15 traded currencies in the world. The US Dollar, Euro, Yen and Pound Sterling occupy the top four while the Renminbi is ninth and growing. Peso would be similar in importance to Rupee but neither are vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Currency of the second-largest country in the world by population pbp 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Since this article is not only about the Indian rupee, it also covers the historic rupee and other rupee currencies. Being traded should not be the only criterion for inclusion, physical usage should be taken into account. As pbp says, Rupee is Currency of the second-largest country in the world by population. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Redtigerxyz. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose, important currency. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

International trade is another big omission. Globalization is listed on Level 3 so the driving factor of globalization should be on Level 4. There are other big gaps. Stock is more important than all of the listed stock exchanges. Adding derivative (finance) along with stock will mean all three broad types of financial securities will be listed (we already have debt). Opportunity cost, profit, market failure and comparative advantage are all missing. One of either economic growth or gross domestic product also has a very strong case in being added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• GDP has been discussed before here and should have been added. Melody Lavender (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Gross domestic product (GDP) is here in business and economics in social sciences, pretty sure it was added after that discussion thread you linked.  Carlwev  18:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Holi

This is an important Hindu festival that has spread to other regions of South Asia. Celebrations are also scattered around the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  22:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Diwali

Diwali is a sacred holiday for Hindus. It is a national holiday in India and other nations in Southeast Asia. In fact, it is one of the most important holidays for Hindus.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Agree this is clearly vital. Neljack (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

As a festival considered sacred by three religions (Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism), Diwali is an official holiday in multiple countries including many outside South Asia. Comparing it to the other holidays listed, it is definitely vital. Still have to think about Holi. I'm learning towards support but we should determine how many holidays in total we should roughly have. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Eid al-Fitr

One of the most sacred holidays on the Muslim calendar. It marks the end of Ramadan and consists of a massive feast. It is celebrated by Muslims around the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  23:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Corpus Juris Civilis

The foundational work of the civil law tradition - the main source of the Roman law it was built on. Contains the Code of Justinian, the Digest of Justinian, and Justinian's Institutes. This codification of Roman law has had huge influence, not just during the Roman Empire, but right up to the present day. Neljack (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Agree that this is a core part of the civil law tradition. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Welfare

It seems welfare may be more popular than welfare state, so I'll open this one too, same rational as welfare state above.  Carlwev  12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Trade union

Trade unions have had a huge political, social and economic impact. Neljack (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support this one has a strong case  Carlwev  13:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support, clearly an omission. Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Weather forecasting

Meteorology contains 50 articles but this is missing, although attempted since ancient times, more accurate in modern times with modern science and computers. Has effect on travel, tourism, business, agriculture, military, shipping and safety (like predicting large storms). Appears as a common feature on TV with news or in newspapers. Meteorology is the general study of the atmosphere not just weather forecasting.  Carlwev  13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Humans have been trying to predict the weather ever since the advent of agriculture. Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Atmospheric chemistry and Atmospheric physics

As academic fields these are essentially just branches of meteorology: I think they're too specific. Atmospheric chemistry also overlaps with environmental chemistry which is on the list. We also already list atmospheric sciences.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Air pollution

We have nothing to cover concepts like air pollutants and greenhouse gases, smog, or the effect of air quality on human health – all problems that have plagued humanity since industrialization.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support One of the more important topics in our day. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support A major environmental issue - and has been for some time. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Shouldn't air pollution probably be in the same list as pollution? or am I wrong? Pollution is here in Social sciences, issues. First glance this looks like the wrong place. We have waste and waste management under tech, industry too, similar territory to pollution, may belong near these also? thoughts? should we put these together? Surely air pollution at least belongs somewhere with pollution. Also, if we are to have air pollution, should we also have water pollution? almost as significant, I probably would. I support Air pollution too.  Carlwev  13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, putting it next to pollution makes sense. I'm fine with adding water pollution as well. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Water pollution

If we include air pollution I believe we should include water pollution too, it is almost as significant and also an important topic, and something that affects millions of people.  Carlwev  12:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Should we add the equivalent the most significant form of land pollution like littering and soil contamination to complete the set? Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Yeah, litter and soil contamination look like good adds. Maybe we need a section specifically about human impact on the environment and environmentalism. It's an interdisciplinary field so it could go in several places, but since we're talking about human impact I'd put it in the social sciences. Cobblet (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support those suggestions. Neljack (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Physical oceanography

I think the branches of oceanography (ocean chemistry, marine biology, marine geology) can be covered by oceanography itself. I don't think we need to list too many interdisciplinary sciences, and we should prioritize listing broader fields first (we're missing stuff like environmental studies). Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I would support marine biology. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Environmental studies is a good suggestion too. Neljack (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Physical Oceanography describes the ocean currents and temperature, which is critical to our understanding of weather events and other scenarios over the ocean that affect us. As a side note, I would not mind removing ocean chemistry, but the other fields mentioned should be left on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Actually, User:PointsofNoReturn, none of them are on the list. Which is why physical oceanography sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Cobblet (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? In that case, I would not mind removing it. I still think marine biology should be added though if not the others. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Black ice, Add Groundwater

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

As a type of water or ice black ice is not vital, over half the article is written from a traffic POV, as a traffic topic, there are far more vital topics like road surface, traffic lights, either way, it can go, ground water is much better  Carlwev  18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Butte, Add Sediment

Another swap of a non-vital article (a butte is a small mesa, which is also on the list) for a vital one.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Chlorofluorocarbon, Add Ozone depletion

Swap in the environmental issue for the chemical that's being phased out because of it.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Haber process

Last year, the Atlantic published a list of the 50 greatest breakthroughs since the wheel. On a list of 750 technology-related articles, there ought to be room for all of them even if it isn't the definitive list. The industrial synthesis of ammonia developed by Fritz Haber was included as #11, and is arguably the most significant chemical reaction invented by man. To quote from Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, "The catalytic synthesis of ammonia from its elements is one of the greatest achievements of industrial chemistry. This process not only solved a fundamental problem in securing our food supply by production of fertilizers but also opened a new phase of industrial chemistry by laying the foundations for subsequent high-pressure processes like methanol synthesis, Hydroformylation, Fischer–Tropsch process, coal liquefaction, and Reppe reactions."

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support This process is the reason why the human population exploded. The Haber Process is a critical component of science and human history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The chemistry is low on compounds and reactions and high in elements. The initial editors who were probably not very familiar with the topic had to quickly fill the VA list with articles. It is easier to add every element than to think of vital compounds, reactions and other articles if you don't have any expertise in chemistry. This type of thing happens everywhere on the VA list.

