Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Car makers and brands

  • I propose to include these manufacturers and brands:
  1. Buick
  2. Mazda
  3. Mitsubishi Motors
  4. Suzuki
  5. GMC (automobile)
  6. Jeep
  • I propose to remove:
  1. Oldsmobile
  2. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars
  3. Rover Company
  4. Saab
  5. Zastava Automobiles

--Igrek (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nix on the adding. We already have too many already pbp 14:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles that appear more than once

What's the policy on articles that are mentioned more than once, usually in more than one section? Has it been discussed before? Eg History of the Earth is in History and also in Physical sciences - Earth science. I originally thought all articles that appear should appear only once, is this correct?. I imagine the issue may or may not have been discussed before, there might be no strict agreed rule, maybe we should decide a loose rule, if one doesn't already exist.

Some topics might be very important to more than one area. Like History of the Earth or History of science plus many more. But to list some twice would make a nightmare for counting how many articles there are in total, would they be counted twice or only once? Even if a topic is vital to multiple areas like Science and History, I think to list some twice is awkward because a huge amount of topics overlap different areas, thats what wikipedias category system navigates. A huge number of topics could fit easily into two or more sub sections and to list some twice but not others, or to list all twice, either way would be a bad idea.

I wondered if the list is supposed to resemble more contents or index, but this might be a bad comparison. Carlwev (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Covered more than once

In perticular fiction and fictional character's and worlds are covered more than once. I think characters that are not well known for one work but have appeared accross many different types of media and many titles. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Tarzan, James Bond, Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes are across books TV comics movies and games and are not famous for a single title, the character is more well known than any title or franchise.

Fiction that has multiple inclusion.

Same goes with these: are they too much?

and

not as bad but also

And do we need Metropolis (comics), Land of Oz and Narnia if we have Superman, The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and The Chronicles of Narnia.

Just my thoughts but, some fiction/legend is getting multiple coverage and other quite well known and important fiction/legend no coverage at all. I may delete some of the multiple mentions and add things like. Robin Hood, Zombie, Frankenstein which are currently not here. Also witch goes to witchcraft, they are both included in different sections, maybe I will change Witch to Magician (fantasy), article says it includes sorcerers witches magicians and mages and more, What are others' oppinions? Carlwev (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think United Federation of Planets and Avalon can go. pbp 13:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Cooking, food and drink section of everyday life

Recently, it's come to mine and Carl's attention that that section could use a smidgen of work done. He removed a few articles, most of which should have been removed, but one (the Old Fashioned cocktail, the world's oldest) I'd like put back. Here are a few others I could see dispensing with:

  • Elevenses; not important outside of the Commonwealth, perhaps replace with Supper?
  • There are nine different types of cheeses on here. Perhaps whittle down to 4-5?
  • Both butter and lard are on here; by contrast, cooking oil is not
  • Both cereal and breakfast cereal are on here
  • Both whiskey and Bourbon whiskey are on here
  • "Spices and Condiments" needs to be split up into "Spices" and "Condiments". And some of those things don't really belong in either: Vinegar has a lot of other uses besides as salad dressing and as a ketchup ingredient.
  • And a few of the spices should be axed
  • Pina Colada and Mojito can probably go; Martini (most popular) and Old Fashioned (first) are the only cocktails we need

I think 150 items is about the right number, but there are some things missing (including some more types of food) and some things that probably don't belong. For example, we have cake and pie but not cookie pbp 00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts

  • Elevenses should definitely go. Supper maybe added, is it distinct enough from dinner though
  • Butter should stay. Lard - Cooking oil, not sure, probably have both or maybe only cooking oil.
  • cereal - breakfast cereal. Not sure, I can see why you would want to delete breakfast cereal, I would probably keep both. Cereal is about the grasses which people use the grain of for food, then a bit of history and method about the topic. Breakfast cereal, is a type of food sold in boxes/bags made from mostly cereal. Many people eat it every day, in supermarkets they can take up a whole aisle, they are well known and widely eaten, large part of the food economy, more than many included foods. I think the breakfast cereal article needs more work and appearances in more languages.
  • Bourbon Whiskey, not sure, my instincts say delete it, I would maybe delete Scotch Whisky too.
  • Cocktail. I would also delete Mojito and Pina Colada. Maybe delete all cocktails and just keep coctail. If I were to keep one it would be martini. - Old Fashioned, I'm not completely against it but I wouldn't include it. I think we need more peoples oppinions for this entry. Is it really the oldest? Or at least thought to be the oldest? there is no mention of this fact in it's article or the cocktail article, or in my huge dictionary which has entries for them both. Even if it is the oldest does that in itself make it important?
  • Cheese, we probably do have too many. I already deleted American cheese. Cheddar and Blue are probably ones to keep, Swiss and Gouda probably to delete.
  • We should definitely have Biscuit and/or Cookie
  • how about Jam

Carlwev (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Better layout is needed as you mentioned. Main thing I noticed some things are in biology/organisms some under food and drink. Which ever we choose we should be consistant, some seem out of place, or some very similar things are in 2 different lists in different sections.

  • Maize, rice, wheat etc are listed under grain, among organisms. - cereal is listed under grainsamong food. (also the word grain, not included here other than a list title, redirects to cereal)
  • vast majority of edible/partly edible plants are in organisms under lists of fruit and vegetables etc. This seams to be prefered rule, but some have found their way into the food and drink.
    • Fruits are under organisms, nuts are in food, they should be together
    • Onion, parsnip, ginger, mint are in food, but red onion, potato, saffron, in organisms.
  • we have the family Cucurbitaceae, should we also have pumpkin and cucumber. I don't think they're the most important, but more important than many included organisms/foods

Thoughts anyone? Carlwev (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Too many Libraries, Museums and Universities

There are waaaay too many universities in my oppinion, there are 64, and university itself is not in the vital 1000 and we don't even have primary and secondary school or elementary and grade school, and we don't have hospital. Although not as bad, I'm not very keen on having 20 libraries and 19 museums either. Carlwev (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Music

Just some brief comments:

