Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55
4-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 12:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Mae West

Only ranked 15 on the AFI list, acting not vital in the history of acting, more famous for her personality then acting and while that makes you famous it does not make you vital.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the first major "sex symbol" in film Prevan (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. The same as above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - A vital actress, per her work with W.C. Fields. Jusdafax 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I might support removing this as part of a swap. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Sex symbol is itself not vital and even if it was it already has a representative Marilyn Monroe we do not have Betty Grable or Bettie Page, who are slightly more vital in my mind. Actors are bloated and this kind of biography represents that. Film is very bloated for a 20 century art form, we have more actors then painters and painting obviously is centuries older and more vital then film. GuzzyG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that a tradition being older makes it more vital. Pottery is one of the oldest art traditions in the world and there are no potters on the list. People care about actors more than painters. Ask a middle-class person anywhere in the world and they would know the names of many more current actors than current painters off the top of their head. Even including historical people, actors are more familiar than painters. Film and television have mass appeal and celebrity pull unlike painting which is confined to the art galleries in modern times.
In any case, acting and music are just as old as painting and are a crucial part of human culture. Unfortunately, most acting and music was unrecorded in human history unlike visual arts which is more easily preserved but it doesn't make it any less significant. Gizza (t)(c) 02:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I would support a potter, traditional arts and craft have been ignored (William Morris, John Ruskin, Peter Carl Fabergé and others). Film is more current and important right now, which is why no modern painters are listed but modern actors like Tom Hanks and etc are here. Of course there is going to be more representation of film then painting but i do not think 73 actors and 53 directors is right and if anything should be the other way around. Directors are vital to a films structure and thus the film would vary by whoever made it but the film would not change as much by swapping actors. Television should be covered by adding the show as the actor or host is normally only known for the one show or program. I agree on the point that acting and music are crucial but if so why did we remove Henry Irving and Jenny Lind etc, we have no pre film actors other then Ellen Terry and we have no singers who were not recorded. I do not have a problem with modern music either i just think it should be spread out like 10 Jazz, 20 Rock, 12 non-english, 10 Pop, 8 R&B, 8 Country & Folk, 3 Hip-Hop, 3 Electronic, 1 Gospel etc, basically more of the same just spread out. basically we do not need 80 actors when we can have 50 and still have good representation of that subject while we can give it to other areas which do not. To give an example there's 100 actors more vital then 3 fashion designers but if we have the list like that we are missing a piece of human experience and history. That's why i would support things like a chef or otherwise this list should be filled with politicians, religious figures and philosophers. Either way Norma Shearer and Mary Pickford and others are more vital for film then Mae West and they are not on the list. GuzzyG (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: I would definitely support adding somebody from the Arts and Crafts movement, and other craftsmen, jewelers or metalworkers besides. pbp 15:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If we consider a person from that vital, should we list Arts and Crafts movement itself?  Carlwev  18:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Carlwev: I'd support that add. pbp 21:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 pbp 18:15, 4 August 2017 (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 Robert Moses

Seminal figure in urban planning. More responsible than anyone else for the American freeway and the American suburb. (BTW, do we want urban planners as artists or as something else?) pbp 01:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 01:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom, urban planners should probably be in architects. GuzzyG (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support He left a stark impression on the NYC urban landscape, with everything from parkways, expressways, bridges, and tunnels. Also, I agree he should be in architects. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support These definitely should be under architects. see Fredrick Law Olmsted Eddie891 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6-3 (exactly 2/3 support) pbp 16:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Art Tatum

For jazz being primarily a 20th century American art form, we sure have a lot of jazz musicians, and Art Tatum doesn't seem to be to be the most vital of these pbp 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support not as vital as Monk (who is not on the list) for jazz pianists. GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Per "Tatum is widely acknowledged as the greatest jazz pianist of all time" Prevan (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Vital. Jusdafax 00:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. He was the greatest jazz pianist of all time, and jazz is quite popular on earth (a lot of non-Americans enjoy listening to it).--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0 pbp 16:50, 5 July 2017 (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 James Hutton

As far as I can tell, we only have one vital geologist at the moment - Charles Lyell. Compared to all other major branches of science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy) which each range from 10 to 54, this is absurd.

Hutton was the first to coin the concept of deep time, that the earth is much, much older than 6000 years old, the prevailing view in Europe at the time. He developed the theory of uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes that shaped the earth in the past are the same processes that shape it in the present and in the future. Hutton also suggested that the interior of the earth was very hot.

As such, Hutton is known as the father of modern geology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Kusnir (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 11:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (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 George Gallup

The man who pioneered in survey sampling techniques and invented the Gallup poll, a successful statistical method of survey sampling for measuring public opinion is definitely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Prevan (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Power~enwiki (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose opinion poll itself isn't listed, so why should a person who, as far as I can tell is only notable for inventing a type of opinion poll deserving of being a vital article. The answer is that they are not. Eddie891 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • So why not add his invention? Has he done other sorts of things that would be greater than the polling method which bears his name? Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2017 (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 Gulf Stream

It's rather hot.

Support
  1. Support --Kusnir (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Probably the most well-known ocean current, and we are well under quota in this area. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support What other currents do we list, or could be?  Carlwev  15:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support while not quite as important to know as the El Nino or Monsoon, the Gulf Stream influences the climate of a big chunk of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 01:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 17:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus

Hi, Carlwev :). I think the Kuroshio and the Antarctic Circumpolar would be the obvious candidates. Kusnir (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2017 (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 Instinct

Important concept in both humans and other organisms, about behavior that is not learned through past experience but present in nearly all members of a species innately from evolution. I think an 10,000 size encyclopedia would cover this, we cover specific behaviors like hibernation, scavenging, grazing, I think instinct is important enough too.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm quite surprised that it's not included!--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Kusnir (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom Gizza (t)(c) 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2017 (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 void (astronomy)

Takes up the vast majority of space in the universe; certainly vital in my book. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support another good find. Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Covers almost the entire Universe for the cost of 1 article. --Kusnir (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. support Eddie891 Talk Work 00:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support doesn't need my support, but I'll give it anyway.  Carlwev  17:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2017 (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 inflation (cosmology)

The reason why the universe is so isotropic nowadays; without it we wouldn't be here. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Kusnir (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2017 (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 cosmological constant

The cosmological constant, first inserted and retracted by Einstein a long time ago, is now known to be real due to the acceleration of the universe in the form of dark energy. While dark energy is already listed, the idea of a cosmological constant itself is vital as well. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Kusnir (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added/Removed, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2017 (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 Silo, remove Grain elevator

We currently list both Granary and Grain elevator. I really don't think we need both of those articles. Silo is the more general term than grain elevator, so I think that is what we should list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 12:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Silos can be used to store numerous things, not just grain, although grain is probably predominantly what is stored in them. Silo is the more general term like said above. Also if anyone cares, Silo articles appears in 37 other language wikis and has 563 average daily page views, more than double compared to grain elevator, which appears in 14 other language wikis and has 242 average daily page views. Silo is what people look up more. [1]  Carlwev  18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

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


PASSED
Added, 5-0 --Thi (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2017 (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 Catullus

An influential Roman poet. "His surviving works are still read widely, and continue to influence poetry and other forms of art."

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support One of the few Roman writers who continues to have an impact in literature. Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FAILED
Not removed, 1-4, after more than 30 days pbp 18:33, 8 August 2017 (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.

Drop Tiberius

I'm surprised to see this name on the Vital articles list. Yes, Tiberius is considered one of the "Good" emperors, & it could be argued that he was the first "emperor" of Rome (namely, if he hadn't acceded to the throne, there might not have been an empire as we know it), but in the larger picture he is not that important to history. He doesn't have the impact that Caligula or Nero have -- e.g., think of a bad ruler, & they'll be one of the first names to come to mind. FWIW, if I had to add another Roman Emperor it'd be Diocletian, who rebuilt the Roman Empire; a grep thru the archives show his article hasn't been considered for inclusion as a Vital Article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. -- llywrch (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Caligula and Nero may be more (in)famous, but I would question if they actually had a greater impact than Tiberius. They had shorter reigns - Caligula's was only four years - and I don't think anything they did matches the importance of Tiberius's role in ensuring imperial rule was here to stay. I would be more inclined to remove Caligula, perhaps as a swap for Diocletian, who stabilised the empire and ended the Crisis of the Third Century. Neljack (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Tiberius is one of the most prominent of the Roman emperors, thanks to his rather complex relationships with Julia the Elder, Germanicus, and Sejanus, detailed historiographical accounts by Tacitus and Suetonius, archaeological findings such as the Sperlonga sculptures and Villa Jovis, and several portrayals in fiction. Dimadick (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I considered Tiberius more important than Caligula and Nero.

And what positive achievement(s) did Tiberius accomplish? About the only things his reign is known for are: (1) Accepting the mantel of princeps, thus continuing the structure Augustus created; (2) Growing unhappy enough with being ruler he retired to Capri, which led to (3) Sejanus' attempted coup which almost toppled Tiberius & led to a civil war. Or have I missed something? Having a long reign does not equate to importance: Honorius' ignominious reign as a nonentity during a time of crisis proves that. -- llywrch (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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


NO CONSENSUS
Not removed, 3–3 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Larry Bird

Six basketball players (all American men) feels like one too many to me. Larry Bird seems the least essential of the ones listed.