Most elements are still vital. Just not all of them. Especially many of the transactinides. We're better off adding the article on the element group and the island of stability. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my comment is that chemistry is better represented by topics that one would find with major section coverage in a chemistry textbook rather than by every element on the periodic table, when we are talking about vital articles. (All of the articles about individual elements will always be on Wikipedia for anyone who is looking for them.) I will first apply a similar winnowing process to the nominated level 4 articles for psychology (I think that list can be trimmed, and part of the article allocation moved to other subsections) and will look on as editors propose restructuring the chemistry subsection. I have some chemistry reference books at hand for checking this process. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Salt metathesis reaction

Not vital: there are more fundamental topics in inorganic chemistry to add, such as oxidation state, electronegativity, ionization energy and coordination complex.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support The other articles suggested look good. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Steelmaking

The development of steelmaking processes like the Bessemer process was responsible for initiating the second phase of the Industrial Revolution and deserves separate treatment from steel. This was #19 on the Atlantic list of scientific breakthroughs.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I would put this alongside metallurgy or metalworking in the technology and industry section instead of chemistry. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I couldn't decide whether steelmaking was better placed next to steel or under metallurgy. Maybe we should create a dedicated metallurgy section in Technology where we can list both metal alloys and metalworking techniques, just like how Textiles contains both natural fibres and techniques for making fabric from them. Cobblet (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Duralumin

Not quite as notable as other historical alloys, including some we don't list such as pewter and cupronickel. Alloys for specialty applications (which is how I would describe aluminum alloys, magnesium alloys and titanium alloys in general) should probably be left off the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  17:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Steam turbine

The most important type of turbine, responsible for most electricity generation today. #36 on the Atlantic's list of 50 great scientific breakthroughs. It's surprising we don't have this when the less vital types of turbines are all covered in one way or another: wind turbine is listed, water turbines are covered under hydropower and gas turbines are covered by jet engine.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support a big omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  14:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Rwessel (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Neljack (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Refining, Add Oil well and Oil refinery

Modern society would be unimaginable if we hadn't invented efficient methods of oil drilling and refining. These came in at #35 and #39 on the Atlantic list. I suggest removing refining since it's just another way of saying "purification" and the article's unlikely to become anything beyond a dictionary definition – my guess is that whoever first put it on the list specifically had oil refining in mind.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  06:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: We should probably have all three pbp 04:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Purplebackpack89, if you really want to include "refining" as a catch-all term for chemical purification methods, the technical term is separation process. I don't really think it's necessary because methods like extractive metallurgy (the refining of metals), fractional distillation (of petroleum), recrystallization (of sugar) and zone melting (of silicon) have little in common with each other, and I think we're better off deciding whether or not to include each process separately. (We've got a subsection for techniques like these under Basics in Chemistry.) Cobblet (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Oil refinery seems much better than refining. I also think Oil platform is pretty significant article. (also called and redirected from oilrig and offsore platform.)  Carlwev  12:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

But an oil platform is a type of oil well: surely the more general article should be listed first. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, it's just that oil platform is in twice as many languages and is significantly longer than oil well in English, but you still have a point, perhaps I am a tad bias, as a Brit virtually all our oil wells I'm aware of are oil platforms in the North Sea. I still think the article on oil rigs could be vital.  Carlwev  06:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Archimedes' screw

This was #31 on the Atlantic's list of 50 great scientific breakthroughs. An essential agricultural device in ancient times and still in use today.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Do we really need sickle, scythe and machete? Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Machete is important more for its usage as a weapon. Sickle and scythe are different types of tools. I personally would want to keep all three due to the symbolism of each item, with the machete as a murder weapon, the sickle one of the symbols for communism, and the scythe the symbol for the grim reaper. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't decide if sickle and scythe are vital or not, probably at the lower end. I was also thinking we have numerous tools/equipment/items of farmers, artists, builders, mechanics, and musicians like pens, pencils, spade, sickle, hammer, saw, instruments and more. If we have sickle and scythe among others, how about things like fishing rod and/or fishing net (we don't have them but we have fishing vessel) these are probably used more and of higher interest than sickle and scythe but they too are a bit border line, not the best or worst, sure we already have fishing itself, but we also already have farmer, agriculture, farm, crop, and field among other things. I'm not sure what people would think of fishing rod and net, probably dislike them.  Carlwev  11:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Broader topics like fishing tackle or angling, or even recreational fishing in general are also possibilities. Cobblet (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Airbus, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin

There are less than 25 companies (present and historical) on the list; no aerospace manufacturer really belongs in such select company, let alone three. Right now United Technologies Corporation has a bigger market cap than any of these.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We dont need specific aerospace manufacturers on this list. None of the three are more vital than the other, and none of them are sufficiently vital for inclusion in my opinion either, so probably it is best to see if we can include a more general article, on aerospace mechanics, history of aviation or some such. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support removing all three. I think it is better to have articles on the general industry instead of specific companies in nearly all cases. A well written article on the aerospace industry (which redirects to aerospace manufacturer) will give due weight and coverage to the most important companies. Most of the automobile manufacturers can go as well since we have automobile industry (which I believe should move to business and economics). Same thing with the oil and IT companies and petroleum industry, software industry, computer industry and online service provider. All industries and companies should be in the one place. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Boeing and Airbus at least. More below pbp 22:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Boeing. We should have one, but not all three. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Boeing, Support airbus and Lockheed Martin. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

It's been suggested that we group the companies under Society and social sciences/Business and economics/Companies. As far as I can remember, right now we've got East India Company and Dutch East India Company under History, a bunch of websites under Mass media, Coca-Cola under Food and drink, and six car companies in Transport. Am I missing any? Are we sure we want to move all of these, or should some of them stay where they are? (I think maybe the websites should stay put.) Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying that UTX is a more significant company just because its stock is worth more is a bad argument. UTX is a worthy company, its makes helicopters and jet engines. But Boeing makes the planes. Boeing and Airbus make most of the civilian and military planes in the whole world pbp 22:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying UTX is a more significant company; I was just trying to point out how Airbus, Boeing and Lockheed Martin aren't even that dominant within their own industry. Making a lot of planes (not "most of the civilian and military planes" either; for instance, none of them make small civil aircraft) is no reason for inclusion in a list of ~20 vital companies. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think all companies (maybe with the exception of websites) should be grouped together. It's hard to keep track of which companies are currently on the list since they're dispersed. They should be compared against each other in order to determine which ones are vital or not.

On a slightly unrelated point, the computing and information technology section contains many operating systems which overlap with the main IT companies (we have both Mac OS and Apple, Windows and Microsoft). I think we should remove some of the overlap and add more general computing articles like mobile computing. Computing and IT with 83 articles in general is overrepresented when you compare to other technology sections like industry, a much broader section that has 82 articles and medical, which only has 8 articles. The over-representation of IT is probably due to Wikipedia's well known computer/geeky bias. Many computer related articles like social media and blog (note that we don't have article (publishing)) are outside of the main section as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at comments, Boeing is the strongest Lockheed Martin is the weakest. Perhaps we should split these singularly, while I'm not keen on any of them really, but others seem to support some and oppose some, so would easier to see what people want if they separate threads.  Carlwev  19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Talk:Uncle#Merger Proposal

I have proposed that uncle and aunt be merged together. As both of these articles are currently listed as vital and a successful merger will affect the number of articles listed, I believe it is important to notify Vital Article WikiProject editors. Anyone who is interested in the proposal is welcome to offer their opinion. Regards. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The merger makes no sense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Rajinikanth