  • I don't understand why Josquin des Prez didn't make the level 3 list; he is widely considered the greatest composer of the Renaissance, and some sources even declare him the greatest composer of all time.
  • Pablo Casals and Mstislav Rostropovich, who are widely acknowledged as the two greatest cellists of the past century, are not on this list, yet Yo-Yo Ma is.
  • I don't understand the need for dividing composers of classical music into a general category and another one for "avant-garde" ones. Even if there is need for such a division, this list is missing extremely important (in terms of musical influence/innovation) composers such as Milton Babbitt, Elliott Carter, Olivier Messiaen, Alfred Schnittke, Iannis Xenakis and various spectral composers, to mention just a few.—Toccata quarta (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
From the tree structure, it appears that the names listed under "avant garde" are not composers at all, since this is not a subcategory but rather stands in parallel to "composers". It is also the case that three of the names there (John Cage, Brian Eno, and Philip Glass) are incorrectly categorized: they are, by the accepted definition from Michael Nyman's 1974 book, composers of experimental music, which is diametrically opposed to "avant garde". Someone has not bothered to read the relevant articles before throwing names into pigeonholes here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Stateless people are missed + Ethnic groups vs countries

What are users views on large groups of people that do not have their own specific country or region that covers them? I mean Indian people are losely covered by India and History of India. The "stateless" Kurdish People are losely covered by Kurdistan. Australian Aborigines, don't have a mention of their own except within Australia and History of Australia. Native American people have the same issue, as do Eskimo people and Maasai people.

Also as a whole which ethnic groups do we include and which do not? Race is in the vital 100 so we have kind of said it's important. There are only 12 ethnic groups mentioned in the vital 10,000 like Turkish, Austronesian, Han Chinese.... Some wide covering groups are missed, black, white, Indian, Caucasian..... plus as I said above ethnic groups of people with no state of their own are missed. So who do we include, who don't we include, and where do we stop to prevent there being a long list of "peoples" which could be almost identical to the list of "countries"? We have Han Chinese + China + History of China, same with Turkey, how far do we go?

I think large ethnic groups of "stateless" people should be mentioned such as Indigenous peoples of the Americas, maybe a few more. What are users views on what we should include and what we should not? Carlwev (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Two topics from Irish mythology

I think we definitely need to add Cú Chulainn to mythological figures, and perhaps the reportedly best known story in his cycle, Táin Bó Cúailnge, to books.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverend Moon?

I am by no means a supporter, but isnt he the most iconic leader of a new religious movement? I am no longer adding articles, since we are over 10k now. I havent considered who might be removed if he is added, if any.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.36.185 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • If anything I might suggest the religious movement he founded Unification Church maybe a better idea for an addition as it is a slightly longer article, with more references and in more languages suggesting slightly that maybe people think the movement itself is a more important topic than its founder? Carlwev (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • havent checked if it was added, but i think i agree with you.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Additions to Arts

I did not understand that there can only be 20 ancient texts, so I added 14 more which are of interest. We can try to single out the 20 most important of these through voting. I've put an asterisk on my suggestions. If others do the same, we may eventually have a result.

Nonfiction of antiquity, 20
  1. Anabasis
  2. †Analects*
  3. Apology
  4. The Art of War
  5. Code of Hammurabi*
  6. Dead Sea Scrolls
  7. †De doctrina christiana*
  8. Euclid's Elements*
  9. †Hippocratic Corpus
  10. Histories
  11. History of the Peloponnesian War*
  12. I Ching*
  13. The Maxims of Ptahhotep
  14. †Mahabharata*
  15. Metaphysics*
  16. Organon
  17. †Pāli Canon*
  18. Physics*
  19. Popol Vuh*
  20. Republic*
  21. Septuagint
  22. †Tao Te Ching*
  23. Targum
  24. Tyndale Bible
  25. †The Vedas*
  26. Vulgate
  27. †Codex Regius*
  28. †Consolation of Philosophy
  29. †The Incoherence of the Philosophers*
  30. †The Incoherence of the Incoherence
  31. †The Book of Healing
  32. †Muqaddimah
  33. †Summa Theologica*
  34. †Summa Logicae*

Whether it is temporarily important to instantly revert the edits while awaiting a discussion I do not know. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On your technical question, the 10,000 list isn't as bureaucratic as the 1,000; things generally get reverted when there is a major objection. In general, I agree with most of your recommendations, but I'd like to work Herodotus' Histories into the list somehow, and maybe one of the Bible translations. One more thing: could you do me a favor, and designate all the ones that had previously been on with a dagger? († is a dagger) pbp 23:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. † = my additions. And, thank you for your illuminating response. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions, Arts

The following might be worth adding. I do not have proposals for what should be replaced in that case. If you want to vote (+ og -) or propose what could be replaced, go ahead.

  1. Narrative
  2. Theme (literature)


  1. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
  2. Essays (Montaigne)
  3. On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres


  1. Communist Manifesto
  2. Philosophical Investigations


  1. Kalevala


  1. Ancient music
  2. Medieval music
  3. Renaissance music


  1. Contemporary classical music
  2. Experimental music
    1. Progressive rock


  1. L'Orfeo, Monteverdi


The modern songs section needs to be globalized more, hence the following suggestions,

  1. Guantanamera
  2. Ormurin Langi
  3. Satumaa


  1. Prehistoric art
  2. Renaissance art

Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Science

The topic of (Baconian) science is listed only under natural science, which is improperly narrowed to physical science.

The (Baconian) sciences should be grouped under science, in this manner:

  • Science
    • History of science
    • Philosophy of science
    • Scientific method
      • Statistics
    • Special sciences (alternative wording is welcome...)
      • Physical sciences
      • Biological sciences
      • Human sciences

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment:Statistics should be under math pbp 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Explanation?
    Please read the discussion of mathematics and statistics in the statistics article. It would be possible to have statistics under mathematical sciences. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Headings

Hey, now that we've split this list up into a bunch of little sublists that aren't being transcluded, I'm thinking we can get away with changing all the Lv. 4 headings to Lv. 3 headings, all the Lv. 3 headings to Lv. 2 headings, and the single Lv. 2 heading in each sublist to a Lv. 1 heading. Thoughts? pbp 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, since there's no objection, I went ahead and did it pbp 15:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

People: Criminals

This is a fascinating project. I find the people section most interesting and sometimes check it out. I'm not too sure about the "criminal" classification though. This is particularly the case with Vlad the Impaler who would surely fit better in the "Politicians and Leaders" section, which is where you find, for example, Hitler and Stalin. I'm not too sure about Guy Fawkes and Osama bin Laden either. Perhaps a move to "Rebels, Revolutionaries and Activists" would be possible, maybe with a name change for that sub-section if it sounds too positive as it is. It seems to me that with its clear political dimension, terrorism is different from other kinds of crimes.