Support
  1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. pbp 21:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'd put Bird above Bill Russell. So does ESPN [2] Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. The fact that he is the only person in NBA history to be named Most Valuable Player, Coach of the Year, and Executive of the Year means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I don't put much stock in the ESPN list, @Rreagan007:. ESPN put LeBron ahead of Russell AND Wilt, Steph Curry in the top 25 (BEFORE his 2nd MVP), and didn't even have Hal Greer or Tom Heinsohn in the top 100. Russell has 8 more championships AND 1 more MVP. And I'm not sure even Russell merits inclusion on the list, 'cuz he's only the third-most-influential American basketball center (Kareem and Wilt). Also, while I don't rate LeBron ahead of Russell, Kareem or Wilt, he plays the same position as Larry Bird, and I'm afraid you've gotta slot LeBron ahead of Larry Bird at least (LeBron is not on the list, probably should not be, and nobody less influential should be either). pbp 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Surely Lebron should be on the list? As the advanced stats show, he's plainly one of the two greatest basketball players ever - the only question is whether he's overtaken Jordan for the top spot. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
You think he's better than Kareem or Wilt? pbp 14:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. James is the all-time leader in Box Plus-Minus and VORP, though Jordan still leads in Win Shares per 48 Minutes.[3] Neljack (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @RekishiEJ: Even though Bird is the only intersection of those awards, I don't think anybody would place him among the NBA's 10 greatest coaches, and probably not among the NBA's 10 greatest execs. He's barely among the NBA's 10 greatest players anymore. pbp 14:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–1; Removed, 5-2 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Bill Russell, add James Naismith

We have two other American basketball centers (Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar). We don't have the guy who actually invented basketball. pbp 22:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 22:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support the addition. James Naismith is definitely vital at this level, and not including him in the list is a shame.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC) added the word "not" in front of "including" 05:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Neutralitytalk 05:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Eddie891 (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support One wouldn't exist without the other, for a start. GuzzyG (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Even assuming that we should remove one of the centers, why is Russell the least vital of the three? Russell was the most successful player in terms of championships in NBA history, the leader of its greatest dynasty, and its first African-American superstar and then coach. He was also an outspoken advocate for civil rights. I don't see how he had the smallest influence of the three. Neljack (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the removal, since Bill Russell is the first Afro-American basketball superstar.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-0; Not removed, 2–4 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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.

Replace History of Sudan with History of Morocco

This gives the list more geographic diversity within Africa.

Support
  1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support add  Carlwev  16:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support add Gizza (t)(c) 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. The addition--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Added the word "addition" 16:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support addition. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal  Carlwev  16:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal Gizza (t)(c) 01:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I think Africa could use more history, Morocco has important history, interacting with Spain across the Mediterranean among other things. Land of Sudan has a long history similar to or overlapping with ancient Egypt, and the Kingdom of Kush, although that is listed separately but still. I would prefer to list both.  Carlwev  16:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

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


NO CONSENSUS
Not added, 1–2 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Obstacle course

I think this is on the same level as maze and playground.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I disagree, too niche. Prevan (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose It is not that important. Eddie891 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added, 2–1 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Racing

I think this is on the same level as Obstacle course, Auto racing and Horse racing at least

Support
  1. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too vague of a concept. Prevan (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


NO CONSENSUS
Not added, 1–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Aunt

Support
  1. As nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_39#Remove_Daughter.2C_Son.2C_Uncle_and_Aunt People didn't like the idea of listing all possible relationships from both sides, we don't list niece or nephew, we only have sibling not brother or sister, we don't list son or daughter. Nephew and niece are in one article and brother and sister both redirected to sibling in the past. Meaning these kinds of articles are often lists of fictional examples, merge 2 or more terms in one, repetative and are often suggested for deletion. Even if they are not deleted and a reasonable non-list article can be made, I am doubtful each individual type of family member is stand alone vital by itself. extended family is also a vital article which can cover information customs and cultural norms of non-immediate family.  Carlwev  16:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is a page for a gender-neutral term in English that refers to both Aunt and Uncle, I would support including that instead. Extended family is too general. I agree it's a weak case to include two articles for this relation, but I feel it important to have at least one. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There should be a kinship overview article here somewhere. Not sure we need both these, but we need something... Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added, 1–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Uncle

Support
  1. As nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
7-2, passed and added Gizza (t)(c) 08:14, 8 August 2017 (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 Alibaba Group

At least as important as Amazon Eddie891 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As Nom Eddie891 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support bigger than Walmart. Bigger than Amazon and eBay combined. Not having a company from the second biggest economy in the world is a big hole. Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Per above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support the most globally influential company in the world's second largest economy. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support - Obviously vital. GuzzyG (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just being currently bigger than some countries' economies does not a vital company make. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Alibaba isn't just big. Alibaba has set the benchmark for entrepreneurship and successfully growing a business in a country with a communist history and is a leading case study. It helped extend the reach of China as the world's manufacturing hub and is also transforming the country into a consumption driven economy. [4] [5] Gizza (t)(c) 12:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

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


FAILED
Not added, 1–3 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

This school is as prestigious as University of Hong Kong and Chinese University of Hong Kong, and University of Hong Kong is listed, hence the other two research universities should be listed as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. At this level, there's only room for 1 university in Hong Kong, not 3. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added, 2–3 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Baidu

A Chinese web services company, known for its search engine which is the most visited site in China and fourth most visited site worldwide. (source)

Support
  1. Support Daylen (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would support adding Alibaba on the corporate list. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. @Daylen:, please add your support vote here, since it is you that nominated this proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC) altered the template 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    1.  Done Daylen (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. To reduce the list's Anglo-centrism we must include this company.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1–3 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 5 Zodiac Constellations

Adding the 5 non-listed Zodiac constellations: Pisces, Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricorn.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Any additions. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (moved from Power~enwiki original proposal)
  2. Oppose 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rather than adding these, I think the other 7 Zodiac constellations should probably be removed. These constellations just aren't that important in and of themselves, and the currently listed articles on Zodiac, Astrology, and Astrological sign are all we really need. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
Individual constellations aren't vital. Removing a bunch is a good start, but the Zodiac is one concept, and probably a good fit in the religions section. Constellations are social constructs, not individually cohesive astronomical phenomena, and should be deprecated in favor of actual specific bodies. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Constellations have historical value in many cases. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure they do! But when we're making a list of 10k vital articles, I would much rather prefer an overview article. Put it this way: What has Saggitarius done that Orion hasn't? Separate articles should be vital if each individual constellation is vital. We're actively disagreeing which recent U.S. Presidents, each of whom had the power to end the world with the press of a button, belong on this list. In that context, I just don't see constellations as meriting individually vital articles. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
One thing I didn't realize when making this nomination is that the various months of the year (e.g. September ) aren't included. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2017 (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 ultimate fate of the universe

What will eventually happen to the universe is important as well (and an unanswered question). 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev makes a convincing argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support - Jusdafax 10:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

There are several theories about this like the Big Rip, Freeze, Bounce, Crunch and heat death, which may not be vital as stand alone articles, but the general topic of the fate of the universe probably is, all those theories and more are covered in the article. The "birth" of the universe the Big Bang is covered in the 1000 list, but the universes death, is not covered at all, it is uncertain to us, and doesn't have a leading long standing model like the Big Bang does, but the article explains this.  Carlwev  18:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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


FAILED
Not added, 1–3 --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (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 Chinese University of Hong Kong

Since it is the only university in Hong Kong with recipients of the Nobel Prize, Turing Award, Fields Medal and Veblen Prize sitting as faculty in residence, and it is as prestigious as University of Hong Kong, which is currently listed, it is absurd not to list the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. At this level, there's only room for 1 university in Hong Kong, not 3. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose pick ONE of these three universities in Hong Kong. Eddie891 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:16, 27 August 2017 (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 Steve Irwin

Host of the longest-running program of any Discovery Communications network, The Crocodile Hunter.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Lilybeans20101 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose nowhere close to being the next Australian to be added onto the list (there are at least 20 more important people missing) nor the next wildlife documentary presenter (David Attenborough is miles ahead). Gizza (t)(c) 23:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people more worthy than he for this list. pbp 04:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Neutralitytalk 23:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Cambalachero (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 14 August 2017 (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 Terry Pratchett

The fact that he has fifteen novels on the Top 200 of The Big Read, whose number of books written is the most of all authors mentioned on the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Very important writer in the fantasy genre, with some contributions to science fiction as well. Dimadick (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose there are too many British writers already on the list. Not more important to know about than Obama, that's for sure. Gizza (t)(c) 22:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Pratchett seems similar to J. K. Rowling. I might support both nominations, but only as swaps for currently-listed UK writers. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Neutralitytalk 23:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I had proposed to add this writer to the list, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_49#Add_Terry_Pratchett).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I had previously weakly supported this addition, but in light of intervening discussions, I think more time is needed before the enduring impact of Pratchett on literature can be assessed, so am abstaining. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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


No consensus --Thi (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2017 (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 Halldór Laxness

Iceland's best-known writer who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1955. His novels Salka Valka, Independent People, and World Light have been listed among the best books of the 20th century.[6][7][8]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus --Thi (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2017 (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 Jun'ichirō Tanizaki

One of the most popular Japanese novelists. Tanizaki was listed as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in literature four times.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5-0, passed --Thi (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (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 François Truffaut

He was the pioneer of French New Wave with Jean-Luc Godard. [9] --Thi (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - A towering influence, with numerous masterpieces to his credit. Jusdafax 17:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support one of the most influential French directors ever. GuzzyG (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FAILED
Not removed, 2 support votes, 3 oppose votes. --Thi (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Ida Lupino

Not vital as a director. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. pbp 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Her article sums up her importance to the field: "became a pioneering director and producer—the only woman working within the 1950s Hollywood studio system to do so. With her independent production company, she co-wrote and co-produced several of her own social-message films, and was the first woman to direct a film noir, The Hitch-Hiker, in 1953."... "The majority of her later career as an actress, writer, and director was in television, where she directed more than 100 episodes of productions ranging across Westerns, supernatural tales, situation comedies, murder mysteries, and gangster stories. She was the only woman to direct episodes of the original The Twilight Zone series,..." In other words, a groundbreaking female director and for several years, the only female director available. She is most significant in her field than male directors with no such distinctions. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Dimadick. Neljack (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Cambalachero (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added unanimously pbp 01:30, 29 August 2017 (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 Marcus Licinius Crassus

One of the important people of Rome and the most wealthiest.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Businessman, politician, and general. A towering figure for the 1st century BC. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support: We're very weak on businesspeople from more than 250 years ago. pbp 18:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support though I would be more inclined to place him in the political leaders' section, as that is what he is primarily known for. Neljack (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added unanimously pbp 01:34, 29 August 2017 (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 Charles Lindbergh

