Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

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


The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed anytime as PASSED if at least five !votes have been cast in support, and at least two-thirds of the total !votes are in favor of the proposal; or they may be closed as FAILED if at least five !votes have been cast in opposition and the proposal has failed to earn more than one-third support. After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally. After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable complete list.

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles/Expanded list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

  • 15 days ago: 23:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 23:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 23:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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


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


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

Visual artists[edit]

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

Add Ivan Aivazovsky[edit]

A famous Armenian painter who was one of the greatest marine artists in history, and during his time he was quite famous both in and outside Russia.

  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Not the best choice to represent 19th-century Russian painting, and I'm not sure 19th-century Russian painting even needs representation in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Jean-Léon Gérôme[edit]

A French painter who brought the Academic painting tradition to an artistic climax.

  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Again, not convinced that we need a painter from this tradition, or that Gérôme is the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose--Thi (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I think we have all the French artists we need. pbp 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Alphonse Mucha[edit]

A Czech Art Nouveau painter and decorative artist known best for his distinct style. He produced many paintings, illustrations, advertisements, postcards, and designs.

  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose On the one hand, he's probably a better choice than Beardsley. On the other hand, Eugène Delacroix, William Morris, Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, Amedeo Modigliani and Joan Miró are all equally good if not better choices from the 19th and 20th centuries. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Being a core figure in the Art Nouveau movement guarantees his vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


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


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

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

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


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

Swap: Remove Ted Turner, Add Rupert Murdoch[edit]

Another controversial move but i think Murdoch arguably had a bigger impact on the media and in all fields of it then cable news. Especially considering he pulled off the Fourth television network which people thought was unfathomable at the time. Also had impact on three continents (UK, US and Australia) GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Rupert Murdoch should be added since he is now a media tycoon.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rupert Murdoch per above. In terms of print, Murdoch only owns media in three countries but when it comes to film and television, he owns assets in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Much of the world. Neutral on Ted Turner for the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Ted Turner is much less vital than David Sarnoff, creator of the radio and television industries. Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support addition Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support addition, Oppose removal. Ted Turner pioneered Cable news and created CNN. He is vital for that reason. Rupert Murdoch is also vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Ted Turner should be kept since he is the man who created the world's first TV news channel, which made television station owners think that TV news can make profit, hence TV news became less informative and more recreational.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ted Turner should remain on this list. Considering the effect of cable TV on the media landscape, he needs to be on there. Rupert Murdoch has his thumbs in a lot of pots, but he's not particularly innovative. He may belong on this list, but not at the expense of Turner. pbp 01:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We mention the fourth television network. I don't think we have people from each of the first three. pbp 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Both NBC and ABC were companies originally owned by Sarnoff. CBS is represented by Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet:, Well, that's assuming Sarnoff passes. I'm inclined to say that Turner's more significant than Sarnoff. I'm also inclined to say that a single television exec (if Sarnoff fails) or two television execs (if Sarnoff passes) is low. Really low when you compare it to the number of film directors and producers we have. And especially low when you remember that Murdock (if swapped) draws a great deal of notoriety from his publishing interests, not his television stations. And with CBS only being represented by anchormen (and late night hosts) and the other two networks sharing a figure, the "fourth network" argument still seems weak. pbp 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That Murdoch's activities in both the publishing and TV industries were notable makes him more vital, not less. In light of the prominent businesspeople we're missing, two TV execs is plenty. Where's Jack Welch? Alfred P. Sloan? Thomas Watson Jr.? Estée Lauder? Henry Luce? Henry J. Kaiser? Sakichi Toyoda? Richard Arkwright? Josiah Wedgwood? Todar Mal? Marcus Licinius Crassus? Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of those people should be on this list. Some of them have been either removed, or been failed add proposals. Awhile back, I proposed Sloan and it failed. pbp 15:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

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

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Hannah Arendt[edit]

Johanna "Hannah" Arendt (/ˈɛərənt/ or /ˈɑrənt/; German: [ˈaːʀənt]; 14 October 1906 – 4 December 1975) was a German-born political theorist. Though often described as a philosopher, she rejected that label on the grounds that philosophy is concerned with "man in the singular" and instead described herself as a political theorist because her work centers on the fact that "men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world." An assimilated Jew, she escaped Europe during the Holocaust and became an American citizen. Her works deal with the nature of power, and the subjects of politics, direct democracy, authority, and totalitarianism. The Hannah Arendt Prize is named in her honor.

  1. As nom. The fact that this article is not included in the list quite surprises me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support A highly influential political theorist. Neljack (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support important political theorist. GuzzyG (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Religious figures[edit]

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

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

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

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

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

Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Gordon Gould[edit]

Another in the controversial field but we do not list Theodore Harold Maiman who i think is as equally (if not more) important to the laser as him and we do not list him, the same circumstance as Saul Perlmutter where we removed him due to him not having a certain, higher influence compared to compatriots. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support- As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Agree that Maiman is as least as important. Neljack (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Despite my comments below, it's true we probably do list too many physicists compared to other types of scientists, and Gordon Gould doesn't have the strongest case to be included on the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support a swap if that's better? GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We previously removed Charles H. Townes for similar reasons, and I think we can afford to keep one person to represent modern optics. Hard to say who should get the most credit for inventing the laser though. Cobblet (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Sports figures[edit]

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

Add Ed Walsh[edit]

The pitcher who had the lowest ERA in the history of Major League Baseball.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Some Wikipedians claim that there are currently too many baseball players in the list, but I think that there are not enough ones in it, since though popularity of baseball is declining in Brazil, baseball is still becoming more and more popular in Israel and the Philippines, as professional baseball leagues were estalished in these two countries recently, thus popularity of baseball is not becoming less and less popular on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Tommy John[edit]

The first pitcher who received ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in the world.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, would the surgery itself be vital? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO, definitely not. A case could be made for sports medicine and possibly concussion. But look at the much more basic topics we're missing: elbow (and knee for that matter), tendon, and ligament are not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. This surgery is a bit too obscure to be added. I do think concussion should be added because it is one of the most common sports injuries and there is research into a concussion's effect on the brain right now. Sports medicine is more iffy to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

History by continent and region[edit]

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

History by country[edit]

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

Prehistory and ancient history[edit]

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

Add Ancestral Puebloans[edit]

Probably the most well-known group of early native North Americans, even more so than the Mississippian culture which we already list. I'll note that we also list Mesa Verde National Park, the most famous of Puebloan sites, but the Puebloans' architectural legacy is much more extensive than that one site and is also just one part of their legacy as a whole.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support I do not mind adding this group, but we should probably also add Iroqouis, which is of a similar importance to Native American history. I am not sure Ancestral Puebloans are as important as the Iroqouis, but I am willing to support this proposal because it is a good start to covering Native American ethnic groups. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about proposing to add an indigenous group from South America to the ethnic groups section. It's the only inhabited continent with no representation. Quechua people and Aymara people are among the leading candidates. Also thinking of swapping Sami people for Sápmi (the latter is not a politically autonomous region and only notable because of the Sami people). Maybe do the same with Kurds and Kurdistan but at least some of Kurdistan is autonomous. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can support adding the Quechua and Aymara and swapping Lapland for the Laplanders. In the case of the Kurds and Kurdistan I don't think it would be inappropriate to list both (but maybe swap Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdistan as that is the modern political unit commonly associated with the term) – off the top of my head we already do this for Tibetans/Tibet and Uyghurs/Xinjiang. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Swap, Remove Boyar, add Conquistador[edit]