Well, just throwing the idea out there. Any thoughts?--Rsm77 (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. I would definately move Vlad to leaders, thought this for a while.
  2. I agree. I was actually thinking of changing it, or bringing it up myself. Especially Vlad the Impaler as you said, whom I would put in leaders too; just like Hitler he had been imprisoned and in power but by far had more impact and remembered more for what they did whilst they were leaders. Hitler, Stalin, Vlad even Gengis Khan all done nasty things whilst in power, like killing many civilians. Also if you follow the categories, see that Vlad the Impaler is in 3 "ruler" categories but not any "criminal" ones. Guy Fawkes is in Criminal, Activist, and revolutionary categories so could be placed either way. If we delete the Criminal header completely and move the people in it to other places, Osama Bin Laden like you said could also be moved to "Rebels, Revolutionaries and Activists" but maybe rename it possibly adding terrorist or something. If we keep Al Capone he is not a rebel type, a bit more awkward to place, I can only think of putting him with bussinessmen, because he was, just an illegal one. If we keep Elizabeth Bathory, I have no idea where to put her.
  3. Of topic Note, I also already deleted several serial killers from the list some time ago as unfortunately there have probably been hundreds of them and none really stick out as more notable than the rest. Harold Shipman is one of the most prolific and fairly recent serial killers in the UK, but I wouldn't really think he belongs in this list, serial killers are notorious for about 10 years or so then start to be forgotten about a bit when another is found. I thought about simply adding Serial Killer itself to crimes to cover the people and concept as a whole.Carlwev (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Really, if you think about it, Charles Manson and Jack the Ripper are the only people on the criminals list who couldn't be on some other list...Bathroy was a noblewoman and Capone was a businessman pbp 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, just getting back to this. The thing is, it's still quite complicated. I think we have agreement that Vlad the Impaler should move to "Politicians and Leaders". I wonder if it would be OK to put Fawkes and bin Laden in "Rebels, Revolutionaries and Activists" without changing the name for this section. The title seems reasonably neutral as it is, even if so far the only person I can find there with a particularly bad reputation is Robespierre. Something like "Rebels, Revolutionaries, Activists and Terrorists" doesn't quite sound right to me. I'd personally keep Al Capone in "Criminals" as he is most famous for his criminal activity. I'm not sure what to do with Elizabeth Báthory.Rsm77 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I moved Vlad the Impaler from Criminals to Leaders, Middle Ages, Eastern Europe. I hope this is OK. I believe I have correctly changed all the numbers that need to be changed (though there are a lot of them). Rsm77 (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Willis Tower

Hey, I noticed Willis Tower (nee Sears Tower) was recently removed from the Architecture section. I think it should be put back on pbp 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. it held the spot as highest for a long time. many buildings since may be higher, but not as iconic or important in the history of skyscrapers. sometimes earlier is more important than bigger.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I would lean towards including it Carlwev (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dancers

list is topheavy with ballet dancers. i didnt trim them earlier when the list was below 10k. it can probably be trimmed now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible addition

This topic Thousand Character Classic, seems to be a very important poem in the history of chinese education, and the transmission of chinese characters to korea. I hadnt heard of it, but what do i know, im not a sinologist.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional person

"Information technology" is incorrectly used where "Computing" would be more correct

IT is a subfield (along with computer science and computer engineering) of the general area of Computing and so the subsection should be labelled "Computing" and Computing used as its its main article. For example, computer science (CS) is not a subfield of IT. 121.45.193.118 (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ástor Piazzolla, Antônio Carlos Jobim

...have been BOLDly added to the 1,000 list as representatives of South American music. Likewise, Susan B. Anthony and Golda Meir have been added to political figures; though on this list she'd fall under activists.. I'd note they are not on this list. Should they be? Note I take no position on the composers, but am in favor of adding Anthony pbp 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Holidays bifurcated

At present, we have:

  • Holiday and the three secular holidays in the Vital articles list (New Years' Day, April Fools' Day and Halloween) in the Everyday life section
  • The three Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter and Pentecost) in the Religion section under Christianity
  • The two Jewish holidays (Passover and Yom Kippur; interestly NOT Hannakuh) in the Religion section under Judaism
  • Ramadan in the Religion section under Islam
  • And probably some holidays of other religions that I've forgotten...

Should we move all holidays to the same section, or keep as is? pbp 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It cold go either way, I am not totally sure but I think I would slightly prefer them all in a holiday section of their own including the religious holidays. Some like New Year, Hallowe'en and April Fools' would not go in religion but would have to go in a holiday section as they are now, or be included next to something like ?? year, paganism, and humour ?? which I don't think would seem as right. Also Christmas could be argued although having religious roots is today not only a religious holiday, you could say this about many holidays. If we're going to have a holidays section we may as well put all holidays in it, religious or not. I think Hannakuh probably belongs too. Carlwev (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We could put holidays in the Culture section of every life, where NY, AF and Halloween are pbp 19:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On the subject, looking a my calendar, should we have Valentines Day? I've always thought it more well known and acknowledged than April Fools. Carlwev (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, since I've been spurned for another year, I don't know...jk jk we should put it in regardless pbp 02:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
With Purplebackpack89 having Wikilinked Holiday when using it right at the very start of this thread, a read of the lead of that article might be valuable. It begins "A holiday in many parts of the world is a synonym for a vacation or a specific trip for the purpose of recreation or tourism..." The very different, American definition comes next. This is a global encyclopaedia. Do recognise the fact that in most of the world Halloween, Valentines Day, April Fools, Mothers Day, and many others are NOT called holidays at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
I believe festival is also in the holidays section, no? Do we also want something like observance? I believe that the root word of festival is feast, so feast day is an option, but it's probably redundant. What do they call those things in Europe? pbp 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
(Whoops. Sorry about forgetting to sign.) Not sure about Europe. I'm in Australia, and there is no single common name for such days. We just don't seem to need one. But many are certainly not holidays. We have public holidays, which are government endorsed days away from work or school. They include Good Friday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day, Labour Day, ANZAC Day, and Australia Day. The rest, such as Mothers Day, Valentines Day and Halloween don't have a special shared name. (Apart maybe for "Hallmark Days", from the more cynical among us.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The bio count...is too damn high!