A cult figure, Rajinikanth is the most famous South Indian film hero. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I don't know him, but thats because I'm American. I'll take your word for it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Helps to redress the current bias towards Anglo-American actors. Neljack (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support He is a huge star in a region of the world with much interest in English-language Wikipedia. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. Most Indians have English as their first language. So, yes. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_23#Add_Rajinikanth. There was no consensus to add because not enough people !voted and discussed the proposal. I am learning slightly towards support but I will need to go through the list of entertainers again. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding a second Indian actor is definitely not overkill but the bigger hole is Indian actresses and other female figures of Indian cinema. Hema Malini, the most successful actress box-office wise is an option, as is Lata Mangeshkar, probably the best known playback singer (male or female) in India. I think at least 2 should be added. What do you think Redtigerxyz? Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed that there are two Indian actors listed currently (Amitabh Bachchan and Kamal Haasan). The former is a North Indian (Bollywood) actor predominantly while the latter is mainly a South Indian actor. Bollywood is clearly bigger and more well known than the Southern film industries. From an Indian regional perspective, adding Rajinikanth will make the list unbalanced. I'm back to neutral until other suggestions are made to fix this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominating Lata. I don't still any one heroine has achieved cultic status as Amitabh or Rajnikanth. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there's no shortage of Bollywood icons who could also be added to balance things out. Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Lata Mangeshkar

One of India's best known and respected playback singers, Lata Mangeshkar is awarded the highest civilian award of India Bharat Ratna as well as the highest film award Dada Saheb Phalke Award. For more than a decade, she held the record of the most recordings in the world.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Pāṇini

Seeing as how the world's first historians Herodotus and Sima Qian are listed, I think you can make a case to add the world's first known linguist and grammarian. The Noam Chomsky of his time and for a much longer period of time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Support--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Howie Morenz, Add Dhyan Chand

Howie is probably not even the greatest ice hockey player of the pre-WWII era (I'd argue in favour of Eddie Shore) and shouldn't come close to being on a list of the top 10 ice hockey players of all time, let alone appear on a list that doesn't include Bobby Orr or Mario Lemieux. Field hockey somehow has no representatives on the list at all despite being one of the most globally popular team sports. Dhyan Chand was not only one of field hockey's greatest players but also one of greatest athletes in India's history: that country's award for sportspeople and its national stadium are both named after him.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support It is unjustifiable that ice hockey has five players on the list while field hockey, a sport of comparable popularity, has none. Chand is widely regarded as the greatest player in the history of men's field hockey. Neljack (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Have thought before Chand would be a good add. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

With the World Cup in full swing, this seems as good a time as any to point out that the world of sports does not revolve around the US like our list would have you believe. I know a lot of difficult work has been done to trim it down but I think there remain some fairly obvious cuts to be made. For example, if I haven't missed someone, our list leads one to believe that the four greatest coaches in history are all Americans, and that three of them are basketball coaches (Vince Lombardi being the exception). I think it would make more sense to limit the number of basketball coaches to one and add somebody from a different sport (Alex Ferguson being a pretty obvious choice). I suggest we keep John Wooden and remove Phil Jackson and Pat Summitt. Thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I can agree the add is better than the removal. Don't know if I would prefer a straight removal, but I'll support. I think sportspeople/athletes may still be too big, maybe; and it is probably too American as well, although it's better than it was. I brought up Alex Ferguson before, I think he is of higher importance than several listed footballers and sports coaches/managers, I would probably get behind a swap there. Although I was looking at athletes months back, I haven't paid much attention to that list in a while, and would need to take a closer look to get a better view. I keep thinking of Magnus Carlsen current no1 chess player and highest rating in history, recent, but active for about the same time as Messi footballer who we have. Although something in my head says Carlsen doesn't belong.

Also I think I might prefer slightly more sports/activities and slightly less athletes. Old cultural and questionable things like fox hunting, bull fighting, cock fighting, gladiator, dog fighting. off the top of my head seem more interesting than approx. 20 footballers 15 tennis players etc. I tried to get pro wrestling in too but failed miserably (not a "sport" but as big an entertainment or more so than many listed sports, in my head at the time I thought it could have one space if tennis at the time used up 22 spaces but we didn't like it).  Carlwev  10:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a chess player myself, there's no way Carlsen's one of the 2000 most vital people in history, at least not at this point in time. Give him twenty years. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cobblet that the section on sportspeople is biased towards American sports. A number of popular international sports that aren't big in the US are completely ignored. Other sports have too many players on the list - do we really need 14 tennis players, or 17 soccer players, or 11 baseballers? I have some ideas for adds and removals to try to address the imbalance - I'll probably put some up tomorrow, when I've got some more time. Neljack (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seventeen soccer players I suppose I can understand; fourteen tennis players I really can't. Nor can I fathom why we have more baseball and basketball players than cricketers, or why there are more speed skaters than swimmers, or why boxers overwhelmingly dominates the martial arts (Bruce Lee being the outlier). Plenty of sports are unrepresented: rugby, volleyball, handball, badminton, table tennis, snooker, wrestling, extreme sports... I get that not all of these sports have a large pool of professional competitors but I imagine that at least some of these sports have figures who display an outstanding amount of cultural significance. Cobblet (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all these sports are vital, and thus their athletes are not vital either. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

All the sports mentioned by Cobblet are in fact on the list, so it seems that they are regarded as vital. And rightly so - they are all popular sports internationally, even if some of them may not be big in the countries where most editors are from. Neljack (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Luciana Aymar

Field hockey is one of the most popular sports for women in the world. In fact, women's hockey is probably more popular than men's. In light of that, and the current under-representation of women's sport in the list, I think we should include a female hockey player too. Luciana Aymar is widely regarded as the greatest female player of all time. She has won the International Hockey Federation's Player of the Year award eight times, more than anyone else, male or female. She's still going strong at the age of 36, winning the award again last year. She's won four Olympic medals, four World Cup medals (two gold) and an extraordinary nine medals - including five gold - at the Champions Trophy (the other major international tournament). She's a huge star in Argentina and probably the most famous hockey player, man or woman, worldwide. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Women's sport needs better representation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support She's probably Latin America's most accomplished female athlete (the only competition coming from Marta). Cobblet (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Gareth Edwards

Rugby union is a major international sport, comparable in popularity to American football (and with more global reach, since American football's popularity is of course heavily concentrated in one country). Many people regard Gareth Edwards as the greatest player in the history of the sport - indeed he was voted as such in a poll of international players in 2003. Neljack (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gareth Edwards is the obvious first choice for rugby. I would suggest Jonah Lomu is next most important. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support There should be at least one rugby player and Gareth Edwards is right up there. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Rsm77, I did think about Lomu, but in the end I went for the three names that I have seen most often mentioned as the greatest rugby player of all time. I don't think Lomu is mentioned quite so often - certainly when discussing who is the greatest All Black of all time, the argument is usually Meads v. McCaw. I suspect the reason for that is that, sadly, his kidney illness prevented him from consistently recapturing the sort of extraordinary form that made him a global superstar at the 1995 World Cup. Neljack (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Lance Armstrong, Add Doping in sport

Barry Bonds isn't on the list either.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I'd been thinking Armstrong should go, now he has been stripped of his titles. It's a very good idea to replace him with the issue that he has become the most famous symbol of. Neljack (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Thanks Cobblet for counting the sports biographies by country. The information you collected is very valuable. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support We pretty much now know he was a fraud. BTW, thanks for the breakdown. pbp 15:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose regardless of decisions taken by the UCI, and of how much EPO Armstrong may have taken relative to his fellow competitors, he is leagues more vital than a bunch of other athletes on the list. An encycopledia that didnt have an article on armstrong would not be an encyclopedia. For me a vital athlete is an athlete that readers are most likely to be looking for.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Barry Bonds Should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I counted up the number of athletes from each country on our list (we have 134 in total). Here's the breakdown:

• 65: USA
• 8: Soviet Union/Russia
• 7: France
• 5: UK
• 4: Australia, Germany
• 3: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Spain, Sweden
• 2: Italy, Netherlands, Norway
• 1: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Finland, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Japan, Morocco, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Ukraine

For comparison, even though the US is often said to dominate the Olympics, the Americans have only won 15% of all the Olympic medals ever awarded. What's happened to our list is not American "domination" but an American "infestation". Cobblet (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think, at most, that one-quarter of athletes on this list should be American. If athletes is kept at the present size, that's ~33 athletes. I personally believe it should be shrunk to 100. That's 25 athletes, meaning most of the athletes cut to get to 100 would be American pbp 15:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to cut sports players before. I proposed several cuts across the board, some of which were accepted (especially in soccer) while most of the US proposals were rejected. This is one reason the list is so unbalanced towards US sports.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Michelle Kwan

Never managed to win the Olympic gold. Will be remembered as a great skater, but not among the very greatest (compare her record to Irina Rodnina or Sonja Henie, other female skaters on the list). Figure skaters are over-represented, while other winter sports lack representation at the moment. Neljack (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. pbp 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Compare also with Dick Button and Katarina Witt, neither of whom are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Tara Lipinski

Obviously winning Olympic gold at such a young age was a very impressive achievement, but she then retired from amateur figure skating, so I don't think she had the overall record to warrant inclusion. Like Kwan, a case of recentism. Neljack (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. pbp 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Phil Jackson

Not convinced we need any sports coaches on the list. Great players have a greater cultural impact and achieve greater fame. There are great coaches in all sports, and if we include them as well as great players then this section will become unreasonably large. Neljack (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Just a suggestion (not sure if I support it myself) but there's the option of replacing all coaches with Coach (sport). Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support "one of the best coaches of all times" says very little and its truuth value depends entirely on what country you live in and what sports you like. How do you even compare coaches across sports? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Yes we do need sports coaches. Phil Jackson is one of the best coaches of all time. Also, the article Coach (sport) is an overview article that simply covers coaching in general. it is better to have people than an overview article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Pat Summitt

Same as for Jackson above. Neljack (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. If we have to list individual sports figures instead of teams, coaches should also be represented. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove John Wooden

Per rationale for Jackson above. Neljack (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Neljack (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. If we have to list individual sports figures instead of teams, coaches should also be represented. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Vince Lombardi

See rationale for Jackson. Neljack (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Greg LeMond

LeMond, while a great cyclist, is not on the same level as the other five cyclists listed (excluding Armstrong for obvious reasons). He won the Tour de France three times; all the others won it five times, except for Fausto Coppi, whose career was interrupted by World War II and who, in any case, won far more other stuff than LeMond. These five are generally regarded as the five greatest male cyclists of all time. There are others who would also rank ahead of LeMond, such as Gino Bartali. Neljack (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support The severe pro-American bias of the athletes list is obvious. Accusing those who are trying to fix it of anti-Americanism is as baseless as accusing those who support removing the airplane manufacturers of hating the aerospace industry. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per Neljack and Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Funny how Greg Lemond is the only American to retain his tour title, but that does not make him vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Florence Griffith Joyner

The fastest woman ever. Nobody has got close to her 100m and 200m world records in more than quarter of a century since they were set. I am aware that there have been suggestions that she used drugs, but no evidence to that effect has ever been produced, so I don't think it would be appropriate for us to exclude her on that basis. According to Prince Alexandre de Merode, then Chairman of the IOC's Medical Commission, she was singled out for extra-rigorous testing and never failed a test.[1] Neljack (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Omitting this athlete from the list would be very conspicuous, and in my view a mistake. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support See comments below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Out of curiosity, does cheating make an athlete less vital? Perhaps the controversy itself surrounding the athlete makes the athlete more vital. I am just asking this since we do not include Barry Bonds and are removing Lance Armstrong. Cheating obviously nullifies an athlete's accomplishments, but does that make him/her less vital? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, if notoriety produces vitality (which I can see no logical reason it shouldnt) maybe we should have O.J. Simpson on the list of American football players.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If we agree that an athlete's contribution to their sport isn't enough to earn them a spot on the list, a case based on notoriety or celebrity alone has to be measured against plausible candidates from a variety of professions, places and time periods. Does anyone really think O. J. Simpson is more culturally significant in a global and historical sense than Blackbeard or Giacomo Casanova or Grigori Rasputin or Pablo Escobar or any of the Four Beauties?... Cobblet (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this conversation is going but, "notoriety?" We previously had a "criminals" section with Elizabeth Báthory, Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper many serial killers and more, on it. We removed it and most of it's members, (but moved Bin Laden and Guy Fawkes to rebels and revolutionaries and Al Capone to businessmen). The people Cobblet mentions would plausibly have higher case than O J Simpson etc if we followed that line of thought, as would say, Billy the Kid and Bonnie and Clyde serial killers and more, We don't list Mafia, Sicilian Mafia, Yakuza, Triad (underground society) or Ku Klux Klan, all of which are much more vital, notorious, culturally significant, bigger impact on society and history than O J Simpson, I would think.  Carlwev  14:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC).  Carlwev  14:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether an athlete can only gain vitality through athletic contributions or also through other events that make them important public figures or which make them historically significant. The answer to this question impinges on other topics as well. The main problem facing this project si that encyclopedic vitality is such an ill-defined concept as to be meaningless - especially given the many conflicting definitions used by editors here. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, an athlete can be vital because of non-athletic contributions. That doesn't mean I'd put O.J. or Bonds on, or leave Lance Armstrong on. For a lot of reasons. I don't think their notoriety is in a class with the criminals we have or the criminals that have been mentioned (though I would support a Blackbeard ad; not sure where to put him though). Plus, there's the whole American bias issue: I doubt O.J. and Bonds have a lot of notoriety outside the U.S. and Canada. pbp 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt support O.J. either to be sure, that was a tongue in cheek suggestion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that constantly surprises me about this project is that even though nobody has defined what vitality means, we still frequently get broad consensus on an extremely wide range of proposals. While it needs refining, vitality clearly isn't a meaningless concept. Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That is true. There is obviously a sense of vitality when dealing with articles like Earth. Its mostly the more controversial proposals that there are varying definitions of vitality. Perhaps we should have a major discussion about what vitality really means and try to stick to that definition. It would make the project run more smoothly. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Dale Earnhardt and Richard Petty

We don't need three American NASCAR racers. We probably don't need any. We still have Foyt. pbp 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
2. I think having one is reasonable but no more. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see anyone trying to remove European drivers. I would only support this if European drivers were removed too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:PointsofNoReturn, there isn't the kind of bloat among European athletes that there is among American athletes. At present, one-third of our drivers are NASCAR drivers. NASCAR is not a particularly old circuit, and its races and drivers are almost exclusively in a single country. Looking at the broader view, we still have 40-50 American athletes against only 70 or so from the other 95% of the world. We have more American athletes than American political leaders, WAY more. We have more American athletes than American authors. We have more American athletes than anything expect maybe actors, which is also grossly bloated, particularly in the area of Americans. Even though America constitutes most of the English Wikipedia-using world, that doesn't entitle it to constitute so much of the biographies section. pbp 14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Purplebackpack89 But in the auto racing section there are nine people on the list. You are simply removing all the Americans from the sport even though there are two different leagues for racing. The list for auto racing itself is already balanced as it is. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm keeping Foyt. One American and six non-Americans seems fair. pbp 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
      • 3 Americans is fair. A 2 to 1 ratio against Americans seems fair to me. Don't forget that other types of racing have people from all sorts of nationalities while Nascar only has Americans. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that NAscar is an exclusively American sport to me looks like an argument for having 1 American or less not a 2:1 ratioUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

Except that the popularity of Nascar is comparable to the popularity of European racing. European racing is twice as popular as Nascar so a 2:1 ratio seems fair to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you measure that? Not by country apparently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Origin of language

Although I think history of writing should be in, I was also thinking of this, and others said it may be more deserving as it concerns language in general specifically spoken obviously not just writing. History of Math Sci Art and Tech are in the vital 100, then history of medicine and agriculture in the vital 1000, it follows that history/origin of language (history of language redirects to this article) may deserve a place at least at the 10,000 level, since language itself is in the vital 10. Language section at the moment has 169 articles in it, so an article like this should really get a place if we are dedicating this many articles to language.