Boyar does not appear in any other languages. It is a aristocracy rank of Bulgaria and surrounding regions. We don't list Tsar, we removed Pharaoh, we don't even list King or Queen. I think Conquistador and their actions are of historical importance. In my head I compare them to Knight, Samurai, Ninja, Mamluk all of which we list, a system or class of culture specific soldier, who's actions have been documented and are of importance. Although they are mentioned in other articles about the same time and events, we have overlap in other areas such as we have Knight along with Knights Templar, Crusades and Crusader states, but no one has tried to remove them so far.

  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Unlike knyaz which we removed earlier, it's more than just a rank: it was in fact the upper level of Slavic society and in that sense is similar to knights and samurai. I'm not sure why the Wikidata link doesn't show up on the English Wikipedia but the article definitely does exist in many languages. As I said to you in the earlier discussion, conquista redirects to Spanish colonization of the Americas (which is listed) and conquistadors are simply the people who carried it out. I think the two articles are largely redundant with each other. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Cobblet. FWIW, Boyar exists in 44 languages and Conquistador in 62. This is not bad considering that Bulgaria has a lower internet access rate than Spain (See List of countries by number of Internet users. Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also whilst on historic soldier people. We list Viking Age in the 1000 list and 10,000 but not Vikings anywhere. Arguments could be made for both but I've always wondered if we should have Vikings too/instead? It is what I would up first, and is the title of sections of history books I have. Much of the content is the same, but they are two articles, although arguments to merge them or keep them separate could be made.  Carlwev  20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a problem with Wikidata at the time, I should have guessed as much. Boyar does exist in other languages, appearing in 44 in total, as Gizza states. Pharaoh was kept too.  Carlwev  09:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Early modern history[edit]

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

Modern history[edit]

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

Historical cities[edit]

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

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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


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


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

Physical geography[edit]

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

Parks and preserves[edit]

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


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

Regions and country subdivisions[edit]

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


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


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


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


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

Remove Thesaurus[edit]

If it isn't clear that textbooks or the other things I mentioned in the above discussion are vital, thesauri definitely aren't vital.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support maybe this is just me but I expect an encyclopedia to have an article on synonyms before a reference work containing mainly synonyms. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A Thesaurus may not be as important as a dictionary, but it is important enough that writers use them all the time in order to choose word choice. I have personally used thesauruses countless times when writing essays and other pieces of writing. That is why I think thesauruses are vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with PointsofNoReturn that they are vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I have to agree that a thesaurus qualifies as vital. As pointed out by User:DaGizza, synonyms are not counted in the list of vital articles. However, including the thesaurus, which is vital incidental to its use and prevalence in creative literature, would also obliquely include the concept of a synonym in the collection of vital articles. The thesaurus incorporates a number of concepts that are both notable and important in language and writing systems. Ergo Sum 04:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Jut because writers use thesauri does not mean they are vital. People use rhyming dictionaries or bilingual dictionaries frequently; that does not make them vital. Nor is a desk or a writing desk vital. If frequency of use is all that matters than a cookbook is probably much more vital than a thesaurus. Not a single piece of information in the thesaurus article is vitally important for anyone to know. Cobblet (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

But thesauri are vital because they list synonyms of words and are vital to all forms of literature. Poet, novelists, and journalists alike all use thesauri. Desks are not necessarily used and are not necessarily vital (they might be, but that is a different discussion). Bilingual dictionaries are not as important because they are included in the article about dictionaries in a list and is simply a type of dictionary. Rhyming dictionaries are not as important because they are not used by as many writers and are again only a certain type of a dictionary. I voted to keep thesaurus because it is one of the most mainstream types of writing aides used by writers and everyday people worldwide. Thesaurus, dictionary, and encyclopedia sum up the list of writing aides well. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I repeat: not a single piece of information in the thesaurus article is vitally important for anyone to know. The question is not whether thesauri are frequently used, the question is whether anyone needs to look up this concept in an encyclopedia. Toilet paper is frequently used: that doesn't mean we have to include it on this list. Cobblet (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Then the article needs to be improved. That does not mean the article needs to be removed from the list. The article should describe it's importance and usage in all forms of literature and do a better job on it's history. But article quality is not a factor in determining whether an article should be included on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You know very well I'm not talking about the quality of the article – I didn't show up here yesterday. What notable facts are there concerning the history of the thesaurus? Why would anyone find it necessary (not merely interesting; otherwise everything in pop culture is interesting and therefore would be vital) to know such things? What do you even mean by "usage in all forms of literature"?
The Arts section is full. We could be listing a non-fictional genre of far greater significance like biography (which can also be regarded as a branch of history and could cover everything from hagiography to psychohistory). We could be listing genres that have served as important sources of information for historians like almanacs or diaries. We could be listing specific reference works of tremendous historical significance like Pliny's Natural History, the Etymologiae or the Yongle Encyclopedia. We could be listing literary elements like metre (poetry), irony or metaphor, genres of fiction like mystery fiction, or traditions of literary scholarship like comparative literature. But no, instead we have to list thesauri, even though the only thing one needs to know about them is what they are, and that's information that can be found in any dictionary entry. It's like toilet paper: you need to know what it is and what it's used for, but you don't need to read a Wikipedia featured article on toilet paper to consider yourself educated on issues of personal hygiene or household goods. Just because something has an important, common and frequent use doesn't make it vital.
I look at my bookshelf and I see cookbooks, travel guides, brochures, self-help books, coffee table books, sheet music, a style guide, ring binders containing notes, and notebooks. On my desk there are invoices and bank statements. All of these things are commonly used, and some of these things are definitely more notable than thesauri. For instance, when it comes to financial records, the invention of the double-entry bookkeeping system is considered a major milestone in the history of finance; some even say it's changed the world. Has anyone ever said the same of Roget's Thesaurus? Cobblet (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Performing arts[edit]

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

Visual arts[edit]

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

Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Philosophy and religion[edit]

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


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

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Add end time[edit]

The concept of the end time/end times/end of days has been consistently raising its head every few years for two millennia. pbp

  1. pbp 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose redundant to eschatology, the study of end time. Maybe we can do a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I would rather nominate Apocalypse because it is important religiously and in pop-culture. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Specific religions[edit]

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

Esoterics, magic and mysticism[edit]

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


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

Everyday life[edit]

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

Clothing and fashion[edit]

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

Add Diaper[edit]