Hugely influential aviator, arguably more important then Amelia Earhart. Flew the first solo transatlantic flight and the first non-stop flight between North America and mainland Europe.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support - Surprised his article is not already listed. Jusdafax 10:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support pbp 01:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  9. Cambalachero (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 7-0 pbp 03:47, 29 August 2017 (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 Grigori Rasputin

Influential turn-of-the-century Russian. Somehow got lost in the shuffle when we wholesale axed the mystics section (except Nostradamus, who we moved to authors) pbp 02:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 02:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom, so highly influential he was murdered for it. Name known worldwide, saying something for a mystic. GuzzyG (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support A key figure in the downfall of the Romanovs. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


NOT HAPPENING
Withdrawn or failed, your choice pbp 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Eduard Shevardnadze

Minor post-Soviet figure. Less influential than Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenbashi), who we removed in 2015. pbp 17:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I find the description of Shevardnadze as a "minor post-Soviet figure" mind-boggling. Indeed neither the minor nor the post-Soviet are accurate. Perhaps Shevardnadze's most important role, even above his more than a decade as President of Georgia, was as Soviet Foreign Minister under Gorbachev, when he played a key role in the detente and arms treaties with the United States, as well as in matters such as ending the war in Afghanistan and German reunification. Neljack (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. His tenure as Soviet Foreign Minister greatly transformed the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, putting an end to the Brezhnev Doctrine.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC) removed a "d" 07:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added unanimously pbp 03:15, 29 August 2017 (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 Kamehameha I

Founder and first ruler of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Highly influential for conquering and uniting the islands. We don't have a political figure from this region.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Jusdafax 10:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support pbp 14:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added unanimously pbp 03:45, 29 August 2017 (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 Mark Antony

I almost did a double take when i saw that he's never been on the list before, probably the most important historical person not on the list. He might overlap with both Caesar and Cleopatra but he's still highly vital and important to history. Needs no explanation.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 04:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 23:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


5-0, added Gizza (t)(c) 09:14, 12 August 2017 (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 Marie Tharp

The list as it stands has many people associated with exploring or discovering important features on the Earth's land surface or in outer space but is light when it comes to the ocean (70% of the planet's surface).

Tharp was the first to map the varied topography of the ocean floor, discovered the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and was the first to connect these findings with the theory of continental drift. Her discoveries were the first major piece of evidence in proving the earth's continents move by plate tectonics. Before her revolutionary discoveries, the prevailing view in science was that the ocean floor was flat and that the continents were static.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 11:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Blueclaw (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Wiki's article on Tharp is a little brief. See these articles from the Smithsonian [10] and National Geographic [11] for a better explanation of her vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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


PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2017 (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 Nicéphore Niépce

From his article. "inventor, now usually credited as the inventor of photography and a pioneer in that field.Niépce developed heliography, a technique he used to create the world's oldest surviving product of a photographic process: a print made from a photoengraved printing plate in 1825. In 1826 or 1827, he used a primitive camera to produce the oldest surviving photograph of a real-world scene. Among Niépce's other inventions was the Pyréolophore, the world's first internal combustion engine"

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support if anything in the 21st century photography is becoming a bigger part of our lives. I have considered proposing Niépce many times but never got around to it. Gizza (t)(c) 00:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0 pbp 03:49, 29 August 2017 (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 Gustave Eiffel

More than just the tower. He built bridges, designed the inside frame of the Statue of Liberty, and made (ultimately-ignored-at-their-own-peril) recommendations on the French alternative to the Panama Canal. Very important inventor/engineer. pbp 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2017 (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 Balfour Declaration

The document considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict (and a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. This document and what it represents was clearly a historical turning point in many ways and its ultimate consequences would have many implications on foreign policy and international relations to this day. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support - this is significant enough. Neutralitytalk 23:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-0 pbp 13:41, 14 August 2017 (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 Neoclassical architecture

The predominant style of public buildings in Europe and the Americas from the mid-18th to the early 20th century. pbp 15:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 15:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Long-lasting and prominent architectural style. Dimadick (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 12:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support surprised this is not already listed. Neutralitytalk 23:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose


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


NOT HAPPENING
Withdrawn or failed, your choice Power~enwiki (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Wuthering Heights

I don't think this and Jane Eyre both need to be on a list of this size.

Support
  1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Because this is English Wikipedia, and the novel is now considered a classic English novel, though being controversial in the 19th century, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Perhaps, but I'm not sure why Wuthering Heights should be the one to go - it has a higher critical reputation than Jane Eyre. Neljack (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Highly regarded British novel by one-hit wonder Emily Brontë. I do not see a connection to Jane Eyre, which was written by a different writer in the same literary family. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:38, 27 August 2017 (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 Apostolic succession

Many of the world's largest religions could not be understood without knowledge of the concept of apostolic succession. It is critical for understanding the structure, beliefs, and histories of the Catholic Church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Old Catholicism, and Independent Catholicism. Moreover, it played significantly in the unfolding of the Protestant Reformation and in how many of the major protestant religions are structured today. It is also the unifying factor and underlying principle for the ideas of "bishop" (for the aforementioned religions) and "Twelve Apostles," which could both arguably be included in this list. Likewise, it is the underlying principle for the idea of "priest," which is already included in this list, for many of the largest religions. Ergo Sum 03:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

(Presuming the nom counts here)

Oppose
  1. Oppose Succession plays a part in every major world religion with a historical founder--Islam and LDS come to mind--and this topic is really only a big deal to certain subdivisions in Christianity.Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Just not vital enough to merit inclusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2017 (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.


PASSED
Added, 6-2 pbp 13:35, 4 September 2017 (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 Professional wrestling

I know we are over the limit in art right now, but this should have a place anyway. Last time this was discussed it was dismissed as "american television rubbish", comparable to Soap opera, which we list, as we should. But i feel that's very dismissive of the major culture force it's also been in places such as Japan or Mexico, it's held sustained mainstream interest and evolved from it's carnival background into something the POTUS has a background in. I feel like we should be listing genres or types of culture anyway. (No matter if it's high or low.). We list smaller stuff like Bodybuilding, Skateboarding and Mixed martial arts.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support whether you like it or not it's a widespread pastime and tradition. Gizza (t)(c) 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Not totally convinced about which category it should be in, but it does seem relevant, well known and separate enough from existing vital article Wrestling to merit inclusion. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose And yes, performance art is a more appropriate venue if it is added. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I've removed it here, since though professional wrestling belongs to Category:Performing arts, it better belongs to sports and recreation, as most people consider it a type of recreation rather than performing arts.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It was me that suggested this before, I was basically laughed at. I do not like pro wrestling at all, I find it a bit silly, but I can't deny it's cultural impact from the mid 20th century to modern day. The fact it is not a real a real sport is not a real reason to exclude it. I would consider it a performing art not a sport, there is no competitive part really, the only competition is artificial and part of the performance, vaguely similar to acrobatics which is listed in performing arts; bodybuilding at least has genuine competition through judges. When I think of culturally significant things from the late 20th century, we list multiple actors, musicians, and sportsman, plus individual music albums, songs, movies, TV shows, video games, board games, and toys from that era, I do not think all of these are a level above pro wrestling, it is shallow, but not insignificant. It is a multibillion dollar entertainment industry watched by millions on TV shows and live events, it has much merchandise too like clothing, annuals, action figure toys.
  • Also I personally would have preferred this left in the original section it was opened in, "performing arts". If something was clearly opened in the wrong area like a music album in actual musicians for example one could move it, but if it's a grey area and a matter of opinion I would have left it where it was and opened discussion about it. Although I admit I may be guilty of moving stuff in the past.  Carlwev  08:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer it remain in the sports section. It's could definitely go in either category, as pro wrestling is essentially a sports/performance art hybrid, but it seems to fit in better under the sporting category. I'd view this similar to bullfighting, which is arguably also a type of performance art but is commonly thought of (and listed here as) a sport. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand why Carlwev prefer the proposal left in the original section, but I still think that professional wrestling better belongs to recreation rather than performing arts.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My fault for not including this information in the nomination but if a occupation can bring 355,000 people to an event in remote places like North Korea (Collision in Korea), compared to other things we list i just don't understand the opposes. Unless you look at it as a 21st century American thing, which would be a major whitewash and disservice to the field. It has major cultural recognition in Mexico, South America, Asia and the United States and relative interest in the Commonwealth countries (Australia and the UK) , that's 5/7 continents. Low culture can still be vital.GuzzyG (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I getting confused between this and this, one is already a vital article in 'life', so doesn't classing this pro-wrestling as a sport complicate things? A Guy into Books (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, one's a performance art and one's a sport. That's why i originally placed it under Art. Two different things. 100! years ago one of America's most famous athletes (Frank Gotch) changed it from legit wrestling into a performance spectacle. It's spread into a thing where there's multiple styles like Lucha libre, Puroresu or the more commonly known American style. Having both isn't redundant and does not complicate things as they are completely different. GuzzyG (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 pbp 13:35, 4 September 2017 (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 Tug of war

One of the oldest still played known sports, was in the Olympics for a bit, we could use some ancient sports. Majority of the world has had a tug of war game or two.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2017 (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 Meme

One meme a day keeps the doctor away.