Unsure if this should be history or language, kind of looks like it belongs in language, history of writing looks better in history, but this article is basically the history of language so should logically also be in history?  Carlwev  07:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  07:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Probably makes more sense to have it under language. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I agree with Neljack that putting it under language might be best. The article is not really about history but how language first formed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add: Wawel Castle

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Good representation of Polish architecture. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Dies Irae

Pre-Baroque music continues to be poorly represented on the list of individual works. Sacred music is also poorly represented. Therefore, I propose this 800 (or more?)-year old ditty for the list. As evidenced by its article and this YouTube video, the song continues to be sampled in various scores and compositions. pbp 15:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 15:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose sacred music is not a genre, and Dies Irae is just one of a large number of early liturgical songs. I dont see any rationale for why this one in particular should be picked.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Dies Irae is not really a piece of music - there are countless different musical versions of it. In any case, it's not clear that it has had a greater musical influence that other parts of the Mass. Cobblet's suggested additions of Mass (music) or church music would be preferable. Neljack (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would support a more general article on medieval music. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Who nominated this genre? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I did pbp 15:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Maunus, seriously? Sacred music is a specific type of music, and a rather important type of music at that. It was very nearly the only genre of music for. As for not seeing any rationale, didn't you read my statement about this being a particularly old mass setting (most of the other settings from its time have been lost to the sands of time), and a setting that has been referenced by a great many other musical works? pbp 16:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a tough call. If a specific piece of Medieval/Renaissance music needs to go on the list then this is probably the best choice. But I'm not sure it's a good idea to list this when we could be listing Mass (music) or even church music instead. I think we've got too many specific musical compositions listed and too few articles on broader topics in music. European classical music is represented by thirty works: is that too much? (The glut of pop music selections is arguably worse.) If it isn't, then I suggest swapping this for something like the Clavier-Übung III (which should probably go anyway). Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Three Pure Ones, Add Zhuangzi (book)

Deities more significant to Chinese culture and not currently on the list include Guan Yu, Guanyin, Fu Lu Shou or Cai Shen. The number of people who subscribe to Taoist philosophy is much greater than the number of people who participate in Taoist religious practices, so while other foundational text of Taoism besides the Tao Te Ching is absolutely vital, the Taoist deities aren't.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support This is a very good swap. (I studied Chinese language and Sinology as an undergraduate and lived in east Asia for six years.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Parmesan and Gouda, Add Paneer

Five varieties of a non-staple food like cheese seems excessive when notable varieties of staple foods like noodles, flatbread (both nominated below) and couscous are missing. Having all of them be European, including two from Italy, is also undue bias. Gouda isn't vital; Parmesan is a little better, but in terms of production it lags behind Mozzarella and Cheddar in the USA, and behind Mozzarella and Grana Padano in Italy. Paneer serves as a meat substitute in South Asian cuisine in the same way that tofu does in East Asian cuisine: it plays a more significant culinary role than most European cheeses, which tend to be used more as condiments than as dietary staples.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support removing parmesan and gouda. Oppose adding paneer. Dal is the more important meat substitute and staple. Three cheeses is plenty. If there are 5 cheeses, you can make a case for multiple types of wine, chocolate, beer, candy, coffee, tea, pies, cakes and everything else. The list will balloon. Unless consensus changes to allow for more than 500 articles in "Everyday life" (I doubt that will happen) there isn't enough space. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose removing Parmesan and Gouda. These types of cheese are popular. I would support a simple addition of Paneer though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Dal is also a meat substitute for vegetarians in South Asia. I'll think about this proposal a bit more. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Lantern Festival

The Lantern Festival is another important holiday to the Chinese. It is of similar importance as Yom Kippur to Judaism. It should be on the list as should Chinese New year.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose IMO, you can't justify including two Chinese holidays and three Jewish ones when no Indian ones are listed and neither is Eid al-Fitr. Besides, the Mid-Autumn Festival is more important (fully analogous to Thanksgiving in the US and Canada) – if we want a second Chinese/East Asian holiday that is the more obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Fair enough. Lets add an Indian holiday. Any ideas? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, Holi and Diwali were both nominated by Carlwev recently but didn't attract quite enough support at the time. That may change now though. I for one would support adding both. Cobblet (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Diwali and Holi have now been added. Eid has been too. Is the Lantern Festival the second most important festival in Chinese culture? It might be best to refer to reliable sources or ask someone who is familiar with this area. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Extinct language, Add Sociolinguistics

The concept of language extinction is already covered in language death and endangered language. Sociolinguistics is vital: it studies how language is used in society – how and why people of different social classes, ethnicities, age, geographic location, etc. speak the same language differently. Concepts like accent, dialect, multilingualism and even language extinction are all aspects of sociolinguistics.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Extinct language and language death cover very similar territory. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I prefer extinct language, although I would not mind a straight addition of Sociolinguistics. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Welfare state

Important topic in the modern world and economy, effects many people a lot who depend on it, and others who pay tax to pay for it, a vital topic for an encyclopedia that is covering government and economic topics like we are. A few other users have expressed interest in this already, but I'm unsure of it's placement, I would have thought in economics with pension, but government seems sensible too, thoughts on that? Should we have simple Welfare also/instead? they are both decent articles, but welfare state is slightly longer and in a few more languages, thoughts on that too?  Carlwev  13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Both the public policy concept and its concrete implementation are vital. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportWelfare State is an expansion of welfare that includes universal healthcare and unemployment insurance. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think welfare is more vital than welfare state. I wouldn't mind having both but there could be a big overlap. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Human intelligence

The article Human intelligence is a recently hived-off article, parallel to Artificial intelligence (already in the list of 1,000 vital articles, under the technology group of topics), formerly a part of the article Intelligence. This article fits well in the psychology topics planned for the list of 10,000, and it is already on my do-list as an article to significantly expand and revise on the basis of reliable sources that I have already shared on the article talk page and have at hand for edits over the next several months. This nomination replaces a nomination of another article (similar topic, but narrower, better quality article today) I made earlier today.