There is a general consensus that bios should be cut, but no consensus as to how many bios or which bios

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.

Proposal to reduce number of biographies in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People from 2238 to 2000 even, with disproportionate cuts coming from actors and athletes. At present, WP:VA/E has 318 more articles than it should pbp 00:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

Support
  1. Support as nom: pbp 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Miniapolis 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I agree with PBP in principle. This list obviously needs to lose about 318 articles, and the bloated bio section seems like a good place to start. I'm not sure about the arbitrary number of 238 bios though, nor the poll's presumption that the goal will be achieved via "disproportionate cuts coming from actors and athletes". That discussion has not yet taken place, so the wording of this poll puts the cart before the horse. For that reason, I oppose. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Look, if we were to do this one article at a time with no parameters, it could take months. Saying that certain areas need to be limited makes cutting in those areas easier. I have made proposals as to how to trim several sports; I'd make more, but those are the only sports I'm familiar with pbp 07:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. No need for arbitrary limits. Hey, FIFA 100 has 125 players. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (c)

Right now, we have 2238 Lv 4 Vital biographies against 10,318 articles. I think that biographies are bloated and far too Amero-centric. I propose dropping the bio count to 2,000 even. Here are some cuts I think need to be made:

  1. Entertainers and sports figures take up nearly one-quarter of the list, despite the fact that nearly all of the people in either list are Americans from the past 100 years. I propose cutting the number of those bios in HALF
  2. There are 27 American political leaders on this list, or about one for every decade of American history. I'd cut that to 20

pbp 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't just set an arbitrary limit without providing any rationale for the hundreds you would remove. Lets discuss each article individually. Perhaps even hold an RfC for each removal and/or addition. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Role reversal? On the level 3 articles, you were in favor of quick-and-dirty removal and replacement; I was in favor of a more bureaucratic approach. Now you appear to be more bureaucratic pbp 00:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No, not role reversal, but you have made it pretty clear that no removals or additions should be made without prior discussion. I'm just agreeing with you. Let's individually discuss each of the 318 articles that need to be trimmed out of this list that has somehow gotten way out of control of its "handlers". So lets discuss first, as you have repeatedly insisted. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
We gotta get abstract before we get specific. It'll be a lot easier to say "Let's delete bios X, Y, Z from actors" once we've agreed that "There are too many actors, and some should be deleted" pbp 00:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want to trim the bios, I would start with "Mythical, legendary and fictional people and characters", which currently includes 85 "bios". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Some of them are probably important topics, Mickey Mouse for example. But I agree that there are too many of them, and biography might not be the right page for them pbp 00:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Why would a fictional character have a biography in an encyclopedia, and why would said bio be deemed "vital"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
        • As a potential archetype that is used commonly in fiction? Romeo and Juliet are two characters that heavily influence a large extant of literature across languages. Other characters are almost independent of the work they originate from, and knowing about them is important in terms of understanding historical periods in a country or understanding popular culture. --LauraHale (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • when you get down to it, a list of 10,000 "vital articles" is utterly ridiculous to begin with. As some of the debate below shows, any article in that 10,000 range has easily 100-1000 other articles of similar importance. Also, as OP hinted at, has resulted in a donwright extreme selection-bias towards American topics. IMO, the list should be scrapped entirely and replaced with topic specific lists. It is a concept I have toyed with at vital Canadian articles. Resolute 02:58, 17 March 2013 (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.

Formal proposal to cut actors and actresses to 75

No consensus at this time

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.

Right now, we have over 120 actors and actresses, and most of the people in that category are people from the U.S.A (5% of world population) active in the last 100 years (<5% of recorded history). GabeMc requested a formal proposal, even though my idea was outlined above, here it is. pbp 15:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The movie industry evolved primarily in the US, that's why a disproportionate number of notable actors are American, because Holywood is in California, not Italy. The 5% figure appears to be an attempt to assert that only 5 out of every 100 actors should be American, which is silly. As far as your argumant that too many were "active in the last 100 years". Well, arguably the first Motion Picture Projected for an Audience was Berlin Wintergarten Novelty Program (1895), so that's only 118 years in toto. Do you plan to add more actors from before the age of film? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's Edwin Booth, Edwin Forrest, William Charles Macready... But, more to the point, since it's so centered on such a small slice of the universe for such a short period of time in relation to recorded history, I believe the list doesn't need to be anywhere near as large as it is, especially since we're ~300 over (see WP:Systemic bias, WP:RECENT). And probably most of the people chopped will be American, so we can keep the list globalized. I never said that only 5% of the people on this list should be American; in this case, this list being disproportionately American should be balanced out in other areas. I don't see any reason for you to be critical of that; now you've gotten to the point of being critical just to be critical pbp 07:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:RECENT does not apply here, this is not an article. WP:RECENT is a guideline for article space only. No offense, but you seem to be having a massive comprehension issue in that regard, same with WP:BRD. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, good practice in articles is good practice anywhere. The page notes If you don't like the way I think, whine about it to a noticeboard. The discussion will be closed in about 2 seconds, in favor of me keepin' doing what I'm doing and you getting fishy fishy pbp 15:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (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.

Formal proposal to cut sportspeople to 100

There is consensus that sportspeople should be cut, but not necessarily to 100. Consensus was reached on cutting 24 baseball and Am. football players

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.