This has been mentioned by several people before. It certainly seems more vital to me than baby transport.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support important thing for younger children. GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per Cobblet, GuzzyG and Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 10:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pram, pushchair and buggy are covered in baby transport, more widely used than the wheelchair which we have too. Everyone was a baby once, not everyone needs a wheelchair. I think there's room for both anyway.  Carlwev  18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Velcro[edit]

The article actually talks about the manufacturing company, not hook and loop fasteners. It's clearly not a vital company. And hook and loop fasteners are not as vital as the unlisted buckle (button and zipper are on the list). Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This is like listing YKK Group instead of zipper. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

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

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Household items[edit]

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


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

Added to Clothing and fashion Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Nudity[edit]

Clothing is listed within the vital 100, then within the vital 10,000 we list many items of clothing, for that reason and more I think we should include the article about not wearing clothing; nudity. The article has relevance to social conventions for and against, eg western view of public nudity taboo almost, naturism, tribal and other cultures where nudity is either the norm, or at least widely accepted. As well as sexuality, pornography, art, including painting and film, and many other topics like showering/bathing imposed nudity and more....I am unsure of placement however, as it is relevant to more than one area, it could fit in clothing and fashion, social issues or sexuality. I am unsure, although leaning toward clothing and fashion, until someone can give a better argument to another section. The only things I can see that would cover this at all would be sexuality and clothing, but nudity isn't always sexual, and both clothing and sexuality sections contain many articles, so those articles don't make the topic redundant, any more than the other articles listed beneath them.  Carlwev  20:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm going to move "clothing and fashion" out of the household goods section (one encounters clothes outside the house as well; things like body piercing and swimsuit are not "household goods") and into their own section; then nudity clearly fits there as well. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add promiscuity[edit]

Our coverage of sexuality and relationships has become quite detailed. I consider promiscuity to be vital, and of greater importance compared to other articles we include in those sections. We cover the multiple partners from a marriage or official POV with articles like concubinage, bigamy, polygamy, and also infidelity ("cheating" in marriage or non-marriage relationship). But the general idea of casual sex with multiple people regardless of marriage or honesty is not covered. It is of interest to sexuality, sociology and psychology and to religion and ethics, and it does get written and read about and studied. There are articles in the area of sex/relationships that seem equally or less vital, like foreplay, oral sex, moiety, endogamy, exogamy.

I won't suggest to remove any at this time though, as some were fairly recently added successfully by voting, and many I think deserve a place. There are other articles about multiple partners in various contexts that I need to read through to see exactly what they are how widespread and vital they may or may not be, and how much they overlap; articles are Polyandry, Polygyny, Polyamory. Anyone have views on them?

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  22:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sports and recreation[edit]

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

Nordic Skiing?[edit]

I was thinking of suggesting removing this under the argument below, I'll still keep it as I took the time to write it, but I'm not sure, I noticed Nordic Skiing is a parent topic of other events as seen in the template, a main division of skiing as it were but it's been a stub for ages, and previously had a list of winners that were removed.

We have Skiing, and another 3 types in addition to this one. No offence to Nordic countries, this just doesn't seem that vital in my opinion, view the article. I can think of several sports or events that seem more vital and are missing, or been removed already. We removed the gymnastics events, the fencing events/swords, and a few more things here and there Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_10#Sport. We don't list things like 200 meters, Parkour. Also, I won't list them all, but if you view Template:Skiing and Category:Types_of_skiing it will show there are numerous 10-20 other types of skiing we don't have which are arguably the same importance or higher than Nordic Skiing. I'm not sure Nordic Skiing has a place here. What do others think.  Carlwev  19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest swapping it for cross-country skiing which is the original form of skiing and probably more popular than ski jumping which is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Asian Games[edit]

Second largest multi-sport event in the world – bigger than even the Winter Olympics for instance. We have several sports leagues in North America and Europe: this event is the best choice to represent sport in Asia.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support very good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Good way to increase the diversity of the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems very sensible, going since the 1950s. A very significant event that includes a huge chunk of the world, the biggest and most populous continent. We include several US/N American leagues, English and Spanish Football/Soccer leagues, not to mention many sports people like 14 tennis players and a few figure skaters. Any way, taking into account our coverage of sport, in the scheme of things, seems like a good idea to have this IMO.  Carlwev  10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if any other multi-sport events could make it. The Commonwealth Games probably won't because the Commonwealth of Nations is already listed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think the Pan American Games are the next largest of these events (still consistently attracting twice the number of participants as the Winter Olympics) but nobody in North America at least pays any attention to it. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the Ancient Olympics has a shot. After we removed senet, I think gladiator and chaturanga may be the only historic games listed apart from sports still played today like running and wrestling. The Ancient Olympics is definitely more vital than chariot racing which nearly passed (5-3). Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to support this because there are a number of multi-sport events (Pan-Am Games being the first one that comes to mind; Commonwealth Games, Ancient Olympics and World Games being others) that are equally important as this, but not on this list. pbp 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Americas, the Copa América, Copa Libertadores, college football and March Madness all matter more than the Pan Am Games. In Asia the AFC Asian Cup is definitely less important than the Asian Games; maybe the only league/event of comparable significance is the Indian Premier League but that hasn't been around for very long. Also it could probably be argued that Test cricket is more important than the Commonwealth Games. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add free agent[edit]

A term definitely vital for athletes, sports fans and analysts.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The most vital article in similar territory is agency (law) but there are 20 other articles that should go into the law section before that. Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Stages of life[edit]

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


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

Add Anno Domini[edit]

The most widely used labels for years in the Gregorian and Julian (the Gregorian calendar is already listed and doesn't really cover this) calendars. Used for the Julian calendar since around approximately the 9th century, and for the Gregorian calendar after its invention in the sixteenth century. Other terms are used interchangeably today such as Common Era (the most common variant), which came into use in the mid-nineteenth century. It's the same system, merely renamed. It is also covered within the Anno Domini article. This article also covers the fact that their isn't a "year 0" within the dating system.

  1. Support as nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Calendar era seems like a better choice to me; it covers how years are numbered in other calendar traditions as well. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The label is also mentioned very briefly at Year, which is already listed.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The nominator had made some spelling mistakes, which I corrected later.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) fixed a little

Add Julian calendar and Buddhist calendar[edit]

The former had been used widely in the Western world, until the 16th century. However in Russia it still had been used until the October Revolution. The latter was once used commonly in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Burma, but now only used in Theravada Buddhist festivals. Though both are either obsolete or only used in Buddhist festivals concerning their historical significance both should be added to the list.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Julian calendar. Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support The Julian Calendar. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Buddhist calendar. The Hindu calendar upon which it is based is definitely more vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Society and social sciences[edit]

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


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


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

Business and economics[edit]

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

Remove corporate tax[edit]

Currently there are six articles on tax: tax itself, corporate tax, income tax, property tax, sales tax and tariff. Corporate tax for all intents and purposes is just an income tax applied to companies. There are 96 articles in the business and economics section and even if there are 100, to be frank there isn't space for six articles on tax.