Support

1. Support as nom. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Clearly a topic of considerable importance. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support I don't have an intricate understanding of the area but from my general knowledge and what I've read below, I think the general intelligence should be swapped with artificial intelligence at the 1000 level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Are you aware we have intelligence already or not? Sorry to play devil's advocate, how many human article's do we want, lots of topics have a non-species-specific overview article then a human one? We only have a few at moment like Human gastrointestinal tract, human body and human tooth. Why not these that are missing (but most we have the non species specific article) human brain, human heart, Human skeleton, Human penis, Human skin, Human fertilization, just to name a few, all of these seem to be written about about more around the world than human intelligence as they are in more languages than human intelligence that is only in 1 other language. I admit that the general article will always be mostly human anyway, like we have skeleton and human skeleton, but the skeleton article is mostly going to cover human skeleton anyway. Intelligence article is going to cover a lot about human intelligence too. Out of human specific articles, human brain seems one of the most significant. So which "human" articles do we include (in addition to the regular article) or exclude and why?  Carlwev  09:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize – these are exactly the issues we should be discussing. Supporting your point that there's redundancy here is the fact that Britannica has no article on "intelligence" at all, just "human intelligence". Cobblet (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing half the issue is just, what an editor decides to name an article when starting it, and what page other people go to to read and write about intelligence, and specifically intelligence in humans. In English the Human intelligence article (and the AI article too) is better than the intelligence article. But in other languages all the info must surely be at their intelligence articles as the human one doesn't exist. I'm guessing we all think intelligence of humans is vital, it's just which page should it be on, and I suppose if I think of it like that, it should be at human intelligence; and maybe we should have all 3 in the 10,000 human intelligence, AI and intelligence... I'm tired.  Carlwev  10:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You pose a thoughtful question, for which my answer is that the article Intelligence has always included many different aspects of the topic of intelligence, including the topic of Artificial intelligence, which previously made it onto the list of 1,000 level 3 vital articles. Now that I am discussing articles under the heading "Psychology" for the level 4 10,000 vital articles list, it seemed to me to best fit reader expectations to nominate an article that doesn't duplicate the sections about artificial intelligence for the level 4 list, especially because it would be under the heading "psychology." But as far as I am concerned as nominator, I'm happy to go with editor consensus on this issue as to whether the level 4 list newly includes Human intelligence (as I have nominated) or Intelligence (the article you ask about). To have no article on that topic by the time we get to the level of 10,000 vital articles seems plainly incorrect, based on actual visits to the various related pages. (In my opinion as an editor who reads the reliable secondary sources on psychology, the only related article that is reasonably well sourced is IQ classification, but I have already announced that I will consider it my commitment to clean up and expand any article that I add to the level 4 10,000 vital articles list. All the related articles are on my watchlist; I have sources for all of them in my office.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Declaration of war

Covered under law of war. I don't think we need this any more than we need armistice or ceasefire or peace treaty.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support They're basically obsolete now. Neljack (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Declarations of war have been an ideal but have never been reality for much of world history. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I hope it's obsolete, Neljack. While interesting as a stage in a conflict escalation, there are other topics that are sociologically just as interesting that I would prefer over this law topic. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Rwessel (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This is critical to the beginning of every war. I also would add armistice and peace treaty. We also need surrender too. These are all vital articles to war. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Do we need surrender (military) either? Cobblet (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Phylum, Class (biology), Order (biology), Family (biology), Genus

The internal taxonomic ranks aren't vital: the fact that five of these are designated as "major" ranks is arbitrary, and people have not hesitated to make up new ranks they find convenient (e.g. Tribe (biology) or Legion (biology); even phylum was not in Linnaeus's original taxonomy). Also genus is covered by binomial nomenclature, added above.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support arbitrary ranks in a hierarchy, not individually vital. Geographic ranks like District, County, Province and Wilayat aren't vital, taxonomic ranks shouldn't be either. Plantdrew (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Cobblet and Plantdrew. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cladistic taxonomy makes many of these category names obsolete. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support We also already have biological classification, which is enough for the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Tomatillo

Pretty low down the scale compared to other fruit and vegetables. There is talk of reducing organisms and this one looks weak, compared to other plants/fruit/veg on the list and some not on the list. Article says they are a staple of Mexican cuisine, but we didn't want to add Mexican cuisine itself. Other plants and organisms have been mentioned which are missing and seem higher importance, are olive, nutmeg, willow, Taxus baccata, Henna, Mole (animal), I think we need some removals and possibly some swaps.  Carlwev  18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support not very vital as a vegetable (I think the closely related Cape gooseberry might actually be produced in greater quantities globally, though I don't have firm production statistics for either)Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support not vital. Also support adding olive in place of this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support A very tasty plant, but not a vital article topic. I'll be making quite a few more remove suggestions in the next few days, after thinking about this for a while and gathering reference materials. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discusson

• I was thinking about suggesting add Henna, what do people think of this? Cobblet mentions some other good probably better candidates, olive, nutmeg, willow, do people like these, at least for swaps? We have olive family (Oleaceae) could we swap this out for olive itself? seams sensible. In short I thought it would be better to suggest removals before additions, but I may suggest some of these adds soon, but I'll attempt to find more removals than adds.  Carlwev  18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Henna. What about Annatto/Bixa orellana or Indigofera/Indigo dye? I'm not saying those are necessarily vital, but they might be up there with henna if we're considering dye plants. Swapping Oleaceae for olive is good (olive is right at the top of my mental list of important missing food plants). Willows are pretty iconic, but I do think there is a bias on the list towards common forest trees of the temperate Northern Hemisphere; I'd suggest swapping out hazel for willow (hazelnut is also on the vital list, and I don't think the trees and the nuts are both vital). Nutmeg would be a good addition. Note that the nutmeg article was rescoped a couple weeks ago, and now focuses on the spice/plant product, not the plant species Myristica fragrans. A few of the vital listed edible plant articles are really about plant products (with the botanical source of the product treated in a separate article with a scientific name as the title). Nevertheless, it's probably better to keep all of the articles on edible plants/plant products together in one section of the vital list. Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Those swaps look like good ideas. Also, persimmon looks like a good fruit to include if we're going by production statistics (4.5 million tonnes in 2012 according to FAOSTAT – more than apricots or avocadoes). Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Breastfeeding

Although not every individual's preference today, this must have existed in every culture of the world throughout all history since before we were even human. I believe it to be of interest to the general reader, and the more expert, only thing that covers this that I'm aware of is breast, infant and milk, which is hardly a big overlap. Several people already expressed interest in this. The article is very long and in many languages as I would expect, and probably does a much better job of explaining why it's vital than I can here in one paragraph.  Carlwev  06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The most important article related to babycare. Definitely a better article than baby transport. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support The rationale makes a lot of sense. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I also thought of diaper, and I remember someone else mentioning it as well, I think I would probably support diaper too but not not as strongly as breastfeeding, it's fairly significant.  Carlwev  12:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I know of cultures where diapers are entirely nonexistent, so I think that article is of much less importance than the article about breastfeeding. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add fertilisation

The most important part of sex. It is the exact moment that a full human cell is formed that eventually turns into a human baby. This process is also the center piece of the abortion debate about whether or not a human cell counts as a living being. It is also top importance in wikiproject biology.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support It should be pointed out that this isn't an article about human fertilization but the union of gametes during sexual reproduction in general. Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  12:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This is pretty important more so than ejaculation, I was also thinking of IVF or In vitro fertilisation, what do people think of that?  Carlwev  18:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's one of many modern medical advances that should at least be considered. Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support an addition of In vitro fertilisation PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Density

We're missing some basic physical quantities.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support fairly big omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Field (physics)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Electrical wiring, Lighting and HVAC