  • I think this discussion would benefit from some outside feedback. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment: You RfCed a subsection of a section that was already RfCed pbp 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Right now, we have 200 sportspeople, and as with actors/actresses, almost all are from since 1900 and a disproportionate number are American; more than a quarter of them are from the U.S.-dominated sports of baseball, basketball and football. pbp 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Further nom comment: Right now, sportspeople is about 10%. By contrast, the core bios list, which I've included below, has 6 sportspeople (all of whom are already on this list and are in no danger of being removed) and 194 non-sportspeople. Knocking it down to 100 would make it about 5% of all bios, more in line with what Core bios has. pbp 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In team sports, I recommend the allocation be culled to the following: 16 soccer, 10 baseball, 6 basketball, 6 ice hockey, 6 cricket, 5 American football, 1 water polo. I recommend that basketball include:

  1. Michael Jordan
  2. Wilt Chamberlain
  3. Magic Johnson
  4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
  5. Either Bill Russell or Larry Bird
  6. Either a coach (Phil Jackson or John Wooden), a woman (Pat Summitt or Lisa Leslie) or an international player (some names that come to mind are, Dirk Nowitzki, Arvydas Sabonis, Yao Ming, Dražen Petrović and Dino Meneghin)
  • Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All other articles would be removed. For baseball:

  1. Roberto Clemente
  2. Ty Cobb
  3. Sandy Koufax
  4. Mickey Mantle
  5. Willie Mays
  6. Sadaharu Oh
  7. Jackie Robinson
  8. Babe Ruth
  9. Ted Williams
  10. Cy Young

And cut the rest. For American football:

  1. Jim Brown
  2. Walter PaytonDick Butkus
  3. Vince Lombardi
  4. Jerry Rice
  5. Johnny Unitas

And cut the rest. pbp 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute at all that all of the people you've named (with the exception of Kim-Jong Rodman) are really great basketball players. They're also all Americans, all did their dirty work within the past 100 years, and with the exception of George Mikan, all are still living. We are at the point where Julius Erving being on this list means that something else can't be on it. And probably to globalize and avoid recency bias, the person dropped will be an American in another important field, unless you can find an non-biographical area that's too bloated. I'm a bit confused by your perspective here: on the one hand, you believe bios are too bloated, but on the other hand, you want to keep all the bios in a fairly non-globalized, recent and insignificant category. pbp 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Basketball is only 120 years old (invented 1891), so yes, your observation that the bulk of players listed are from the last 100 years is quite accurate, but what is your point? Too American? Kinda like the argument that Golda Meir doesn't belong on a list that doesn't have Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. The vast majority of great b-ballers have been Americans. Should we exclude Dr. J so as to add a much less notable and far less influential European, just for the sake of adding a European? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Three things here: 1) It could be an Asian or Southern Hemisphere person; 2) Since we're over 10,000, I doubt we'll be adding much of anybody; 3) To be perfectly honest, I believe that pretty much every European on this list that isn't an athlete or entertainer is more notable and more influential than Julius Erving. More cache? Maybe not. More impact? Yes. 'Tis you who have contradicted yourself; earlier, you were complaining about the lack of globalization; now you're complaining about having globalization in this list. pbp 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm less familiar with Am. football than basketball, so if you think one of those guys is more deserving than one of the guys I have, please say so. But as for the general "five is enough" comment, I stand by that for the globalization, recency and significance reasons I outlined for basketball above. Almost nobody outside the U.S. and Canada plays American football. Nobody played football until ~150 years ago. And I find it a bit weird that the U.S. has more athletes on this list than military and political leaders combined pbp 22:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Joe Montana is arguably the greatest QB ever, and "your" list does not include a single a defensive player, which neglects 50% of the game. As per: "I find it a bit weird that the U.S. has more athletes on this list than military and political leaders", for better or worse, Americans are generally more interested in entertainment and sports then politics. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I switched out Payton for Butkus. Now, we have 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR, 1 DB and 1 coach. Again, I don't view sports and entertainment figures as being particularly impactful. What effect did Reggie White have on peace in the Middle East? pbp 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yet another strawman, pbp. Why would Reggie White compete with political leaders for a spot on the American footballers list? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the hockey keep list

  1. Wayne Gretzky
  2. Gordie Howe
  3. Bobby Hull
  4. Bobby Orr
  5. Georges Vézina
  6. Viacheslav Fetisov

pbp 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Your hockey list has a few glaring omissions, such as: Mario Lemieux, Mark Messier, Sergei Fedorov, Vladislav Tretiak, and Jean Beliveau. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You were wondering how this list got 318 articles bigger than it should. This is why! Because there are loads of people of equal or near-equal significance to people on the list. I don't consider sports figures to be particularly significant, and even in hockey, there are large portions of the world (Latin America, Africa, Oceania, and large portions of Asia) that are unfamiliar with the game pbp 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Kinda like Go (game) (with an estimated 40 million players worldwide, or just 0.00571428571 of the global population) for almost all non-Asians? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
        • So we balance that out with Monopoly. Look at the athletes list, you'll see that there's little to no balance between the Eastern and Western world. pbp 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. - Lets hold off on all the mass deletions until more discussion has taken place between a more diverse group of editors. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's counter-proposals (Basketball)

  1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
  2. Red Auerbach
  3. Larry Bird
  4. Wilt Chamberlain
  5. Lauren Jackson
  6. Magic Johnson
  7. Michael Jordan
  8. James Naismith
  9. Bill Russell
  10. Pat Summitt
  11. John Wooden