As previously mentioned, there are many gaping holes in business and economics. Things like productivity, subsidy/protectionism (welfare covers different territory), something on economic growth/business cycle/recession (this is about to be rectified), franchising, bankruptcy, government budget or fiscal policy, interest rate or monetary policy, actuarial science, human resource management, privatization, mortgage, double-entry bookkeeping system, valuation (finance) or mergers and acquisitions or investment banking, etc. You get the idea.

  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I think it's more important to list either economic policy or fiscal and monetary policy before listing their components. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom; a corporate tax is indeed merely another tax on income. bd2412 T 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add industrial organization and international economics[edit]

A typical beginners' economics textbook first covers microeconomics, then industrial organization, then macroeconomics, and finally international economics, therefore industrial organization and international economics are not less vital than microeconomics and macroeconomics.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose International economics is redundant to international trade, international relations and exchange rate. Industrial organization is redundant to microeconomics and the listed market structures (monopoly and perfect competition). Gizza (t)(c) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. I had proposed it here before, however my proposal din't get passed due to insuffient support (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_39#Add_industrial_organization_and_international_economics).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add economic system and economic growth[edit]

Undoubtedly crucial concepts.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support economic growth. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support economic growth. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I had proposed it here before, but my proposal was not passed (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_38#Add_economic_system.2C_economic_growth.2C_Gini_coefficient.2C_Misery_index_.28economics.29_and_Human_Development_Index).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Economics is a tricky area. It seems a bit too much to include both economic growth and GDP, and say recession or economic cycle. Economic system likewise is an informative article when you read it but how unique is it when most of the systems are listed? Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

Swap:Remove Sápmi, Add Sami people[edit]

Sápmi (also known as Lapland) is a cultural region only notable for the indigenous Sami people that live there. The region is not defined politically. There is nothing else that Northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Northwestern Russia have in common. And the people are not notable enough to have their region listed as well unlike say Tibet/Tibetan people and Kurds/Kurdistan. We don't list both Inuit people (also known as Eskimos) and Nunavut, the more famous Arctic culture.

  1. As nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree it's better to list the Laplanders rather than Lapland. Transnational ethnic groups are better represented by the article on the people than the article on the area they inhabit. It's only when their homeland has political autonomy and can genuinely represent their interests that I prefer listing the area rather than the people. Cobblet (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Iroquois[edit]

User:PointsofNoReturn's excellent suggestion.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Creole people[edit]

Redundant to creole language. Speaking a creole language does not unify creole people in any sort of way and it is pointless to have it listed when we could be listing another ethnic group. Even if a famous mixed-race people like Mestizo or Métis would be better. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This ethnic label is most frequently associated with the Spanish colonial caste system: we could add casta to cover this and other labels like mestizo or mulatto. Cobblet (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

International organizations[edit]

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


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

Add grapheme[edit]

A grapheme is the smallest unit used in describing the writing system of a language, originally coined by analogy with the phoneme of spoken languages. A grapheme may or may not carry meaning by itself, and may or may not correspond to a single phoneme. Graphemes include alphabetic letters, typographic ligatures, Chinese characters, numerical digits, punctuation marks, and other individual symbols of any of the world's writing systems.

  1. As nom. It is as crucial as phoneme and morpheme, however it currently does not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose No, it isn't. We already list many articles on types of graphemes, all of which are more useful to most readers than the technical concept, which is also already covered by writing system and orthography. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Add language change[edit]

A definitely crucial article.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Redundant with historical linguistics. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Not redundant with historical linguistic at all, since morpheme to morphology is like language change to historical linguistics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Then let's remove morpheme. Cobblet (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There is arguably a parallel between language change and evolution, and between historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. We list one of each at the moment (historical linguistics and evolution). If anything, a second article on biological evolution seems more vital than a second on linguistic evolution although both are important. Gizza (t)(c) 14:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, both phonemes and morphemes are crucial concepts, thus both of them should be kept in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
But User:RekishiEJ, I have never seen you refer to something as not being a crucial concept, so I have no idea what you mean by that. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add stress (linguistics)[edit]

No doubt it is a crucial term in linguistics, along with prosody (linguistics) and intonation (linguistics).

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per above. Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add lexicography[edit]

Now that there are learned societies dedicated to lexicography, and it is an important field, it should be included in this list. Besides, the Linguistics WikiProject has rated it Top-Importance.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Covered by dictionary. Cobblet (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic[edit]

The former is crucial since it is the language used in the Hebrew Bible. The latter is crucial as well since its modernized version, Modern Standard Arabic is currently the lingua franca among Arabs.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. As far as classical languages go, no doubt they are both up there in vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Classical Arabic, Oppose Biblical Hebrew. Per Edward Sapir: "There are just five languages that have had an overwhelming significance as carriers of culture. They are classical Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek, and Latin. In comparison with these even such culturally important languages as Hebrew and French sink into a secondary position." (Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, 1921.)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

On this subject, Vulgar Latin, also entered my thoughts as fairly important; although we have Latin itself, and Romance languages, which it led to...I am only thinking out loud as there are many forms of Latin seen here: Category:Forms of Latin  Carlwev  20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

By my count, there are 11 extinct languages on the list. Two of them, Middle and Old English, are significant mainly because this is the English language Wikipedia. The remaining nine are Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Pali, Sanskrit, Latin, Old Church Slavonic and Classical Chinese. Hebrew language, which is listed, discusses the entire history of the language and not just the Biblical or Modern forms. Gizza (t)(c) 13:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Add lingua franca[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Again covered by sociolinguistics. Cobblet (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add diacritic[edit]

Many written languages use diacritics, hence it is crucial.

  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Should be covered by orthography. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose just as non-vital as punctuation. Gizza (t)(c) 05:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose They are very unimportant in English, and this is the English Wikipedia's list of vital articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Add censorship[edit]

This article is absolutely vital. It is closely related to freedom of expression.

  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be too closely related to freedom of speech. I could support a swap. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Add counterfeit[edit]

This article is, in my opinion, no less crucial than fraud.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose A poorly focused topic. Besides, we need trademark before we start talking about trademark infringement. And even that might be too specific: maybe what we need before that is brand. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a number of proposals on this page with three or more supporting !votes and the Society section will be over its quota if they all get added. I won't support any more of your proposed additions if you do not propose deletions or an increase in the quota. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Particular types of counterfeit, counterfeit money being the obvious one, are probably more vital than the broader unfocused topic. I wouldn't mind counterfeit money replacing one of the currencies we have. It is touched upon in banknote and coin but only ever so slightly. Gizza (t)(c) 05:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Add bribery[edit]

This article is no less crucial than fraud.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Covered by corruption. Cobblet (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Add perjury[edit]

This article is, no doubt vital at this level.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Should be covered by witness. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It's a small crime in the scheme of things. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass media[edit]

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

Add sports journalism[edit]

I believe that the best way to represent sportswriting is with this article, rather than a particular guy or publication

  1. pbp 15:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 02:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is the only genre of journalism we're adding, we're basically saying that sports journalism is the most vital form of journalism – more important than, say, investigative journalism. The Society section is essentially full under the current quota, pending passage of a couple of proposals with four !votes to none, so we should be careful deciding what to add next. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Politics and government[edit]

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


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

Swap: Remove authority, Add Power (social and political)[edit]

Look at the article and you'll see that it is almost a disambiguation page. More of a dictionary term than a topic in an encyclopedia. Authority has different meanings in politics, sociology, religion and philosophy. Something like sovereignty and power (social and political) would be better choices for the list. Also it doesn't make any sense to have this in psychology.