Support
  1. Support Kusnir (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. It's important to point out that this is not the same as Internet meme. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just... no. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 22:33, 27 August 2017 (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 Textbook

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support - seems necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support A textbook example of a vital article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support not just common but claims of bias of various textbooks make them a significant topic of discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see a need for this article. We already include the book article and textbooks are really just books. I don't seem them as any more vital than cookbooks or yearbooks. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan Prevan (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2017 (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 opinion poll

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Crucial component of modern democratic politics. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support opinion polls these days have the power and sway to change political leaders even before an election is held. Gizza (t)(c) 23:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed Zodiac constellations, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Gemini (constellation), Leo (constellation), Taurus (constellation), Aquarius (constellation), and Canis Major

There's way too many constellations on this list, which are completely nonexistent in professional literature. I think it would be best to remove all those that an average person would not be able to recognize in the sky; that would be these five. The ones I'm not proposing are very easy to identify on the sky, with many average blokes knowing then. Doesn't matter that most are zodiacal constellations; that is adequately covered by the zodiac article on the list. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support removal of all 7 currently listed Zodiac constellations. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support others, oppose removal of Canis Major. --Thi (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support removing zodiac constellations.  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of Canis Major. I think that constellation is well-known enough to remain included. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


1-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove tidal locking

Too niche. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This was added recently, and I think it's an important enough concept in orbital mechanics to be included in the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 22:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Lagrangian point

Too niche. Compared to the other topics on the list and the additions I propose below, this seems quite lacking in importance. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think this is a niche topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Power~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2017 (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 albedo

Extremely important concept for both solar system and exoplanetary astronomy. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support A bit of a racist concept, but, being so essential, I am surprised it's still not here. Kusnir (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I imagine if one were studying astronomy this would be a concept studied before several individual stars and constellations we list, which may be removed soon. Black body is also of interest.... if there was one astronomy topic that sounded racist?  Carlwev  15:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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


PASSED
Added, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2017 (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 Barycenter

The the parameters of the barycenter of two bodies tells us more about a system than the bodies themselves can. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Kusnir (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added/removed, 5–0 –Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2017 (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 chronology of the universe; Remove age of the universe

The story of the universe as a function of time is vital in its own right. Age of the universe would be subsumed into the chronology of the universe addition. While the age of the universe is interesting, not as vital as other aspects, and pretty well constrained at this point. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support (ONLY IF chronology of the universe is added) seems logical. Eddie891 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Abbott and Costello

Not as vital as Marx Brothers or Monty Python, who are known for their signature type of humour. Jerry Lewis was removed.[12]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Not in the World Book. "Who's on First?" is a well-known bit, but not particularly encyclopedically vital. pbp 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The Three Stooges are a more vital early American comedy group. GuzzyG (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support well-known but not enough to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Derek Jacobi

No lasting influence, not vital for an encyclopedia of 2000 names. We're over the limit and he doesn't make it. Wouldn't find him in a textbook on film.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. over limit needs addressing. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. pbp 17:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (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 Georges-Eugène Haussmann

Seminal figure in urban planning. Rebuilt Paris. (BTW, do we want urban planners as artists or as something else?) pbp 01:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 01:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom, underrepresented art form which needs representatives (urban planning). GuzzyG (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support These definitely should be under architects. see Fredrick Law Olmsted Eddie891 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not removed, 2–2 --Thi (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Anna Wintour

This seems to be least vital article in Journalists section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support removal of all journalists as categorically not vital. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. She influenced the fashion world a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per Guzzy Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

She was added not as a journalist but as the most powerful and influential person in Fashion from the 1980s to today, we don't have a place for fashion so she went into journalists. I'd say keep as for a centuries long business we only have Wintour and Coco Chanel. I'd even support Charles Frederick Worth or Yves Saint Laurent. We need more underrepresented art forms and fields. GuzzyG (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 1–3. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (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.

Re-add John Coltrane

Support
  1. Support As nom. I think that he should be removed, since he is one of the most influential saxophonist in music history, and has influenced countless musicians.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose For one, we just voted to remove him a few weeks ago. We shouldn't be having this discussion until sometime in 2018. For two, we still have plenty of jazz musicians on this list. pbp 14:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. No, he was removed more than three months ago, not just a few weeks.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose He was removed recently. Let's wait some time before discussing this again Cambalachero (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Maybe in another year from now. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. This figure was removed in /Archive_51#Remove John Coltrane.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove John Lennon

Controversial but by the guidelines of this list it shouldn't be, we list NO OTHER band member plus the band, we generally leave out authors etc if their work is on the list and they're only vital for their work Ian Fleming etc. In Lennon's case we list both Imagine and the band plus Sgt Pepper. That's three things that cover John but we still list him. On a list so small it should not be that way.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. pbp 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support I see no reason to list him separately to The Beatles to the extent that everything he is known for is covered in The Beatles and the songs. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I would be very surprised if an encyclopedia dedicated an article to the song Imagine but then not John Lennon. An argument can be made to remove or keep either, John Lennon has much more notability than the one song I can't understand why one would want the song but not the musician. This is not like say J K Rowling vs Harry Potter, or Fleming and Bond, Tarzan and Burroughs where the one work overshadows the creator significantly, here the man is more significant than the work surely. I would prefer removing the song instead, or removing Lennon and the song, keeping the song but not him seems illogical, to me.  Carlwev  16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If the encyclopedia had a unwritten rule such as no frontman with the band they would, i imagine. Either way, i agree with you. Paul had the more significant post-Beatles career anyway and we removed him. GuzzyG (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove The Who

Fan fav but they never really out shined other bands of their era. Not vital to Rock, just very, very popular. We removed Nirvana and they reshaped rock more then The Who ever did.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. pbp 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support The who? I had to look them up. So I can't comment from experience (not a classic rock fan), but the fact I don't know them is not showing relevance. They also don't seem to have translated their initial popularity to the younger generation, therefore will only get less relevant over time. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Stevie Wonder

On the level of Elton John who we removed. We're at limit and he's recent too. Not one of the top 150 most influential musicians of EVERY kind of music in history.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. pbp 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Neil Young

We're at limit and he's recent too. Not one of the top 150 most influential musicians of EVERY kind of music in history. He's at the bottom of the ladder of our listed Rock musicians. We shouldn't have more recent rock musicians then we do romantic composers.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. pbp 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2017 (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 Robert Bresson

Bresson is considered as of the greatest directors of all time. His minimalist style is challenging.[13] It is still useful to know Bresson's cinema to understand other films which have been influenced by him (such as Aki Kaurismäki's "dull" The Match Factory Girl or Scorsese's Taxi Driver which is a character study, not an action film). --Thi (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Good representation of minimalist film. GuzzyG (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (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 Diocletian

One important Roman emperor is still missing. He reorganized the Roman empire which led to the foundation of Byzantian empire.

Support
  1. Support As nominator. --Thi (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. pbp 17:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support A Guy into Books (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 22:03, 5 September 2017 (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 Sam Nujoma to "Southern and Central Africa"

The "Father of Namibia", Nujoma was an independence fighter who subsequently ruled the country for fifteen years. Not quite as long as the nearly four decades that Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for, but it is considerably longer than the governments of Nelson Mandela and Laurent-Désiré Kabila, both of whose articles are deemed "Vital" here. Moreover, this section contains only eight articles thus far; there is room for expansion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per Gizza. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I am not opposed to better representation of Southern and Central Africa but I'm not very convinced about Nujoma. Namibia has a population of about 2 million people and I'm not sure if Nujoma has enough influence and significance beyond Namibia to be vital. Kabila and Mandela were leaders of much larger nations and Mandela's vitality mostly stems from his achievements before he became Prime Minister (he's vital for the same reason as Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Even if Mandela was leader of South Africa for one month, he could still be here).

We recently removed Nursultan Nazarbayev, the president of Kazakhstan (a larger and more influential nation than Namibia) for an even longer period of time and who likewise comes from the underrepresented region of Central Asia. I was opposed to his removal but I can't see how Nujoma should be in before Nazarbayev.

If we were to add a leader of a small Southern Africa country, my preference would be Quett Masire of Botswana. Masire played a large role in making Botswana have the highest standard of living (in terms of HDI) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Gizza (t)(c) 09:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest Kenneth Kaunda, the founding president of Zambia, who played a key role in supporting the anti-apartheid struggle and as a mediator in southern African conflicts (such as in Rhodesia and Angola). He was probably the most influential southern African leader in international diplomacy during his 27 year tenure. Neljack (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus, has been up since March GuzzyG (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2017 (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 Paul Kagame

The fact that the current Rwandan regime led by him has given more people a greater chance to break out of extreme poverty than almost any regime in modern African history – and this after a horrific slaughter in 1994 from which many outsiders assumed Rwanda would never recover, making the regime admired throughout Africa means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support A very influential leader in history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I am generally against adding current political leaders to the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 5–1 --Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap Johnny Unitas with Vince Lombardi

I originally opposed removing Unitas as I feel that American football needs three representatives, as this is the English Language encyclopedia. But Purplebackpack89 is right, Unitas has no business on this list when Brett Farve, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, John Elway and other quarterbacks considered "greater" or more internationally recognized than Unitas are not on it. So there is no reason why we should single Unitas out, and Jim Brown played in the same era. So I proposed Pete Rozelle above and offering a swap of Unitas with Vince Lombardi, who is one of the most influential professional coaches in general sports history and a iconic figure in the United States. Lombardi made a major impact on how the sport played and seen in today's modern culture, Unitas didn't so the swap is obvious.