The current list is at 10, which seems about right to me. I don't know how you could get much less then the 8 I have listed above (6 greatest players, 2 greatest coaches), but we are still lacking a woman and a non-American. At this point, I think we should discuss which of these above 8 don't belong, and why they should be removed in favour of someone else (or just removed for brevity), or agree to allow 10 spots, and simply add a woman and a non-American. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that all eight of those people are worthy basketball players and coaches. However, I do think that we only need one coach on this list. Yes, that means choosing between John Wooden and Phil Jackson. I also think that having basketball players this long will never get the size of the sportspeople section down to a reasonable size (which, IMO, is 100% total). Seems like this list serves the 1980s very well: from the years 1984-89, four of the people on the list were playing NBA ball. Largely, I stand by my recommendation above to have basketball players at 6, or 6% of a list of 100 sportspeople. If we end up with 150 articles rather than 100, then basketball can go up to 9. pbp 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
1) If I had to chose between Wooden and Jackson I would likely chose Jackson. 2) I suggest you make a specifc suggestion as to which player who was active in 1984 should be removed and why; Jordan, Bird, or Magic? If pressed, I would likely remove Johnson over Bird as west-coast ball is overrepresented (4 of 8). I'm not sure why you keep citing percentages; weight is not exclusively allocated here by percentages. Should the basketball list be 83% non-black, as most US citizens are? Will you please start compromising? FTR, the greatest non-American born basketball player was Hakeem Olajuwon, but he played during 1984, so I guess by your logic he must then be arbitrarily excluded. Maybe we should hold an RfC so sports fans can weigh-in, as we seem to be beyond compromise on even the smallest of points. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This list is 1) Incredibly USA centric and 2) incredibly male centric. If this is a list for USA men's basketball players, then those would be the vital, but world wide... needs expanded scope. Lauren Jackson is one of the highest paid female basketball players of all time and not there. I believe Lisa Leslie is one of the most influential female basketball players in recent times. James Naismith should be there. --LauraHale (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree 100%. The only reason they were left off my list was in an attempt to compromise. I support including Lisa Leslie, Lauren Jackson, and James Naismith, of course! Thanks for your input! I've added them above. What about Pat Summitt? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This list is way too long, and still very post-1900-centric. We don't need 11 people associated with basketball when we're 300 articles over the limit, and could easily tick off 100-200 more very important articles that are missing. A better approach would be my proposal above, with Jackson as the international/female representative pbp 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Crying about recentism is not going to work on a sport prone to recentism. I personally would cut Larry Bird as he can be understood through Magic Johnson and Johnson is more important. I would also take the axe to John Wooden. I would also remove Phil Jackson. Arguably, he did not create the triangle offense and innovate strategy. He did not coach any noteworthy Olympic teams. I would take Sam Barry or Tex Winter for the Triangle offense over him. --LauraHale (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Why remove Wooden, arguably the greatest coach of amateur b-ballers who ever lived, and the architect of the greatest US amateur sports dynasty ever? Jackson, may not have invented the triangle offense, but he certainly perfected its application at the pro-level, and you can't argue with his rings, IMO (despite the talent he coached). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec)With those suggestions, you're essentially left with the proposal I posited above: Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Russell, and then an international one pbp 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I completely disagree with axing John Wooden for Lauren Jackson, that's absurd! I would support removing Phil Jackson for Red Auerbach. Per Bird vs. Magic, Bird outscored and outrebounded Magic, despite winning two less titles (3 vs 5).GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Johnson's impact on the game was more long term than Bird's in my opinion and there is more historical impact for the game internationally and in the USA domestically for Johnson's situation with HIV. I think Johnson's style of play was also more revolutionary than Bird's. Thus, in terms of historical importance for two players of the same era, Johnson just nips Bird out. There really needs to be at least one or two women on that list (or males who were heavily influential on the women's side of the game) and at least one or two people representing the growth of the game internationally. Can you make a case for Wooden doing that? What is his lasting historically legacy? --LauraHale (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
            • The Johnson/Bird thing is a matter of opinion, they were equals really. The only stat where Johnson bested Bird was assists; 6.3 per game for Bird, and 11.3 for Johnson, or 1.25 per quarter, (see Kareem). My main arguement against Magic, assuming that it must be either Bird or Johnson, and not both, is that Johnson played with Kareem, so we would have not only two players from a similar era, both are west-coast ballers, and also teamates on the Lakers, which doesn't seem to pass it around. Red Auerbach was more influential in introducing the fast-break than was Magic Johnson. What does his HIV have to do with his weight as a basketball player? That he habitually cheated on his wife and contracted an STD means he is more important to basketball? What is Wooden's lasting legacy you ask? "Sporting News honors Wooden as the greatest coach in American sports history", "John Wooden: Greatest Coach Ever?". Wooden is about the only person consistently rated above Lombardi. You seem to think he is overrated, why? If I was going to add a women I think it should be Pat Summit (all-time winningest college b-ball coach ever), whose contribution to the game was greater then perhaps dozens of her peers combined. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Johnson's HIV status influenced how they dealt with blood injuries on the court and had an impact across different sports. Hence his influence. Still not seeing the international game development here. Lots of USA centric thinking. --LauraHale (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
                • I guess I see your point, but if we bump Bird and retain Johnson, there will be three ex-Lakers on a list that includes only five players, which seems off, and I again reiterate that we should avoid including teamates where possible. Certainly Kareem will stay before Magic. Per your comment: "still not seeing the international game development here", please offer some specific suggestions, not just for additions, but also for who your suggested additions would replace. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • First off, Wilt played 5 seasons with the Lakers and 9 seasons with other teams. He won all five of his MVPs when he was with the Warriors and Sixers, he scored his 100-point game with the Warriors and won his first title with the Sixers. A bit misleading to count Wilt as a Laker. Kareem won his first title and first three MVPs with the Milwaukee Bucks. Johnson is the only person in this discussion who's a point guard and the only person in this discussion who had HIV. Also, I think to address omissions or biases with continual adding upon adding is never going to get us to 10,000. There is a working consensus that baseball, basketball and Am. football are overrepresented on these lists; continual adding won't solve our problems. pbp 23:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
                    • So, five seasons does not a Laker make? Alright, I was trying to avoid going here, but Bird is the only white player on the list. That logic has worked for you numerous times during these discussions, right? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's counter-proposals (American football)

  1. Jim Brown
  2. Dick Butkis
  3. Vince Lombardi
  4. Jerry Rice
  5. Johnny Unitas

I think we are in near agreement on this one, PBP. I've added one more coach and one more QB. The current list is at 15. FWIW, I could live without Montana, but its seems a bit silly to arbitrarily limit the number of coaches and QBs to one. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not getting much response in the other place I've tried to discuss thsi sport, so I'll stir here. Have you thought about the likely perspective of ANY of the 95% of the world's population who don't live in the USA on including ANY American footballers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
To look at this point another way, the US is the world's 3rd most populous country, and American Football is the most popular sport in the US. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo that 7 is too many. India is the world's second most-populous; so by Gabe's logic, 7 polo players? pbp 03:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said several times before. We do not even know what the accurate count of this list of 10,300+ articles is, so how could we make cogent arguments for trimming before we have an accurate count of the total included articles? How do you know which sections are significantly overrepresented if you do not know how many articles there are in each section? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For the sake of compromise, I've now dropped Coach Brown and Montana, so pbp and I appear to be in agreement here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe's counter-proposals (Baseball)