  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a straight-up removal. While different disciplines take different approaches toward studying where power derives from and how it controls people, the questions they are asking are all naturally related. Britannica has a decent overview of this very subject, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an extensive article on political authority. The Milgram experiment is a classic psychological experiment investigating the nature of authority. Perhaps the article belongs better under sociology and maybe power (social and political) is the better article to include (it does get more hits), but something on this topic ought to remain on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the proposal into a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Behavior, Add Human behavior[edit]

The article on behaviour is currently a grab-bag of four unrelated concepts that happen to share the word "behaviour" in their names. Since it's listed in the Psychology section, and human behaviour is a central object of study in psychology, I think this is a straightforward swap.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Human behaviour is something I'd like to add to the level 3 list. In fact I think there are several aspects of it and things that influence it (perception, learning, bonding or interpersonal relationships, motivation, personality, social norm, memory) that ought to be vital if, say, six types of writing scripts or political ideologies are vital. Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Temperament, Add Attention[edit]

In a modern context "temperament" is basically a component of personality and is studied as part of personality psychology. With both of those articles on the list I think we can afford to do without this one. The historical concept of four temperaments is less vital than the four classical elements which itself is not a topic we list.

Attention refers to one's ability to focus or concentrate on something and has been studied by psychologists since the 19th century. It has huge implications on the study of mental health – you can't have a discussion on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (which we also list) if you don't talk about the neurological basis of attention first. Issues related to multitasking are also part of the study of attention.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition.  Carlwev  09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I support adding attention, IMO it's better than temperament, but I'm still thinking about whether we need temperament or not, it's true it does overlap personality, but I'm not sure if it's completely redundant, until I read through them a little more.  Carlwev  09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mood might be even weaker than temperament – it seems fairly redundant with emotion. Affect (psychology) might be worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Add Domestic violence[edit]

An important social issue. Covers everything from economic abuse to honour killings.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


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

War and military[edit]

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

Remove surrender (military)[edit]

Much like declaration of war which was removed awhile ago, surrender isn't really vital. Nobody needs to read an entire article on how armies raise a white flag. It is one of many laws of war, all of which are redundant to the main article.

  1. As nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We could be listing truly vital encyclopedic topics like mercenary, military use of children or jihad instead of words that people can just look up in the dictionary. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, surrender is a disambiguation page. That usually means that the people who made the page thought that military surrender isn't important enough to be the primary topic. Gizza (t)(c) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Combat[edit]

Redundant with war and violence.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support smaller scale combat is also redundant to martial arts. Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Offensive (military)[edit]

Redundant with invasion.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support the articles cover the same ground. Beyond Vital Articles' scope but they could even be merged. Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Military campaign, Add Peacekeeping[edit]

"Military campaign" is redundant with war and military strategy. I propose replacing it with an important type of MOOTW.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support we already have the other main MOOTW in emergency management. Gizza (t)(c) 05:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Biology and health sciences[edit]

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


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

Remove biological classification, add taxon taxonomic rank[edit]

The former was merged into taxonomy (biology), which now belongs to the list. The latter is by no doubt vital, however it currently does not belong to the list.

  1. As nom. I'm surprised that taxonomic rank is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC) changes the proposal: The taxonomic terms, kingdom, genus and species are called taxonomic ranks rather than taxa.
  2. Support removal. Oppose addition. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

While obviously the redirect isn't vital, I think both taxon and taxonomic rank should be adequately covered by taxonomy. I would suggest adding cladistics instead, which is a specific modern approach to phylogenetic analysis, distinguishable from phenetics. Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the cladistics article is that it and phylogenetics aren't scoped very clearly and defining the scope has been contentious. The phylogenetics article claims that "cladistics" is a term for the methodology employed by phylogeneticists, while cladistics article claims that "phylogenetics" is a term for the methodology employed by cladists. If the articles ever settle on a clear definition and scope, I do think cladistics would be worth including. I wrote a little more last time cladistics was nominated. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 27#Add Cladistics
We shouldn't keep biological classification if it's a redirect, but I'm do think the list needs some formatting. Right now all of the classification stuff is treated as subtopics of phylogenetics. That's not right. Biological classification would make a better header for organizing these topics. We do have headers in bold that aren't on the vital list themselves, so maybe we could use biological classification as the header here. Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Plant's header idea, I would just go ahead and alter it, if you think you need support I give mine. There are headers which are not articles themselves, I presume in an effort to be correct like this, within biology and probably elsewhere too. I know of many within organisms for example, at least one I created myself. I altered Dinosaurs header to prehistoric reptiles and dinosaurs, as the extinct flying and swimming reptiles we list are not technically dinosaurs although usually lumped with them and often thought to be so by some people. I didn't ask or inform on the talk page about it I just did it, as I saw the previous header as incorrect. Was it wrong? I don't think so, no one mentioned or complained at all, no articles were added or removed and I have seen other users make similar adjustments.
But on the other hand I suggested through a vote thread to alter the inventors list header to inventors and engineers as some of the inclusive listed people and candidates are usually described as engineers not inventors and may have technically invented little or nothing themselves. I though the change was simple, logical, and correct but not enough votes agreed, maybe we'll revisit? who knows? I'd still alter this one biological classification one though.  Carlwev  19:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Add Sense[edit]

Is of interest to biology, psychology and philosophy. We have all 5 traditional senses, this is an overview article that covers them. But it also covers other non traditional senses of humans that we don't cover individually and probably shouldn't such as sense of time, balance, pain, temperature, hunger, and more. It also covers other animals and other life form senses which aren't otherwise covered like echolocation as in bats and marine mammals and others, and perception of electricity, magnetism in bird migration and others and more. The topic about how life forms sense and perceive their environment/surroundings in general is an important topic that could be covered well this overview article but may not be covered in as much depth the same way within articles about individual senses.

Although this cover stuff we already have, it covers new ground too, I still think the concept is vital, and it also may be worth at least considering at the 1000 level considering nearly all life has some form of a sense, and eye and ear are there already, as are things we can sense heat/temperature, light, color, sound. The section about senses already has overlap in that it has olfaction and olfactory system, and auditory system and ear and hearing and more for the other senses. I am aware one is about the primary organ, another the whole system, and another the minds perception of the information, so I'll leave them alone. Biology is under quota too, plus more groups of species are up for removal soon also.