Necessary components of all modern buildings, not just houses. HVAC refers to ventilation and temperature control systems in general and is essentially a subdiscipline of mechanical engineering.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support vital engineering topics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support (although weak support for HVAC) Rwessel (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support, HVAC, we have already air conditioning, (the AC of HVAC) I would probably also include ventilation singularly too.  Carlwev 

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Pantry, Add Cabinetry

Only posh houses have pantries as separate rooms. Most people make do with cupboards and cabinets of some sort. Cabinet (furniture) was removed from Everyday life/Household items last year because it was a redirect and not enough people supported the idea of adding cabinetry. I still think it's a worthwhile addition, not just in the context of household items (although we can still put it there) but also of woodworking and the history of decorative arts.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Merriam Webster says pantry doesn't have to be a seperate room, it can be identical in meaning to cabinet. To a degree this is American versus British usage. I'm still supporting because the meaning of cabinetry is wider, I think. Whoever originally put pantry on the list may have meant food storage in general, because people usually say "keeping a pantry" and mean food storage. So food storage should probably be added. Some day. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Melody Lavender, we don't have food storage, but we did list food preservation recently. Cobblet (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not the same thing. It's not about the chemical or physical preservation, but about the logistics process (and budgeting) in any household. Food storage is vital, we're just not aware of it because we can just go to the store every week or every day and buy anything. The logistics in developed countries are such that food storage in the house is not really necessary. This was different throughout most of history and is still done in poorer countries. In western societies poverty is also on the rise and people become aware of the problem. Food storage is also a religious mandate for a Christian subgroup in the US, I'd have to look up the name. Food storage is also an issue for anybody who wants to prepare for the end times or other crisis. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add steamboat

I think we should have articles like this, as in vessel by power, we have sail and sailing, Barge, Canoe, Caravel, Container ship, Ferry, Fishing vessel, Junk (ship), Merchant vessel, Passenger ship, Riverboat, many of which are ship by use, I think ship by power is slightly more relevant to technology, I think some of our present ships are less worthy than steamboat. We have several automobile shapes/types (Convertible, Coupé, Hatchback, Sedan (automobile), Sports car, Sport utility vehicle, and Station wagon) most of which I think are fairly weak, and I'm thinking of suggesting removals among them, maybe, to keep balance.  Carlwev  10:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  10:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 15:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support better than many of the articles that Carlwev mentioned above, which we could remove if we run out of room. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I'd support removing all the subtypes listed under automobile and truck. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Agree with Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Sedan (automobile)

This is only a car shape, and effects virtually nothing else, does not affect the power, fuel, machinery/technology/engine, speed, nor a cars usage in any way other than the position of the engine, seats and trunk. Even if my explanation is slightly inaccurate, I don't think this is a top 10,000 article. I may follow this with other car shapes later one at time, probably.  Carlwev  19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Nobody seems to have a problem with us not listing more types of houses and apartments like studio apartment, condominium, loft, townhouse, bungalow, semi-detached, mansion and manor house, and shelter is obviously a more important topic than cars. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support If we were to have a type of car, four-wheel drive seems to be a better choice than sedan, coupe, station wagon and hatchback. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support -- Rwessel (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Off topic, but I agree with and it's funny I was thinking of making the exact same comparison, that we aren't listing different types of houses, like terraced semi-detached and detached.  Carlwev  23:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to what Gizza said, there are plenty of car-related topics that have more significance: I'd at least consider additions like automotive design, either petrol engine or four-stroke engine, and transmission (mechanics). Cobblet (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I also had electric car on my mind for cars too, (and for trains electric locomotive, steam locomotive and possibly although weaker diesel locomotive. Trains seem to have less, partly as there are no military trains like ships and planes, and much is a list of city subways which seem less vital than the 3 major train types. Other interesting train articles are Shinkansen High speed rail and Maglev)  Carlwev  10:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Coupé

Pretty much the same rational as Sedan above.  Carlwev  19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support -- Rwessel (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add National Highway System (United States)

We currently list 5 rapid transit systems and 1 railway system but no highway systems, which dwarf those in size and importance. The National Highway System of the United States includes the Interstate Highway System, United States Numbered Highways, and various other roads and (according to the article) is the largest highway system in the world at 160,000 mi (260,000 km). Malerisch (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not particularly significant when compared to other landmark road systems in history (Royal Road, Roman roads, Autobahn). The one achievement in American transport history I'd consider adding to the list is the First Transcontinental Railroad. I also think we should remove all the rapid transit systems with the possible exception of the London Underground. Cobblet (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd argue that the National Highway System is very significant, considering that the Interstate Highway System is the "largest and most expensive public works project ever undertaken" (source). Wikipedia has the cost at $425 billion. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article about the transcontinental railroad isn't on the vital articles list yet, it certainly outranks an article about the Interstate Highway system (which was preceded by the railroad, which helped set the locations of cities later served by highways, and was also preceded by the earlier national United States highway system). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Malerisch, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Chinese expressway or high-speed rail projects end up with much higher price tags. I don't know if there's reliable data on the total length of the China National Highways plus Expressways of China when they're being expanded so quickly (there's an uncited figure of 1.87 million km in the former article but that might be referring to all roads in China), but again it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up exceeding the US system when it's complete. That doesn't mean I think it's any more vital than the American one. Cobblet (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A source for the number of 1.87 million km can be found here on page 239. However, the link also describes the United States as having 6.39 million km of road. The figure is repeated here on page 36, which also provides some costs in RMB. However, these figures seem to be referring to all the roads in China rather than just the expressways.

This link from People's Daily quotes the Minister of Communications as "From now to 2030 China will complete work on 85,000 kilometers of expressways at an estimated cost of 2 trillion yuan (242.1 billion US dollars) in total, including one from Beijing to Taipei." I think it's clear that the United States network is more extensive and expensive. Malerisch (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

For more up-to-date information about the total length of road networks, see this. In addition, it turns out that the NHS is 223,668 miles long (359,959 km) due to MAP-21. Malerisch (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

One last thing: the Interstate Highway System is the main legacy of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Malerisch (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That's selling Eisenhower short: the man had many accomplishments. Fortunately we list him among the US presidents so this aspect of his legacy is at least mentioned.

What's clear to me is that the length of a road network depends on how you define it: America did not suddenly build 100,000 km of roads in 2012. I'm not sure how reliable statistics on total road network lengths can be (I doubt the CIA says anything about their sources or methodology) but if we trust them, then fifteen years ago, the US had 6.42 million km of roads but China had just 1.21 million km. So over the last fifteen years, China has tripled the size of its road network (entirely believable if you've been there) while America's has grown 2.6%. Again, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if China eventually ends up with more roads than the US – they do have a much bigger population and they are now the world's largest market for automobiles.

Also, we'd be fools to trust Chinese project cost estimates (do construction projects never go over budget?) when China's own leaders don't even trust their own GDP figures. And this is leaving aside the problem of purchasing power parity when comparing monetary figures from different countries.

My point is, using statistics like these is potentially fraught with problems, particularly when there also happen to be national interests at play and there's no impartial international commission to monitor the issue. Sure, the US has a big road network because it's a big and wealthy country; but does that mean the US highway system figures prominently in the history of technology? I'm not so sure it does, particularly when modern concepts of national highway and expressway systems date back to the French routes nationales and the German autobahn network respectively. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right that China's growth has been tremendous over the last decade or so. However, shouldn't we be evaluating the networks' importance based on their current status, not some goal for the future that hasn't been attained yet? Projections about Chinese expressways or high-speed rail projects may or may not come to fruition. This list can always change in the future, but it should be based on the present, and as of today, China's network is clearly less significant. Who knows: Dyson spheres, Terraforming, or the Alcubierre drive may be significant later, but they aren't currently and so aren't listed.