  1. Hank Aaron
  2. Roberto Clemente
  3. Ty Cobb
  4. Lou Gehrig
  5. Mickey Mantle
  6. Willie Mays
  7. Sadaharu Oh
  8. Satchel Paige
  9. Jackie Robinson
  10. Babe Ruth
  11. Cy Young


The current list is at 30, so this potential compromise will trim 15 articles while maximising the scope of the coverage. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't accept baseball being any more than 10% of total sportspeople. It probably should be even less than that. If we have 15 baseball players, we'd have to have that many cricketeers to balance things out globally. And once you do that, you're going to end up not making much headway in trimming sportspeople, which I see as totally bloated. I think my 10 guys maximizes coverage well enough. There are important people in non-sports fields left out, I see no reason why baseball should be any different pbp 21:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Per: "I can't accept baseball being any more than 10% of total sportspeople": "Sports figures" is currently at 202. 15÷202=7.425%. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I still am saying there shouldn't be more than 100 total sportspeople, and I've delineating why (Having lots and lots of sportspeople violates guidelines and essays left and right). Are you saying we should throw recentism, globalism and whatnot to the wind and have more than that? pbp 01:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Per your comment: "Are you saying we should throw recentism, globalism and whatnot to the wind and have more than that?" No, where did I give you that impression. The current baseball list is at 30 articles, my suggestion cuts it in half, so why do you think I want to add to the list? Bottom line: your recentism argument is based on a suggestive non-binding essay, and your misuse of it is a strawman IMO. How could we globalise a sport that is not global? E.g., in computing, one could argue that all the entries are recent, due mostly to the recentism of computing. Baseball is 120 years old, so the vast majority of entries there will be from the last 120 years. What about this particular point is eluding you? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
What you don't seem to get about baseball 'or Am football is that if they're not a global sport, there shouldn't be that many of them on this list. At present, 20% of all sports biographies are either baseball or Am. football, and there are too many sports bios even if there were less baseball or Am football. HiLo and I have been trying to explain this to you pbp 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, the idea that being 120 years old avoids recency problems is a bit ludicrous. Sure, 120 years is a long time compared to the last 6 months, but this list has people on it before the birth of Christ (2000 years ago) pbp 03:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
PBP, you completely misread me. I meant that because baseball is only 120 years old, inclusions of any baseball players will seem recent to some, if, you think recent is anything during the last 100+ years. Anyway, how are you defining recent? You added Neil Armstrong, who's greatest accomplishment is walking on the moon in 1969, less then 44 years ago. Seems like if you are going to throw around a non-binding essay as ammo for your argument, then we should at least discuss what recent means in this context? Mobile phone is included on the list, isn't that recent by your measure, or is there a good reason why some articles are absolutely immune to your anti-recent argument (eg Harry Potter), while others are not. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Bottom-line: Nobody knows for certain just how many articles are currently in this list, so how can you possibly lead a discussion on what and where trims are needed. For all we know, the science section might be 400+ articles over its limit. Count them all up, then talk cuts. In other words: You don't even know how many articles are currently on the VA/E list, so how could you possibly know how many should be trimmed? You are putting the cart before horse, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be inclined to remove Alexander Cartwright. Founder of baseball is... interesting but there is a lot of research on the sports origins and the American creation story for baseball is largely myth. A lot of these players can be understood through other players given the intersections involved. I would also remove Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Sandy Koufax. --LauraHale (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I've now removed them, Thanks for the great suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as amended pbp 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done: There appears to be a working consensus for cutting baseball to these 11 players between me, Gabe and Laura

Chess players

Sorry to add more, In general I don't like adding biographies, But for example there were 20 Tennis players, but Tennis is not in the 1000 list. Same for baseball not in the 1000 but has 30 players in the 10'000. Chess is or was for a long time in the 1000 list but has no players at all here yet, seems very un equal. Also some but some American sports people I've seen flicking through the list only appear in English and not any other language at all, and many more only in 3 or 4 other languages suggesting they don't have a lot of international recognition. Top Chess players Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov appear in over 70 different language Wikipedias, suggesting they are more recognised world wide. I am only adding 2 at this time I can think of 5 more but will not add them as we are shrinking sports and games bios at the moment. Carlwev (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
So do I pbp 00:14, 8 March 2013 (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.

Psychics and mystics

Section deleted. Nostradamus moved to writers

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.