Support
  1. Prevan (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I think this makes sense. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Lombardi is the most important figure in American Football bar anyone. GuzzyG (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support removal pbp 14:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose add I don't believe American football needs more than just Jim Brown. Athletes is exceeding bloated (40-50 would be plenty IMO), exceeding recentist and exceeding U.S.-centric. A few months ago, we voted to remove Jimmy Carter and we almost removed Barack Obama. If we don't have room for those guys, we don't have room for THREE American football players. pbp 14:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Normally i'd agree PBP but i think we should have two coaches of sports, one american sports and one from soccer. Coaches are vital to sports and we have none. Lombardi is THE american sports coach. Put it this way if you were to study technique in a college you'd pick the coaches strategy over the players, academic wise. GuzzyG (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say Lombardi is THE American sports coach, tho. My vote would probably go to John Wooden. pbp 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 03:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Sabaeans

Another fringe ancient group. Only claim of notability for vitality the article states is that they might be the same group as the Sheba described in the Bible, and even that claim is highly contested.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support not a significant historical civilization. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per the last time it was proposed to be removed (see archive). The history of the Arabian Peninsula is poorly covered on the list compared to the Levant. Gizza (t)(c) 08:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above. Neljack (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 –Rreagan007 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (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 Classical Athens

Support
  1. As nom. I think that this article is as at least as vital as the Roman Kingdom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 15:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7–0 –Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2017 (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 Peloponnesian War

Support
  1. As nom. I think that this war is as vital as Greco-Persian Wars, since my college world history textbook mentions both, and because of this war Athens never returned to pre-war prosperity. I'm even surprised that this war is not included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 15:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Like the nom, I am also surprised it is not included, as it is one of the more important classical conflicts. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 2–5. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (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 Tuskegee, Alabama

The fact that it "has been an important site in African-American history and highly influential in United States history since the 19th century" means that it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose towns with populations less than 80,000 people are hardly ever vital. Gizza (t)(c) 22:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While I don't believe in a population cut-off to be automatically excluded from the list, the college would be a better add than the city. pbp 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose just not important enough to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I have no idea what possessed the nominator to even propose this. Of Articles with "Tuskegee" in the name, both Tuskegee Airmen and Tuskegee syphilis experiment are more vital than that town itself. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. In my opinion as long as a city is highly influential in the history of a particular country which is already considered to be vital at this level (e.g. history of China & history of the Untied States) then the city should be considered vital at this level as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 1–5. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (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 Muncie, Indiana

The fact that it is the mini USA means that it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose towns with populations less than 80,000 people are hardly ever vital. Gizza (t)(c) 22:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: We have the regular USA pbp 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I do not even understand the nomination rationale. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–1 --Thi (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC) (UTC)

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

Remove The Birds of America

The author, John James Audubon, is listed. --Thi (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I feel the most disposable book in that section is Opticks. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6–2. --Thi (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

}

Remove Opticks

Newton's major work Principia Mathematica is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support, seeing as we are above quota in Arts and nobody has shown any interest in proposing or supporting an increase in quota, we have to become stricter on specific works of literature (169 listed right now). Agree with nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Since this book is regarded as one of the great works of science in history, and it marks a significant transition in the history of the English language, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Newton is arguably the most important scientist who has ever lived, and this is a major scientific work. I think it merits inclusion.
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7–0 --Thi (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2017 (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 Arts and Crafts movement

Internationally famous movement which was enormously influential on later movements. Crafts is underrepresented in my opinion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 04:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support. Neutralitytalk 23:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2017 (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 Ancient Greek art

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

How is this art different from Hellenistic Art? A Guy into Books (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2017 (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 Hellenistic art

Support
  1. Support as nom. I think that it should be included since some of the best known Greek sculptures were made during the Hellenistic period.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2017 (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 Roman art

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove The Treachery of Images

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Though notable, it is still non-vital since it is not very influential on earth. Laocoön, which is not currently listed, is in fact more vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support agree Gizza (t)(c) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Not a world renowned piece of influential art, not important to the artform of painting, it's only interesting as the artist is pointing out, an image of a thing is not the same as the thing itself, but this does not make it a vital article, and he is not the only person to make this point. We also list Surrealism the artist himself already, René Magritte, Treachery of Images was made early in his career, he had other numerous fairly famous works. We might be adding some visual art movements/styles soon, we should prioritize which articles are less important, I don't think this work is more important than entire styles/movements that are missing, and may be added soon.  Carlwev  16:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Ecstasy of Saint Teresa

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We might be adding some visual art movements/styles soon, we should prioritize which articles are less important, I don't think this statue is more important than entire styles/movements/artforms that are missing. We already list the article on the artist himself, Gian Lorenzo Bernini. He had many famous statues, I'm not sure why this single statue was singled out as the most important. Sculpture is listed at lev.3 but statue itself is not listed at all, nor is Relief, they overlap with sculture, but might be worth considering at lev.4?  Carlwev  16:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–1 –Rreagan007 (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2017 (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 Rastafari to "Abrahamic religions"

Rastafari is currently not listed as a Vital Article under "Abrahamic Religions" but I believe that it should be. It has an estimated 700,000 to 1 million adherents globally, which puts it on a numerical par with Druze, which is listed as a Vital Article. Moreover, as the Rastafari article demonstrates, the Rasta movement has exerted an influence on the world that is larger than its numerical size would suggest; it has become a truly international movement (there are Japanese and Maori Rastas, for instance) and has had a significant cultural influence throughout the African diaspora and Africa itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Kusnir (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 17:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not sure Druze needs to be on this list either. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2017 (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 transliteration

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ALREADY LISTED
--Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2017 (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 Nobility

Support
  1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

"Nobility" is already listed under WP:Vital_articles/Expanded/History#General_.289_articles.29. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 4–4. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2017 (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 Phobos and Deimos

They're tiny as far as moons go, but they're the only other two moons in the inner solar system.

Support
  1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support agree. I think readers would expect to find the moons of Mars in a 10,000 article encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 03:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose So far, we haven't listed any solar system bodies that aren't massive enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium. These 2 would be the first, and I really don't think they are significant enough to break that trend. There is really nothing special about these moons, other than them being in the "inner solar system" which is an arbitrary distinction. They are just 2 captured asteroids, no more notable or vital than hundreds of other asteroids in the asteroid belt and dozens of other moons in the solar system. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose; there's a lot more objects in the solar system that are more vital than these, but that we simply can't list. There are about 5 unlisted moons of Saturn, and some of Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune that I would consider more vital than these. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I kind of like the idea of adding Solar System bodies, and I am interested in Mars, but these moons are tiny, about 11 and 6 miles across. There are other moons at least worth considering also like, Ariel (moon), Rhea (moon), Oberon (moon), Charon (moon) and others, which are around 100 times as wide, and about 100'000 times as massive. But I know size isn't everything, and there are loads of natural satellites in the outer Solar System and very few in the inner Solar System.  Carlwev  10:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 3–4. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2017 (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 moons of Jupiter, moons of Saturn, moons of Uranus, and moons of Neptune

It is my opinion that, as collectives, the moons of these four planets are vital in their own right (and they're also featured articles). 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I strongly prefer overview articles to trying to sort out WHICH moons to include or exclude. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. As pointed out below, these are lists, not articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Carlwev and Rreagan007. The WikiProject tags on the talk page also describe them as list-class. Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

On the one hand, I think these are good articles to have in theory, but I would like to ask, What makes these different from other list articles? A substantial part of those articles are a chart. Some articles like this happened to be named "List of...." and some are not but are still very similar to those that are, what was chosen for the title of the article is not always an exact indication of the article, whether it's a list or not, these do not have "list" in their title but are very list like and are within Category:Lists of moons. We removed almost all lists as an unwritten rule, we don't want lists here. What sets these articles apart from other list like articles we don't have, like Islands of the Pacific, Countries of Africa, U.S. state, List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, List of chemical elements, List of sovereign states?

Or are these moons of articles thought more to be like the articles we do list like, North Africa, Southern United States, Terrestrial planet, Noble gas a concept which is a topic in itself which includes several examples of individual things, like the North African countries, the southern states the terrestrial planets and the Noble gases.

Sorry for long post, but are the moon articles too list like or not, and what makes them so or not, compared to other lists?  Carlwev 

This is a good point. These are all categorized as lists, not articles. I have always assumed that lists were not eligible to be included as vital articles. Do we actually have any lists currently included as a vital article? I'm not aware of any. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Without looking, the only list like article I am aware of is Islamic schools and branches, it is listed in the 10'000 list now, it used to be listed in the 1000 list, but was removed in favour of an actual branch of Islam, it being the only "branches of religion x" article listed, in fact the only list like article listed. Loosely the argument is/was we either list "branches of religion x" for all major religions, or none, leaning toward none due to them being too list like. We list Andean civilizations in the 10'000 and 1000 lists, that is kind of grouping or listing of civilizations from the same region, but not exactly a list.
I remember several list like articles that have been removed including, List of chemical elements, Dependent territory, U.S. state, Table of nuclides (swapped for nuclide)
[[14]]  Carlwev  17:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If a categorical decision has been made to exclude list articles from vital articles at any level, I am previously unaware of it, and opposed to the idea: I fully believe a judicious use of list/overview articles allows us the flexibility to cover a topic without a) just picking one representative of a category, or b) having multiple articles to cover one key topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 3–3. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2017 (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 rings of Saturn

Unique among planets. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Kusnir (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 17:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we should keep the ring system, as it is less specific. Eddie891 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I too prefer the general topic article to this more specific one. The rings of Saturn are somewhat unique in our solar system, but I seriously doubt they are all that unique in the universe. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed, 2–3. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove terrestrial planet and giant planet

The boundary between non-giant planet and giant planet is completely artificial; in reality there is a continuum, and the term is meaningless. Terrestrial planet might have a slightly stronger leg to stand on, but in a list this small I can't justify keeping it on the list. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support removing giant planet. And adding gas giant, ice giant and possibly massively solid planet in its place. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. It is not really arbitrary. A terrestrial planet is a rocky planet and a giant planet is a gas giant or ice giant. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed, 1–5. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Ring system

The rings of Saturn are unique, and I have proposed the addition above. The ring systems of the other outer planets, on the other hand, are completely uninteresting, and I can't justify keeping an article on them. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose less specificEddie891 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose this was recently added to the list and I think it belongs here. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1–3. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (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 stellar wind

Important for the dynamics of any star system, interacting or not. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think we need to list both Solar wind and Stellar wind. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rreagan007 Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 –Rreagan007 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2017 (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 barred spiral galaxy

We have spiral galaxy, elliptical galaxy, and lenticular galaxy; we're missing the fourth main type of galaxy. Fundamentally different from spirals. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - Jusdafax 10:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–1 –Rreagan007 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Antares, Aldebaran, Altair, Achernar, Alpha Crucis, Beta Centauri, Eta Carinae, Deneb, Fomalhaut, Pollux, and Algol