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

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

Biological processes and physiology[edit]

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


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

Cell biology[edit]

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


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

Add Conservation biology[edit]

We have several nature parks in geography, I think the over view article about conservation in general is needed too. Of interest to experts and general readers, and obviously an international issue as well. There are several articles I looked at, this was the best one I could find. Others I looked at and considered were Conservation (ethic), nature reserve, protected area, Conservation movement. I was mostly looking at nature reserve, I would consider starting a thread for that too, but I'm conscious of the overlap with national park which we include already; although nature reserve includes small areas that are not actual national parks. Also the general idea of conservation, seems to be split across at least 2 articles, conservation biology and conservation (ethic), this concerns me a bit, but I still think this is the better article.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Conservation biology is the scientific study of biodiversity and ways to protect it, so it's redundant to biodiversity and wildlife conservation. If we want this sort of redundancy then our priorities should be to add cell biology, evolutionary biology, and possibly even some of the omics (especially genomics since we don't even have genome yet). If not, the next field of biology I'd add is biogeography. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Environmentalism is included here and in the 1000 list as well. I'm aware there is overlap, but I think environmentalism is a wider concept and conservation a bit more specific and it's not unusual to expand upon topics present at the 1000 level.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed that we have wildlife conservation, that only appears in 3 languages English, Esperanto and Ukranian, and has 16 references. Conservation biology is present in 32 languages and has over 3 times the content of wildlife conservation and has 140 references. They definitely overlap in content, and I can understand only wanting one, I suppose it just depends on which article or term one prefers. In English and other languages people seem to pay much more attention edit wise to Conservation biology. But on the flip side the opposite it true if one looks at page views, wildlife conservation gets more views, sometimes 2 or 3 times as many page views compared to conservation biology. So I don't know?  Carlwev  22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really care which one we list, but we don't need both. You might also want to see how environmental protection compares to those. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

Remove Grebe, Mousebird, Sandgrouse, Tropicbird, Treeswift, Hamerkop, Spoonbill, Bee-eater and Jacamar[edit]

I don't see any convincing reasons why these birds should be considered vital.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support removing treeswift, hamerkop, spoonbill, bee-eater and jacamar. Oppose/neutral on the first four for now (see below) Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Grebe, mousebird, sandgrouse and tropicbird correspond to orders (i.e. the major subdivisions of birds/class Aves). There are 33 extant orders listed at bird]. Not all are on the vital list, and while I think orders are fairly important for birds, I don't think the vital list should include all 33. I'm not quite sure of the logic for including particular orders at present, or where the cutoff should be. The vital list does include hoatzin, presumably because it is a well known enigmatic evolutionary relic at the family level. Well maybe not "well known", but I'd heard of them before. Mousebirds are an enigmatic evolutionary relic at the order level (that I personally hadn't heard of before). I'd keep them for now, but could become convinced to delete once the vital birds get cleaned up further. Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't considered the taxonomic levels particularly important since they're so fluid these days. For instance the tropicbirds weren't given their own order until a couple years ago. There are strong indications that the grebes are related to the flamingos although it's still common to classify them as two separate orders. I think it would be easy to find a dozen examples of well-known extinct species we should consider including (look at how few prehistoric reptiles or mammals we include; aurochs, thylacine and Megalodon are three species I've come very close to nominating in the past), so just being a living fossil on its own isn't enough to persuade me to keep a taxon. The hoatzin is a particularly good example of a living fossil though since its chicks have claws on their wings. I don't have any further plans to work on the list of organisms in the near future, except maybe the odd addition or two, e.g. I think it would make sense to add sea urchin and sea cucumber. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to cry if somebody else comes along with a 5th support for removing all 9 of the nominated articles. I'm just not quite ready to go quite that far myself. Plantdrew (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As always I look forward to reading your feedback. I realized my original rationale was a bit lacking and wanted to explain myself a little more. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove True owl and Barn-owl[edit]

I don't think we need to list the two owl families. Owl plus one notable species from each family is good enough.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Add House sparrow[edit]

Very common bird, often as an introduced species. According to article "Its intentional or accidental introductions to many regions, including parts of Australia, Africa, and the Americas, make it the most widely distributed wild bird." Lives in many habitats including urban, and is prey to many animals too.  Carlwev  12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We include sparrow a group of bird species some may think that's enough, but we seem to be moving away from groups of species. Eurasian tree sparrow is also quite significant and not listed. However we do already list a few species in addition their family already, we list Old World flycatcher, then European robin and Common nightingale beneath it; plus Common raven underneath Corvus, then Corvus and Eurasian magpie under Corvidae. There may be more I'm not aware of because I don't know them well and they not indented? That being said the most widely distributed non domestic bird might still deserve a place.  Carlwev  12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Prosimian[edit]

Another obsolete taxon, superseded by Strepsirrhini which is listed. The other former prosimians, the tarsiers, are listed too.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Callitrichidae, Cebidae, Night monkey and Atelidae, Add Spider monkey and Capuchin monkey[edit]

For the apes and Old World monkeys, we include notable genera and species like baboon or common chimpanzee, but not families like Cercopithecinae or even Hominidae. So I think we should do the same for the New World monkeys. I propose removing the four families we list and adding the two most notable genera, the spider and capuchin monkeys (although whether the latter should be one genus or two is currently controversial).

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Dipodidae and Spermophilus[edit]

The dipodids aren't vital. The ground squirrels used to include the marmot and prairie dog but have been recently split up, and the species that still remain in Spermophilus don't look vital to me. We already list the marmot; I'll let you decide whether we should include the prairie dog as well.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To my temperate northern hemisphere eyes, these two northern temperate groups look a little out of place in a list of rodents that is already mostly northern temperate. I can't come up with anything off the top of my head from the tropics or southern hemisphere to add, but the importance of Mongolian gerbils and golden hamsters as pets and in research seems higher than anything for Dipodidae and Spermophilus. Add house mouse, black rat, or brown rat? I'm not sure what the rodent listing should look like, but including Dipodiidae and Spermophilus isn't very compelling. Look to important rodents in other parts of the world or rodents that have a closer relationship to humans to fill out the vital list. Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the house mouse and brown rat ought to be very good choices for the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Colugo[edit]

The two species of flying lemurs make up their own order, but are they really more notable than the flying squirrels or the sugar glider, which are other gliding mammals we don't list?