Seems like we should lose this entire sub-section as fiction. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There are seven people in this section. The header and five of the people in it can be dispensed with. Rasputin and Nostradamus are probably important enough to be on this list, but Rasputin can be moved to political or religious leaders, and Nostradamus can be moved to authors or philosophers pbp 23:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Nostradamus was not a philosopher, he was a charlatan. I tend to agree that room could be made for Rasputin (also a charlatan), but in what way was he a political or religious leader? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Rasputian was a monk and a political advisor to the Romanovs in addition to being a faith-healer. And as for Nostradamus, the fact that he was a charlatan isn't of the greatest relevance. This list has criminals, authors of fiction, and political/military leaders who ordered genocides; it can hardly be said that questions of morality/judgment get them off this list. I don't like Nostradamus; I think he's overrated; but the fact is that people have been reading and believing his End times (which, I hate to say it, probably should be on this list) prophecies for hundreds of years. I believe him to have made a more meaningful contribution to world history than, say, Julius Erving, Joe Namath, or Mario Lemieux pbp 00:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Name one political decision that Rasputian influenced. It was only the Czarina that bought his BS. What meaningful contribution did Nostradamus make? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
He wrote a book that thousands of people have been reading for hundreds of years! Seems a lot more significant than having a big 'fro and laying down dunks pbp 04:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. I suggested that a proper list of the greatest and/or most notable basketball players should/would include Dr. J., in fact, your's is the only one I have ever seen that didn't. I would concede that we could add Nostradamous as an author, albeit a terrible addition in light of the great author you will remove to add him. IMO, the whole "Psychics and mystics" section should go before any of the other changes you are proposing are acted on. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That's cuz most of the lists you were reading had more than five players; this list does not need more than five NBA players. I usually see Julius Erving as 10-15, never in the top five. And with regard to "great authors", have you seen some of the recent authors on that list? If we drop non-notable, recency-biased articles (like the other five crackpots on this list), we won't have to drop another author to keep Nostradamus pbp 04:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add to this discussion, Religious figures (or scientific for that matter) could all be thought of as charlatans or liars if you do not hold the same belief as them. To an atheist Moses and Jesus may be charlatans, or to a Christian, Darwin may be thought of as a charlatan. For that reason Rasputin maybe, Nostradamus probably be in here. The argument they were not correct cannot really be used in this instance. For an atheist Moses and Jesus were just talking rubbish, but one probably wouldn't campaign for their removal. What is agreed on more (maybe) is the impact they had on history culture and the world, not whether they may have led people on or not. Carlwev (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Which sub-list and why? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
We said why several times...because he wrote a book that's widely read, and has been since his lifetime pbp 17:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so authors for Nostradamus? Sure, I would support your actions if you went ahead and added him in there for another author, and nuked the rest of this ridiculous section. I still don't see where Rasputin would belong though, he wasn't a political or religious leader, he was a cult leader. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:49, 8 March 2013 (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.

An accurate count/Fictional characters

Uncle Scrooge was deleted, Harry Potter was superseded by later discussions

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.

Perhaps we should attempt to get an accurate count before we decide how many of which articles should be removed. For all we know, we might be at 10,500, or 9,999, but until the individual sections are accurately counted, we won't know. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we trim out several of these, including:

  1. Easter Bunny
  2. Tooth Fairy
  3. Gandalf
  4. Harry Potter
  5. Uncle Scrooge

Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral on #1 and #2. For #3, we have both Frodo and Gandalf, but I think I'd drop Frodo instead. Likewise, we don't need both Scrooge and Donald, so support #5. And I hate to say it, but Oppose #4. Harry Potter is, for good or ill, the most influential fictional character of my lifetime (23 years, 7 months). The other day, I was walking to class, and I passed some kids. They were playing Muggle Quidditch. If we're culling fictional characters, I think we can do to use a few superheroes. The last time I edited that part of the fictional characters section (which was a cull; it was significantly smaller then), it was only Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Wonder Woman. I think that's really all we need. pbp 00:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
These for a start should not be in bios, . Someone like Sherlock Holmes and Harry Potter, Gandalf should in art with works of literature, Superman, Spider-Man in art under comics. I have expresses before I don't think some works of fiction need mentioning some way or another several times. (I have deleted some of these already). At one point we had Star Trek, United Federation of Planets, Capt Kirk, and Spock, 4 articles for the same franchise, (but we have never had it's creator Gene Roddenberry). We also have/had Lord of the Rings the book and the films, Middle Earth and Frodo and Gandalf along with Tolkien, several articles for one work of fiction. Again, Star Wars and Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. I believe maybe Star Wars is good but maybe not the characters, same for Star Trek and Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter only has one appearance and as much as I dislike him, he is popular and I would remove articles which mention the same franchise/work several times before him. In art, in "fictional worlds" there are many that I believe are already covered and so are redundant also, we have Camelot (plus King Arthur, in another section), Middle Earth (plus LotR), Land of Oz (plus the movie), Narnia (plus the book), Lilliput and Blefuscu (plus Gulliver's Travels). I already removed United Federation of Planets and Metropolis (comics), the ones I mentioned can probably all go. I would remove Gandalf and Frodo as already have the book, probably Scrooge McDuck, maybe Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny. Bt not Harry Potter. Carlwev (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds like Harry Potter is immune from recency concerns, which seems a bit odd, considering the first book came out less than 15 years ago, and as such its perhaps the most recent topic we've discussed. Yet somehow pop-culture is giving the topic weight ... hmmmm. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:59, 8 March 2013 (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.

Journalists

The list of journalists is too Western. Nobody from outside of the West? Crtew (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Please offer some suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Criminals, magicians

bin Laden, Houdini, Fawkes and Capone moved to other sections, rest were deleted

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.

There was some mention of deleting the criminals and magicians subsections above. While I support the sections being deleted, I believe the following four should be folded into other sections:

  1. Osama bin Laden. The unfortunaate fact is that he is the most influential figure of the 21st century thus far. Can be folded into activists.
  2. Harry Houdini. We should probably keep a single magician, and Houdini was the most notable entertainer of any stripe a century ago. He's also notable for his association with the occult
  3. Guy Fawkes. He's a British folk hero. Can be folded into activists.
  4. Al Capone. Can be folded into businessmen

Thoughts? pbp 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Great suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2013 (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.

How vital is this?

Dear music enthusiasts: I came to this discussion because I saw GabeMc's invitation on the WikiProject:Roots Music talk page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this is the first time I've come across such wide disagreement among experienced editors. The concept of "Vital articles" seems to be a divisive one, especially in a subject area such as music where everything is opinion, anyway. No two people will ever agree on this list. Musicians in different genres could be called "vital' based on their influence on other artists, their influence on historical events, etc. As for "popular" music, maybe sales should be the only consideration. In that case, I nominate for that list Henry C. Work, composer of the song "Grandfather's Clock", which was so popular when it was first released that it was the first piece of music to sell over a million copies (of sheet music). I'll leave this discussion now and go back to editing articles without attention to whether they are considered "vital". —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Henry Clay Work seems to be a viable choice: he also wrote two songs popular during the American Civil War: Kingdom Coming and Marching Through Georgia. He seems to be the most important 19th century American composer of popular song, with the exception of Stephen Collins Foster, who wrote My Old Kentucky Home, Suwannee River and countless others. I suggest you mention it in the subsection entitled "Discussion of Gabe's counter-counter-proposal" above, where we're hashing out popular music since 1815 pbp 17:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_3&oldid=1137397796"