The stars section here is definitely bloated, with more stars listed than other objects combined. Some of them should definitely be kept, but I think these ones don't really have a leg to stand on when other more vital non-stellar objects and concepts aren't and can't be listed, especially with the proposed cuts to astronomy below. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 13:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What will I then look at at night though? --Kusnir (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2017 (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 galactic center

While we do list Sagittarius A* (which is vital), the center of the galaxy as its own concept is important as well. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 23:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (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 Whirlpool galaxy and Pinwheel galaxy

Two of the most famous galaxies. We're currently lacking in individual galaxies listed (especially compared to stars even with the proposed cuts above); I think these two are famous enough (and interesting to astronomers) that they should be listed. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree we are too heavy on individual stars and too light on galaxies. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Kusnir (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 16 September 2017 (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 Geochemistry

We have geophysics, but not geochemistry, which is quite absurd.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just because chemistry and physics are of equal notability doesn't mean that geochemistry and geophysics are. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think so, since geochemistry is vital in measuring the age of the Earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per Powerenwiki Cambalachero (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–1 –Rreagan007 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2017 (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 iOS & Android (operating system)

Since both of them are highly popular mobile operating systems, and now a lot of people use smartphones and tablet PCs, they are vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Cambalachero (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose unless it's reframed as a swap. I don't think Macintosh is vital at all per Power~enwiki. Neither popular nor influential enough. And we don't have comparable brands in the non-IT space. Gizza (t)(c) 23:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Not too keen on this, there has been discussion as to whether Apple should be listed or not, among other companies of electronics/computers and elsewhere, so to add one of Apple's operating systems seems of lower importance. We haven't long listed smart phone itself either.  Carlwev  18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support replacing Java (programming language) with Android, and Macintosh operating systems with iOS. I'm not sure others will agree with that. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0 –Rreagan007 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Atiyah–Singer index theorem

This is the only term on the list I wasn't previously familiar with, and after reading the article, I can't find a case for its notability at this level. It is not referenced on the Differential geometry page.

Support
  1. Support as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I was also unfamiliar with this concept, but after looking over the article it does not appear particularly vital to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (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 Marius Petipa

The most influential ballet choreographer.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The most important figure in Ballet. Most dancers listed made their careers dancing to him. GuzzyG (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Cambalachero (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Isabelle Huppert

No lasting influence, not vital for an encyclopedia of 2000 names. We're over the limit and she doesn't make it. Wouldn't find her in a textbook on film. French cinema is already sufficiently covered without her.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. pbp 17:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Hanna Schygulla

No lasting influence, not vital for an encyclopedia of 2000 names. We're over the limit and she doesn't make it. Wouldn't find her in a textbook on film. German cinema is not in need of a representative.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. pbp 17:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added (swap), 6-0. --Thi (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap Deborah Kerr for Mary Pickford

Deborah is not important to the history of acting. Mary is the most important actress of the early 20th century who was also heavily involved in the business side of things as a co-founder of the United Artists film studio. Influential in both acting and film business. Mary also won a Academy award for acting while Deborah was only nominated (not including her honorary one).

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I'm torn between supporting this and supporting outright removal of Kerr. pbp 12:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't really have any of the prominent silent film actors other than Chaplin, like Douglas Fairbanks, Lon Chaney, Rudolph Valentino or Al Jolson etc. Now if you combine the fact that she was not only the biggest silent film actress (maybe Lillian Gish, who we list although Pickford is more iconic), but also heavily involved with the production of her films and the fact she co-founded United Artists with Fairbanks, Chaplin and Griffith. I think any encyclopedia who covers film would be expected to include her. She made the AFI list too, which is saying something for a silent film star. GuzzyG (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Ethel Merman

Not really vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ♪There's No Business Like Show Business, but this one has to go♪  Carlwev  09:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I can't find any reason to keep her on this list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since she has been regarded "the undisputed First Lady of the musical comedy stage", she is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 26 October 2017 (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 Jean-Michel Basquiat

One of the major contemporary artists, had a major influence with his unique style. One of his paintings is the highest selling for any American painter. We could use a representive of street art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose notable in his context, but hardly has a lasting significance in the history of arts Cambalachero (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not really sure about this addition. Keith Haring is also famous. --Thi (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 26 October 2017 (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 Alice Munro

The fact that she revolutionized the architecture of short stories means that she is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Now that a bunch of actors and musicians are being nominated for removal, we can add people like her. Prevan (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose agree with the opposes in the archives. There are other writers we should add before Munro. Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Not the next writer. GuzzyG (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Thi had proposed to add this writer to the list, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_49#Add_Alice_Munro).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap Charlotte Brontë for Brontë family

We already list Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights. An article on the sisters would be better as it includes all three and they're generally known as the sisters then individually.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Emily was probably the greatest writer of the three anyway. Neljack (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Hal B. Wallis, add Jack L. Warner

Is Wallis the best representative of the Warner studio? pbp 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Jack Warner should be on the list and this is a good swap. GuzzyG (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2017 (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 Josiah Wedgwood

A major potter and businessman. From the article "He is credited with the industrialisation of the manufacture of pottery" "He is credited as the inventor of modern marketing, specifically direct mail, money back guarantees, travelling salesmen, carrying pattern boxes for display, self-service, free delivery, buy one get one free, and illustrated catalogues."

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support A Guy into Books (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Akio Morita

Co-founder of Sony. Being a co-founder doesn't make you vital. If an encyclopedia had to pick 2000 people he would not be listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2017 (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 Vilfredo Pareto

A classical economic and political thinker (Pareto efficiency, elite theory).

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Thi (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support changed the field of economics from moral and political philosophy to an applied science and mathematical discipline. Gizza (t)(c) 03:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Otto Rank

Not the most essential Freudian psychologist to know. He is not listed in Psychology template (see the end of the article) which mentions for example Lawrence Kohlberg. --Thi (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 19:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 5-1. --Thi (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Heydar Aliyev

Minor post-Soviet figure. Less influential than Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenbashi), who we removed in 2015. pbp 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think we should be more representative of countries with no or one politicians. It was a mistake to remove Niyazov. GuzzyG (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • @GuzzyG: Had I my druthers, I'd support Turkmenbashi being back on the list, but I don't foresee him being re-added in the current climate pbp 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sadly i agree, Bashar al-Assad should be the next politician anyway, recent-ism aside. GuzzyG (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 21:23, 8 October 2017 (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 Clair Cameron Patterson

The man who made the most accurate estimation of the age of the Earth and warned the American public that the world had been contaminated by lead, just like Rachel Carson warned Americans that abuse of pesticide had caused lots of problems means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Power~enwiki (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Jackie Stewart

We're over the limit. He's a great master of motorracing but he's not as good as Schumacher, Senna or Fangio. He's top 10 but not the top 3.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. pbp 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Jacques Anquetil

Master of cycling but as we're over the limit he is not vital enough for this list. The only cyclists that are are Armstrong, Hinault and Merckx.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. pbp 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:22, 3 October 2017 (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 Peloponnesian League

It is as vital as Delian League.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not as vital as the Delian League, which gets almost triple the page views and lasted much longer historically when it morphed into the Athenian Empire. The Peloponnesian League is redundant to the war proposal below. Gizza (t)(c) 22:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2017 (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 Battle of Vienna

Considered to be the turning point in the Ottoman wars in Europe (which we already list). I think this is a historical turning point battle that deserves to be included separately, the same as we list both the Norman conquest of England and the Battle of Hastings. The battle is also noted for including the largest known cavalry charge in human history.

Support
  1. Support as nom Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  10:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I was going to suggest the Fall of Constantinople as an even bigger turning point in history but that is already listed. I'll think about this. Gizza (t)(c) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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


I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, so let me know. Seven Years' War, Eighty Years' War, French Revolutionary Wars, War of the Austrian Succession and War of the Spanish Succession would be better placed if grouped together, probably in the general section as Seven Years' War is. Or group it with the others. They were all worldwide conflicts as much as each other. Bertdrunk (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Just a point - Since we now have Carthage and Ancient Carthage does anyone entertain the idea of Constantinople and/or Byzantium in addition to Istanbul? or do people consider them obsolete? If so, why not Carthage? (We also have Rome and Ancient Rome - But Ancient Rome isn't just about the city obviously).  Carlwev  05:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think many people who supported Carthage didn't actually check to see if there was a related article listed already. Perhaps not as many people would've supported it if they knew that (I supported but not as strongly because of it). In the case of Constantinople, there is History of Istanbul which talks about its history from antiquity to now. But that throws up another question of whether we want to include history of city articles here. Gizza (t)(c) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I think one overview article per city is appropriate, covering all its names and eras. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


PASSED
Removed, 7-0. --Thi (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Northern Dvina River

I fail to see how the Northern Dvina River is vital. It is not in the top 100 longest rivers in the world nor are there any major cities or anything else important along its banks. There are more important Russian geography topics missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 7-0. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2017 (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 Faroe Islands

Very surprised this isn't already listed. Definitely more vital than a number of other islands we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as per discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This makes me think of the possibility of either the Channel Islands or the largest of them Jersey. Vaguely similar position, European islands with some autonomy with some overseeing from a larger nation, with somewhat own culture history and flag etc. Jersey has double the population of the Faroes too. There is also the Isle of Man also more population than the Faroes, or Crown dependencies, but crown dependencies is probably too list like. I know population is one of several factors, not the most important by itself.  Carlwev  10:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel that there are many islands at the same level as Faroe although perhaps we can add most of them, which is why I'm neutral for now. Islands with a distinct geography, political division, culture and a similar or bigger population than Faroe include Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Mayotte, Bougainville Island, Jeju Island, Socotra, Aruba, American Samoa, Balearic Islands (Mallorca and Ibiza are world famous), Northern Mariana Islands and Bonaire. Gizza (t)(c) 12:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that many of those islands you mentioned probably should be listed. I think islands in general are a very important geographic topic that is probably underrepresented in our current list. Islands will often have unique flora, fauna, and human cultures/languages not found anywhere else. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Since we're well under quota and there are still many seas, straits, etc. listed which are not used for shipping or naval battles, don't have significant wildlife or resources like oil and gas (and therefore not vital), I will support adding Faroe and other islands and regions. Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-0. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Banks Island