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Talpidae[edit]

Most of the mole family is covered by Mole (animal) and the species that aren't (desmans and shrew moles) don't look too important, and are at any rate covered in the order Soricomorpha.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Guernsey cattle and Standardbred[edit]

Neither animal breed looks vital to me. Removing the standardbred horse has been brought up before.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Ulmaceae and Juglandaceae[edit]

Both relatively small families (<100 species if I'm not mistaken) as plant families go. We already list their most notable representatives, elm, walnut, pecan and hickory.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've worked to add a few of the largest and most widely distributed plant families to the vital list, but haven't looked into removing smaller families before. Juglandaceae and Ulmaceae should go. The logic in including these seems to be that plants in these families are the major components of forests in the US and UK. But the genera comprising the forests in these areas are listed as well, so the families are kind of redundant. And following the logic that seems to have been operating previously, I'm not surprised to see that Fagaceae is on the vital list. That should go too; beech and oak cover the US/UK species. Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Fagaceae[edit]

Per Plantdrew's comments above. Oak and beech are listed; other major members of the family are Lithocarpus and Castanopsis which occur in Asia, but there must be many better examples of Asian trees to include, say banyan, larch, sugi, ume or Osmanthus fragrans.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as having suggested it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Portulaca oleracea[edit]

Purslane seems like an odd choice for a leafy vegetable. Watercress seems more vital for instance.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Jerusalem artichoke[edit]

Again a rather strange choice. Jicama and Xanthosoma (one of the genera also known as the cocoyam) are New World root vegetables with more widespread usage in global cuisine. If we look at "root vegetables" more broadly, shallot, wasabi or turmeric aren't listed either.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Legume[edit]

The legume family Fabaceae is already listed, and so is bean.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support redundant Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Pine nut[edit]

Do we really need both pine and pine nuts? Pistachio gets more views and isn't listed. Sure, pine nuts are used in pesto, but we don't list capers or rosemary either and those are also important in Italian cuisine. Also, the pine sap-related products historically known as naval stores are at least as vital as pine nuts – things like turpentine, pitch (resin), pine tar and rosin were crucial during the Age of Sail and still retain specialty uses today. (The article on turpentine actually gets more views than the one on pine nuts.)

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pistachio is a better choice of nut. Gizza (t)(c) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Nothofagus[edit]

Is this really the best choice for a tree from the Southern Hemisphere? Wouldn't acacia or Araucaria be better choices?

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to add acacia for a Southern/tropical plant (it was #109 for plant page views last month), but the botanical definition is a little divorced from common usage these days, and Wikipedia's acacia article waffles around about the definition. I'd learned that giraffes eat acacias as a child, but if there are no acacias in Africa, I'm less sure that they are vital. Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Health, medicine and disease[edit]

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

Physical sciences[edit]

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


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


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


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


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

Earth science[edit]

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


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


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


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


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

Computing and information technology[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Provable security, Add Computer security[edit]

Whether an encryption method can be mathematically proven to be "secure" (and what that even means in the first place) is a topic for cryptography and P versus NP problem; I don't think it needs to be listed on its own. Far more vital is the notion of security as it applies generally to computer networks and data. Computer virus only describes one of the many means by which security might be compromised.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support this was on my list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We probably should have physical security too. And if encryption is vital cryptanalysis ought to be as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of the remove more than the addition, but it's still a good swap. We have security itself already, physical security, not sure about it, but it's worth considering at least. I was thinking about computer-ish topics more relevant to the everyday person. We have several operating systems in computing, several articles within computer software, and internet, programming and programming languages. The everyday person may not be effected much or at least aware of the influence of different programming languages, but things that use computers and telecommunications that are used by many people in the developed world are not included like, Automated teller machine for instance. Yes covered by banking I suppose, but all the computer articles would also be covered by a parent article too, but we go into detail there. For security type articles we could consider things like surveillance, authoritarianism. Are any of these less vital than say Berkeley Software Distribution, which we have in addition to Unix. Even things like vending machine or image scanner, or even barcode seem better than BSD.  Carlwev  16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

I wasn't aware we already listed security. I'd consider swapping that out for physical security then. And maybe swap BSD for open source (although I just noticed we have open-source software). For security subtopics I'd consider surveillance and cyberwarfare. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I think open source is worth considering, maybe cyberwarfare too, but I'm not as sure on that one.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Berkeley Software Distribution[edit]

It has been said several times computer section is bloated. This article I think stands out as less vital, it maybe important but it is simply not as notable as windows dos and mac. We have Unix and Open-source software which cover some of the same territory as this or at least are reasons for its notability. There are many information or computing articles missing, such as image scanner which I'm nominating below. An article like this may be of interest to specialist encyclopedias, but at the moment our Computing and information technology section has 80 articles which includes software and hardware, programming and languages, internet and network topics, data and cryptography topics, and general computer science topics. With all that to cram into 80 slots I don't think BSD is within the top 100 computer articles IMO. We have 7 articles under operating systems, which is nearly one in ten of all our computer and information tech articles. From websites we have removed fairly significant sites like Twitter and eBay, which are probably equal if not higher importance.

  1. Support as nom. Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Unix and Linux are enough to cover this family of operating systems. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Unix is vital, but not a particular version thereof (with the probable exception of Linux, yes, I know Linux is not Unix, but it's pretty close). Rwessel (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Image scanner[edit]

Computer scanner, image scanner or just scanner. IMO as we include all the basic computer hardware, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer and more, this should be in too. Scanners are not really covered by anything other than basic hardware, but actually we don't list computer hardware anyway. In addition to many specific or specialist topics in computing, we include more similar articles of electronic devices and components under media and communication section and electronics section, and also optics. Many of the articles are more specific or specialized or are not as widely used as scanners. There are too many too mention, but we have things like 7 articles for operating systems, 12 for internet and networks, not including individual websites under another section, 12 articles under programming including languages. We list things like Fresnel lens, mobile device many of these seem less vital, plus many more things, I won't list them all. I think image scanner more vital than many articles in the tech list. I am looking for removals at the moment too.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Good find. I wonder if fax should be listed too. It is probably at the level of blackboard and just misses out. Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would probably support fax, but I seem to like tech articles more than other users, I would support many tech articles suggested here and there on this talk page past and present; Except many software ones. I wanted to keep CD, but we removed it as redundant to optical disc, which does cover it. But to me it seems more vital than C++, Unix and Linux, but maybe its just me. I have a long list on my own talk page with suggestions, some of them are tech articles.  Carlwev  17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Windows 10[edit]

I believe that Windows 10 should be added as a subtopic under Microsoft Windows. Daylen (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support Daylen
  1. Oppose While Windows is vital due to its enormous user base, a particular version is not. Rwessel (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Recentism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too soon, and no need to have this or any other specific version of Windows pbp 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

Machinery and tools[edit]

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

Remove Tube (fluid conveyance)[edit]

We list pipe. In general usage pipe and tube are interchangeable. If you search online you can find pages explaining the perceived difference, at least among experts, but in my opinion it's too similar, or not significant enough to include in out list. Tube itself is a disambiguation page, appearing in 10 languages, this article itself in only 5; pipe however is in about 42 languages and is a much better article. I am wondering how many other languages have 2 words like English does. Also we include pipeline transport under transport, plumbing in industry, water stuff. Also we don't have Cylinder (geometry) or Cylinder (engine) or Pneumatics which are other pipe/tube kind of articles that would cover more ground.  Carlwev  20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Clearly redundant to pipe. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support good catch. Gizza (t)(c) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Container[edit]