I would say that the NHS is mainly an engineering marvel rather than a technological marvel, much like the Great Wall of China, the Hoover Dam, or the Burj Khalifa. I don't think that the London Underground or the Øresund Bridge would feature any more prominently in the history of technology than the NHS. Malerisch (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're certainly correct that the NHS was not the first highway system and was inspired by the Autobahn, among others. However, the Three Gorges Dam obviously isn't the first dam (it opened in 2008!), yet it is still listed because it is the largest hydroelectric power station. Why can't we list the largest highway system? Malerisch (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As a separate discussion, why include the London Underground but exclude the longer and busier Beijing Subway? If this is due to the more significant history of the London Underground, couldn't the same logic apply to the NHS vs Chinese expressways? Malerisch (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In 1994, the American Society for Civil Engineers made a list of what they considered the Seven Wonders of the Modern World as related to civil engineering: the Golden Gate Bridge makes the list but the American Interstates do not. Why? My problem is not so much the fact that America's highway system's going to lose its first-place status, but that it shows such a status is not very meaningful in defining an engineering marvel in the first place.

Is there technical innovation? Is there an attempt to test the limits of civil engineering? Are people moved – do they "marvel" at the sight of it? The Three Gorges Dam and Golden Gate Bridge probably fit all three. Roman roads fit at least the first two, while specific structures like the Alcántara Bridge again fit all three. The London Underground and the autobahns fit the first. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System also fits the first two criteria and I think even that is more of a marvel than any modern road network as a whole or stuff like the Beijing Subway, which fit none. I doubt the average Joe in America sees the street they live on as part of some abstract "marvel", and I don't care if China ends up with twice as many roads as the US – the Chinese road network is never going to be an engineering marvel the way the Anji Bridge is. Cobblet (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Interstate Highway System is actually one of 10 achievements that the ASCE considers "Monuments of the Millennium" ("civil engineering achievements that had the greatest positive impact on life in the 20th century").

As to your 3 criteria questions:

1. Yes. Here's a list, which also describes the IHS as an "engineering marvel."
2. Yes. The original portion of the Interstate Highway System was the largest public works project ever and took 35 years to complete.
3. To quote this article, "The Interstates are so much a part of the daily life of Americans that most people do not realize that the system they use to get to work, to school, to the mall, and to their vacation destination could be considered one of the 'wonders of the world.'" I'm sure that those who commute across the Golden Gate Bridge every day, for example, would quickly stop marveling at it and "take it for granted" once it became part of their daily routines.

But more importantly, I think you're missing a crucial factor: what impact does it have on society? The IHS is most noted for this. From the first link, "the nation's interstate highway system revolutionized travel, economies and the daily standard of living in North America by providing an efficient means of direct, high-speed transportation for individuals and businesses across the United States and into Canada and Mexico." Here's an article on its economic impact, and here's one on its cultural impact. Malerisch (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My responses to your responses:

1. With apologies to the FHA, none of these innovations are even at the level of something that's received international recognition like the Salginatobel Bridge, let alone something the general public really needs to know about. There are American engineering failures (Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)) that they're more likely to have heard of than anything on that list.
2. Being big and taking a long time to finish does not mean testing the limits of technology. Did anybody say to Eisenhower or his planners, "Build the Interstates? You're crazy! That's impossible!"
3. "Could be considered" implies "generally not considered". And don't you think similar statements could be written and statistics compiled on the impact of the Chinese road network on Chinese society? Why list the project that matters to the US and not the one that matters to China? Do either of them matter to the world as a whole? I'd ask the same thing about most of the ASCE list you quoted – it was voted on by ASCE members after all. Cobblet (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct on the first and second points—these innovations aren't that significant, and size does not mean testing the limits of technology. On the other hand, I'd argue that size clearly matters in general. The Great Wall of China wouldn't be on this list if it were 200 km long instead of 20,000 km. The Akashi Kaikyō Bridge is on this list instead of the Xihoumen Bridge because it is slightly longer, and the same reasoning goes with the Three Gorges Dam instead of the Itaipu Dam. I nominated the NHS partly because it is the longest highway system in the world. China's is not. If you feel that China's expressways are vital, I'd support that as well.

I also don't think that those questions are the best way of assessing if something is a "marvel." The proper method would be finding reliable sources to back up claims, and the link I provided above as well as books like this and this do call it a marvel. For the record, China's highways are also called marvels here.

However, I'm not nominating this based on its size alone. Like I said before, the NHS has had a much more significant economic impact than any rapid transit system. (Specifics). To me, a highway system is more important than a rapid transit system since highways connect a whole country while rapid transit only connects a city. By the way, if you still disagree, do you feel that any modern highway systems are worthy of inclusion? Malerisch (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think size is one of the factors that the public takes into consideration when deciding what they find significant (i.e. my third criterion). So is being first: Xihoumen is a very new bridge. (And in terms of engineering challenges there's no comparison: Akashi-Kaikyo is built in a seismically active area.) I also happen to think the Itaipu Dam is worth including.

For me it's less a matter of RS's and more a matter of NPOV: I'd be more impressed if you could find non-American sources that are equally enthusiastic in calling the Interstates an "engineering marvel". Americans know how to sell: as great as the Interstates are, they can't compete with America's Best Idea. By the way, let me dispel any notion that I'm a vitriolic anti-American (I picked the right day to do it) by pointing out my proposal to add American TV was roundly shot down, and I think the global influence of American TV programs is much easier to demonstrate than the global impact of its highway system.

I've already said I'd support removing all the subway systems with the possible exception of the London Underground: cities around the world have copied the idea of an underground railway and even the system map, which is iconic in graphic design. Tomorrow we could shut down the Tube forever without affecting its historical legacy. The FHS can't claim any such pioneering influence; rather it copied others, as I've described. The Roman roads are arguably the most significant road system in history: in the context of their time, I think they're more impressive in scale than any modern road system. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, I can see your perspective on this nomination and so have withdrawn my proposal (I can do that, right?). I might nominate some of the proposals that have come up instead. Thanks for putting so much effort into this discussion! Malerisch (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as well – it's hard to arrive at a sensible concept of "vitality" without somebody asking tough questions about it. You're right that I should've specifically mentioned social impact (but in a global sense, mind you) in deciding which works of engineering to include. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Human in the vital 10?

I've opened discussion and vote for human in the vital 10 (here). Brought up a couple of times before but never formally voted on. Carlwev (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the other lists (that human vs. culture swap needs one more !vote to go through), I'd like to point out that the level 2 list features cuisine but level 3 has cooking instead. I brought this up once but the thread was closed before consensus could be achieved. This is the only discrepancy between those two lists: is there any interest in resolving this? Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure; feel free to bring it up again. - Ypnypn (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize cuisine was absent from the 1000 list when the last thread was open. I think both cuisine and cooking should be at the 1000 level. In the 100 level I think maybe cuisine but not cooking should be the way, maybe neither, we have food already?. That's only my opinion, yeah bring it up again see what other's opinions are too. Make sure to mention what is and is not at each level already.  Carlwev  20:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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