It's not one of the 20 largest islands and it's barely inhabited. Doesn't have an article in the 1994 World Book pbp 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 23:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support redundant to Canadian Arctic Archipelago too. Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Speaking of Arctic islands, I'm not that convinced about Svalbard being here. Surely the Åland Islands are more important? Gizza (t)(c) 12:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Svalbard should be kept. It's basically the only large island in that area of the Arctic Ocean. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2017 (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 Cornwall

Support
  1. Support as nom A Guy into Books (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support more vital than Banks Island, that's for sure. Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Cornwall to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography (Level 4) sub-section "Regions and country subdivisions" under "UK" since the other four 'nations' and gibraltar are included. A Guy into Books (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I may support this. At the moment we have Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Brittany. The two missing Celtic nations are Cornwall and Isle of Man. I do think Cornwall is more important to know than Gibraltar, marginally. And Isle of Man is a fair bit smaller so we don't necessarily have to add it (although there is room with the current geography quota). Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I regard places as more vital than most people do here, I am wandering what puts Cornwall above all other English/British Counties and most cities, we could have, Sheffield, Kent, York, Yorkshire, Newcastle, Bristol, Southampton. I liked the idea of an article like Roman Britain, but that failed once. There are other regions missing from other countries, Bohemia, Moravia (but we do list Kingdom of Bohemia and Great Moravia) North Rhine-Westphalia, Ruhr, Essen, Dortmund, Tahiti, any more US, Canada, Australia states? would like to add more to geography, but needs to be thought about.  Carlwev  01:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
One thing that makes this region different is that it has its own language: Cornish. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Tahiti, we decided to include French Polynesia instead (the island group rather than Tahiti which is the largest island of the group). Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Slightly improves the argument, but the language was almost extinct, still under 1000 second language speakers after a revival. There are thousands of existing languages, extinct languages, regions with there own language, especially in the developing world, Cornish language is not hugely important compared to other languages. Many many regions had their own language historically, there is even a Cumbric language. There are close to a thousand Papuan languages alone as well for example. There is also a Manx language too. We have removed languages themselves with over 5 million speakers like Norwegian language. Cornish language is quite an insignificant argument really for a 10'000 article list view point, in my opinion. Yeah I know we list French Polynesia, it was only one example of many, not the best. (Tahiti also has it's own language, Tahitian language) We list other islands in addition to an island chain, like Martinique and Lesser Antilles for example, but never mind. We also list England, and UK of which Cornwall is a part of.  Carlwev  02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the importance of Gibraltar, I think it is probably as relevant as Cornwall, since Gibraltar is more relevant now (ie. in modern times), so i don't think it should be removed.

Cornwall was more important historically, Particularly when it was a country separate to England, before the 13th century, but also during the mining period (most industrial period mining techniques were developed in Cornwall, where mining was of such importance that they had their own currency, courts and legal system under some kind of royal charter, until 1758). The EU recognises Cornwall as a distinct cultural group equal to the Welsh, Scottish or English. I don't think the language is tat relevant on its own, but Britain historically had few distinct languages (about 7 of them) so it could be a factor. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can list more regions from most populated English-speaking countries (US and UK) in English-language Wikipedia. Cornwall is culturally and historically important area. The current list contains 27 US cities, some have just 300,000–500,000 residents while Cornwall have population of 556,000. --Thi (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's not counting the Cornish diaspora, which I understand were disproportionately involved in mining prior to mechanisation. I personally believe that Wikipedia is slightly biased towards the US due to the proliferation of editors from the US, but i'm not complaining to much on that. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this to the correct section, and framing it as a proper proposal; and also to add user A guy into books, as the nominator and first supporter. He's new here but it is clear to me his intention was to suggest and support adding Cornwall to the list. Looks like a few more people may like Cornwall, but I'll leave you to support or not as normal, as not 100% sure of others opinions.  Carlwev  15:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the proper formatting. I was unsure how the process works. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2017 (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 Nashville, Tennessee

I think Nashville deserves inclusion on the list. It's larger and more important than several of the U.S. cities currently listed. It is the center of the country music industry and the Southern U.S. seems to be a little underrepresented in the current list of cities. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The fact that it is the centre of the country music industry means that it's vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support – Probably more vital than my proposal below. J947( c ) (m) 04:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 5-1. --Thi (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Buddenbrooks

The Magic Mountain is more influential novel, although Buddenbrooks is some people's favourite. Maybe we should list Alfred Döblin or his most famous work Berlin Alexanderplatz.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support: Not a notable enough work to justify being a VA pbp 17:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since American Nobel laureate William Cuthbert Faulkner regarded Buddenbrooks the greatest novel of the 20th century, it is indeed vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I'd support this as a swap. This is the only German-language novel in that section. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Swap Buddenbrooks for Döblin? I'd support that. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5–0. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2017 (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 Home

Home categorically refers to the place (not necessarily a structure per se) where people reside. One's home plays a central role in all stages of life as a place of shelter and security, among other things. Interestingly, the Expanded List includes an entire subsection on household items and articles regarding households and cohabitation, but curiously doesn't include the place in which those goods and living arrangements are typically found.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support good suggestion. Gizza (t)(c) 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support there's room for both House and Home at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Obvious support. J947( c ) (m) 05:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I originally proposed swapping House for Home on the Level 2 list. However, since Home doesn't appear on the Levels 3 and 4 lists, I was encouraged to propose adding the article on those lists before we can consider my Level 2 proposal. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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


PASSED
Added, 7-1. --Thi (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2017 (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 Intersex

Propose add intersex to Issues. Not a sexuality or a gender, a distinct concept relating to biological sex characteristics. Trankuility (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nom. Trankuility (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I think it's fair enough to add the "I" in LGBTI. Gizza (t)(c) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Society or Biology though?  Carlwev  11:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks! The page contains little biological content as intersex traits are so diverse and specific pages exist, such as androgen insensitivity syndrome. The page combines a range of social, human rights and health issues. Many of the social issues are similarly health-related. Social classes would perhaps also fit, IMHO. Trankuility (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support I calculate there are some 5 million people alive who were born intersex. (1 in 1,500). It seems quite relevant regardless of the trending factor. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Simply not vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

  1. I suggest that this proposal be removed to the everyday life section, since intersex belongs to the gender category, and gender belongs to the everyday life subpage.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    Don't you mean non-binary or third gender? Trankuility (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    The fact that there's such ambiguity over where to even place this suggests that it is not yet well-defined enough to be considered vital. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    Well, it's hardly the first concept to be misunderstood, but that doesn't make it "not yet well-defined enough". It is what it is. The article exists in more than 50 languages on Wikipedia, the English language version dates back to 2001, and it is viewed by an average of 4551 per day over the last 60 days. It currently appears as one of the 5000 most accessed on Wikipedia, at #3023. Trankuility (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    Trending != Vital. I spend a lot of time editing Game of Thrones-related articles, which get a lot of pageviews throughout the topics, but I would oppose addition of any part of the topic as vital. Vital means worldwide, ongoing impact. Sexual birth defects are nowhere near as common as Cystic fibrosis or Sickle-cell disease, which are far more important in terms of incidence, prevalence, morbidity, and mortality, but far less trendy. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    You're throwing in a grab-bag of ideas in opposition. The data is recent because recent data is available, but you haven't engaged with the other points I raise as it doesn't suit your preconceived argument. The age and range of language-specific articles demonstrates that the issue is of long-standing and global relevance. Trankuility (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. I've removed to the sexuality section, since Category:Intersex belongs to Category:Sexuality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-0. --Thi (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2017 (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 DC Comics and Marvel Comics

Both companies have been publishing comic books since the 1940s or so, and created the whole superhero genre, a staple of modern popular culture (which, of course, has not been limited to comics, but also expanded into most others form of media). They have hired contless notable artists, and created loads and loads of characters with lasting notability, some of them have even vital articles of their own.

Note that what I said applies to both companies. Each is vital on its own right, but I'm making a joint nomination for the sake of simplicity, as their case is broadly similar.

Quick reminder for those who are not in comics: DC Comics created Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, the Justice League, the Teen Titans, etc. Marvel Comics created the Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Spider-Man, the X-Men, Wolverine, the Fantastic Four, etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cambalachero (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Many superhero films are in fact adapted from comic books published by either DC Comics or Marvel Comics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC) replaced "and" by "or" 14:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Relatively long-lived publishing companies and influential in their field. DC Comics was established in 1934 and has been publishing comic books since 1935. It is actually credited as the first American comics company to publish original work rather than newspaper reprints. Though various mergers and acquisitions, it owns the rights to several characters by defunct publishers of the 1930s to 1950s. Marvel Comics was established in 1939, and had a few early hit characters. A revamp of its comic book line-up in the 1960s, turned it into one of the most successful comic book publishers of its era and gained it a reputation for more innovative work and realistic characterization than its competitors. It has since occupied one of the top positions in the business. Dimadick (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Since both companies have been spending alot of money in making these comics into films (Disney bought marvel films) and the subsequent promotion of the films, the merchandising etc, the actual comics are as popular as they ever have been, with reprints of past issues and general increased awareness in the younger generation. So these look like they will be relevant for some time to come. I also support the joint nom, since trying to decide on one would cause a endless 'which is better' argument. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I believe these are better than Wonder Woman, X-Men, Jack Kirby, and several magazines we list. If we can list several magazines and several comic characters, I think the two main Comics should be in. I am thinking though, our coverage of comics may get disproportionately big, so maybe a swap for something lower? Slightly off, topic, but in the long run, if we are listing comic and magazine publishers (as well as people and characters), which in essence create and publish art/fiction/media, in this list, we should consider other media companies, specifically a small number of the most prominent movie companies, in addition the stand alone Disney. Are These comic companies more vital than Fox, Warner, Universal?  Carlwev  16:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Some of the characters are actually household names and may be better known than the publishers to the general public. I would actually like to see more film companies included in the vital articles. As for the examples you mentioned:
    • 20th Century Fox was established in 1935, following the merger of Fox Film and Twentieth Century Pictures. By the 1940s it was one of the most profitable American film studios, it led the pack in introducing CinemaScope in the 1950s, got a reputation for hit science fiction films in the 1960s and 1970s (Fantastic Voyage, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars). It has changed ownership a couple of times, but it has continued to produce hits. Its greatest hit so far is Avatar (2009).
    • Warner Bros. was established in 1923, as a successor to minor studio Warner Features Company. Its first hits in the 1920s were those starring animal actor Rin Tin Tin. It was a pioneer in sound films in the 1920s, a pioneer in color films in the 1920s and 1930s, and produced several key musicals, swashbucklers, and gangster films. Its subsidiary company Warner Bros. Cartoons was one of the most successful animation studios from the 1930s to the 1960s. The studio was mildly controversial in the 1930s and 1940s for consistently producing anti-German and anti-Nazi films, as well as World War II-related propaganda films. In the 1950s it adopted Eastmancolor and CinemaScope for its films. Starting in the 1960s, the company went through changes in ownership and increasing focus on subsidiaries. In the 21st century, it has a string of major hits. Its most successful film so far is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011).
    • Universal Pictures was established in 1912, as a successor to the Independent Moving Pictures. This studio is noted for its longevity. It is currently the oldest surviving American film studio, and the fourth oldest surviving studio in the world. A relatively minor studio for decades, it produced hit horror films in the 1920s and 1930s. In the 1940s, the studio primarily produced B-movies. The company did not start producing color films until 1942, trailing other studios. The company tried and failed to make more prestigious films, though it continued to make hit comedies starring Abbott and Costello. Their subsidiary animation studio Walter Lantz Productions was relatively successful, and continued to produce hit series until 1972. With a change in ownership in the 1960s, the studio aimed to produce bid budget films, though the results were unimpressive. The horror film Jaws (1975) was its greatest hit in the 1970s, and the company actually managed to produce major hits in the 1980s and 1990s. The company has actually changed ownership five times since the 1990s. Its most successful film so far is Jurassic World (2015). Dimadick (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The film companies seem like a good proposal, but should be evaluated on entries for their own. Let's try to keep this one focused on Marvel and DC. --Cambalachero (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1. --Thi (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Nissan

I don't think that the list needs both Toyota and Nissan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Nissan is much smaller than Toyota. Toyota has a rather unique worldwide proliferation of their ute's, not necessarily always for the right reasons. The brand is well known for undercutting others on price to gain massive sales, so there are lots of their cars everywhere. This makes them more than 'just another car company', although really they are just another car company, but I suppose they can't all be included. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support —J947( c ) (m) 05:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that Nissan is currently the largest electric vehicle (which will become more and more popular in the near future) manufacturer means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
As a compromise, let's revisit this decision in the future. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


2-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:12, 25 October 2017 (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 Spelling

Simple but very common language topic pbp 03:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 03:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Obvious add. GuzzyG (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose redundant to orthography, which discusses all writing conventions of a language, including punctuation, capitalization, spelling, emphasis, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 00:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with Gizza's argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Gizza ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discuss

There's overlap with writing and writing system too. FWIW, even orthography was opposed when it was proposed by expert in the area (Maunus). See archives here. See also the failed proposals to add punctuation here and here. Gizza (t)(c) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:12, 26 October 2017 (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 elite

Support
  1. As nom. I think that it should be added not only because it can turn into a featured article but also because it is a frequently heard term.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we already have articles on social class and economic class, which makes this redundant. Even so, elitism is probably the better choice. "Elite" is just a dictionary term. Gizza (t)(c) 10:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Elite theory is still quite important topic. --Thi (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as redundant to elitism above, which looks likely to pass. J947( c ) (m) 05:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Gizza and discussion below. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. /Archive_41#Add_elite).--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced, I can see why it ought to covered, but elite is only one word to describe what I would call The Establishment. also it seems covered at Economic inequality and Social stratification and without adding to the "Social classes (7 articles)" section where it is covered by Bourgeoisie. If it is supposed to represent the List of wealthiest families or Billionaires or List of royalty by net worth it doesn't do that either. In fact there is no coherent overview article for this topic. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) -  09:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    Start-Class article [[Social class]] (Level 3)
    C-Class article [[Bourgeoisie]]
    C-Class article [[Clergy]]
    B-Class article [[Eunuch]]
    Start-Class article [[Middle class]]
    Start-Class article [[Peasant]]
    Start-Class article [[Proletariat]]
I don't think "elite" is the right article, but if we have "middle class" and "peasant", we should probably have something representing upper class. All of these articles have problems; Aristocracy (class) and Old money are two others that need help. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Upper class seems like a better idea to me. Also, I'm not sure topics like Bourgeoisie, Peasant, and Proletariat are all that relevant in the modern context. Perhaps replacing them with Working class, Underclass or Working poor would be better. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Certainly using the French revolution era terminology seems rather last century thinking. Unless there is some valid intellectual reason to use Proletariat instead of Working class. Also Middle class and Bourgeoisie seem to be the same class. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  07:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Proletariat, Add Working class

I think we need to use the more modern terms for the social classes. The more antiquated terms just aren't very relevant in the modern context.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support, as quite a reasonable change. J947( c ) (m) 05:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2017 (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 cell biology

This article is vital since prior to the introduction of molecular biology biologists studied creatures only to the extent of cells.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. It's a section header on the vital list containing 35 items. Cell biology is a thriving discipline; cells are still the smallest unit we can study as a living system (think of ongoing research with HeLa cells, stem cells, etc.). If there's not enough room to add another subdiscipline of biology, I'd suggest removing chemical biology. Plantdrew (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support This is relevant as biologists can now 'make' cells independently to growing them in plants or animals, play with 'stem cells', alter single celled thingies to make chemicals. (they are no longer the smallest living system we can study, prions get that crown, they are living thingies which are a form of virus used in genetic therapy and scary bioweapons). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Also, cell is Level-2 vital so it is reasonable to have cell biology at Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 02:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. /Archive_47#Add_cell_biology).--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Thysanura

Thysanura is no longer recognized as an order, former members are now included in orders Archaeognatha and Zygentoma. While the vital list includes many orders of insects, it doesn't list them all, and even if Thysanura were still recognized, it's one of the least important orders listed. Rather than replacing with two small new orders, I think it's better to remove Thysanura outright. Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Deprecated taxa have no place in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Even discussing this topic lends credence to the notion that Wikipedians can decide whether a taxon is valid or not. Invalid taxa should be exempted from discussion and removed on sight. I will continue to do do. Abductive (reasoning) 21:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I will agree the article is quite short, and the insect type official or not does not seem especially well known or important to ecology, evolution or human society, and the fact the experts have recently decided it is no longer an official taxon makes removing it seem even more sensible. Perhaps if something is listed twice or an article gets deleted or merged and no longer exists at all, it would perhaps make sense to remove straight away. But removing something only because the experts say it no longer has an official status it once had, and for no other reason, would be like removing Pluto as it's no longer deemed a planet, or removing the USSR, Scotland, Tibet, Yugoslavia because they're no longer countries. We list several articles that are not official taxa such as plankton, seaweed, invertebrate, parasite, extremophile. I admit Thysanura seems no where near as important as those topics, but if we removed or included articles on types of life only based solely on the fact they were or weren't official taxa, articles like those would have to go too. I find it polite to bring information and suggestions to the table and see if consensus forms, if the idea makes sense then people normally agree as they appear to be here, as opposed to removing things with no discussion and reverting anyone who questions. We would not trying to say this insect is any more an official taxon, than we are trying to say Pluto is still a planet or Scotland should be a sovereign state by listing them. The sovereign states and other regions are clearly listed separately, but types of life, official taxa or not are just listed under what they are, in this case, it's a kind of insect so it's listed with other insects. Just because something is listed such as plankton does not mean were suggesting it's an official taxon any more than we're suggesting missing topics like Formicinae are not official taxa. A suggestion to make the list clearer could be made, to list official taxa separate to other topics, but it may not be needed, the Solar System list does not list the planets and dwarf planets separately for example either. The list could be made clearer but it is an articles job to describe exactly what a thing is, not the list's job, this list just has to put it in the best place we can find for it.  Carlwev  16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Tangerine, Add Mandarin orange

The tangerine is not the only mandarin orange hybrid. There are clementines, satsuma oranges and others. Mandarin oranges, being the parent article and more popular (higher pageviews), is more vital IMO.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

The Tangerine article says that "The tangerine (Citrus tangerina)[1] is an orange-colored citrus fruit that is closely related to, or possibly a type of, mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata).[citation needed]". So I'm not 100% convinced that a tangerine is a type of mandarin orange hybrid. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears there is not universal agreement as to whether the tangerine is a mandarin or not, although it usually is. I don't think this matters a whole lot anyway. Mandarin is more important, in itself, it was the original orange, still eaten today and has many varieties or hybrids. Tangerine, mandarin or not is only one narrow variety of citrus fruit among many, several of which are mildly important but probably not vital like blood orange, or kaffir lime. Other citrus fruits, that are interesting and probably more important than the tangerine might be citron and pomelo, might not be vital though?  Carlwev  13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Citrus taxonomy is a mess (the subject, that is; the article isn't too bad); there's a lot of hybridization, which makes things complicated. Citrus tangerina is one of 180 citrus names proposed by Chōzaburō Tanaka; Tanaka's classification isn't generally supported today (taxonomically, Citrus tangerina is considered a synonym of Citrus reticulata, although tangerines can still be recognized as distinct cultivars of mandarin oranges). 17:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2017 (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 Amputation

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  11:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support despite the absence of nom. A medical procedure that is common enough, something that curious readers would want to learn more about and something you would expect to find in a traditional encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_52&oldid=1137397560"