A container is such a basic concept that its importance in allowing human civilization to exist is often overlooked. However, it was the container that allowed mankind to spread throughout the world (by enabling the carrying of more food than could be held in the hands alone), and almost everything we consume is now distributed in containers. bd2412 T 15:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. bd2412 T 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose We've added bag and basket weaving recently; pottery and canning are listed; and other types of containers I can think of are usually covered by the article related to the material, e.g. an article that talks about the uses and history of glass must necessarily cover glass containers, and the making of wooden containers can be covered by woodworking. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. BD2412, you forgot to add a support vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer packaging and labeling to be listed first. I can't see container being more vital than box, bottle, jar,basket, canning and barrel. Gizza (t)(c) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
All of those are kinds of container. A box is a square container; a bottle is a usually cylindrical glass container; a jar is another usually cylindrical glass container, etc. How can a topic be less vital than a collection of things that are subtopics of itself? bd2412 T 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This happens quite often. Cutting tool (which is a redirect) is less vital than knife or axe or scissors. Straightedge is less vital than ruler. Writing implement is less vital than pen or pencil. It all comes down to how people typically conceptualize things, how they organize their knowledge or research, and what they end up actually looking for in an encyclopedia. One can choose all manner of umbrella terms to compartmentalize an important subject like tools, but just because these umbrella terms are broader in scope does not mean that we must consider all of them high priorities for Wikipedia. Sometimes we have a choice: for example, let's compare "container" to "packaging". There's no "World Container Organization" or Journal of Containers that I'm aware of; but there is a World Packaging Organization, an Institute of Packaging Professionals, a food industry-funded research group called the Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging, and journals called Packaging Technology and Science, Packaging Research and Food Packaging and Shelf Life. Packaging and labeling gets four times as many page views as "container" itself.
When I look up "history of containers" the results I get are not histories that begin with something like Ötzi#Tools and equipment; rather they're all about containerization, i.e. container shipping. That's another example of a specific article in the container umbrella that receives over twice as many page views as "container", and is an article I'd be much more willing to add. The question is whether it's more significant than other modern technological innovations we don't list, e.g. electric car, catalytic converter, supersonic aircraft, desalination, center pivot irrigation, smartphone, engineered wood, etc. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Media and communication[edit]

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

Add color photography[edit]

No doubt this article is crucial.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose If we had an article on colour reproduction that would be the obvious choice; alas, we don't. IMO colour photography by itself is not really vital: I think the coverage in Photography#Color, Photographic film#Color and Charge-coupled device#Color cameras suffices for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While technically interesting, it's conceptually a straight-forward enhancement of B&W photography. Rwessel (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add color printing[edit]

This technology is now quite widespread, and absolultely crucial.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Colour printing is better since not only is printing more important than photography, but also we don't have anything that describes the CMYK process used in modern colour printing. I'd be OK with listing either colour printing or the CMYK model, but would prefer the latter since it's how basically all colour printing is done nowadays and I think the article on the modern technique is better to have – historical aspects of colour printing should be covered adequately in Printing#History. Also listing CMYK would make cyan and magenta obviously redundant (they have hardly any significance outside of printing) and we could remove those articles from the list. I'll point out that the reason color printing on a large scale is practical nowadays is because of the invention of offset printing, which is based on the technique of lithography – we should have something on those topics if we're going to include something on colour reproduction in printing. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Add terrestrial television[edit]

This article is as crucial as cable television and satellite television.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. I had proposed it before, however the proposal was rejected (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_mechanical_television.2C_analog_television.2C_digital_television.2C_terrestrial_television.2C_pay_television_and_IPTV).--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Add color television[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Colour TV was developed in the 60s; TV only became popular in the 50s. As such the appearance of colour TV hardly marks a new "era" in the history of television (monochrome television does not exist as an article) and Television#History ought to cover this in sufficient detail. Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It's a straightforward extension/enhancement of monochrome (B&W) TV. Rwessel (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Medical technology[edit]

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

Military technology[edit]

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

Navigation and timekeeping[edit]

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

Optical technology[edit]

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Calculus and analysis[edit]

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

Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Add Sorting algorithm[edit]

Quicksort has been nominated before without success, but sorting algorithms as a whole are definitely vital – they're one of the most common encountered types of algorithms and they're taught in any introductory computer science class.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Waffle - The only specific algorithm we have listed now is Numerical integration. I'm not really sure that any specific (or class of) algorithm is really vital at this level. Algorithm leads to all of those. Perhaps that's sufficient (and yes, I'm thinking Numerical integration probably should be moved to the Calculus section). And if we do include sorting, what about graph, tree, search, and a few dozen other classes, at least as vital as sorting? Rwessel (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much one can expect algorithm to say about specific types of algorithms since it's such a broad topic – it has to cover everything from the Euclidean algorithm to Shor's algorithm. Personally I'm OK with including a couple more basic types of algorithms or the types of problems they solve, say Dijkstra's algorithm/shortest path problem, tree traversal, or Monte Carlo method. These are highly-viewed CS articles, and I think many more people would benefit from reading high- quality articles on topics like these than topics like the Atiyah–Singer index theorem or homological algebra.
Numerical integration's definitely misplaced – I think it would fit best under numerical analysis. Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, sorting has the advantage of being a readily understandable concept (for non-specialists), while being a quite rich subject. Does that help make it vital? (That's a serious question, BTW.) And why exactly would we choose Dijkstra's algorithm (or the particular problem), rather than a more generic group like graph or tree traversal/search? Rwessel (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it has more to do with the fact that sorting and searching are both tasks with wide applicability in programming – algorithms for both are taught early on for that reason. It's their usefulness rather than their intuitiveness that makes them vital. Something like graph coloring is also pretty intuitive, but isn't quite as generally useful, so that seems less vital to me. (We list the four color theorem because it's famous, but for reasons that have nothing to do with its applicability.)
Sometimes there are common concepts that I think are actually more vital because they're less intuitive – for example I think recursion's a little more vital than iteration (although maybe both are still vital). Bottom line is, I think the usefulness and complexity of a concept are two of the reasons people look things up on Wikipedia; it's these topics, that many people need to know about and can't easily figure out on their own, that I think we should make a priority for our list.
I think you're absolutely right that Dijkstra's algorithm is too specific for our list in the same way quicksort's too specific. (I mentioned it just because it gets a lot of hits.) How about we just include sorting algorithm and search algorithm then? I suppose most of the common graph-traversing algorithms would fall into the second category. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

Add statistic[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Covered in Statistics#Terminology and theory of inferential statistics. Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sports statistics?[edit]

Anybody think we should have an article representing sports statistics in general, and, if so, which one? pbp 17:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actuarial science, bioinformatics, data mining, geographic information system and machine learning should all be higher priorities. You can get college degrees and do postgraduate research in those fields; I don't think that's true of sabermetrics. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

General discussions[edit]

Just a thought[edit]

Hey there, i noticed this list awhile ago and was pleased, as a side hobby i do research into top people who are top influences in fields ranging from the high profile to the extremely obscure. I realize this list is based upon the 2000 most important people that would be in a print encyclopedia... I also acknowledge recentism is a factor but i can't help but wonder if we could represent a small couple of fields that are notable and just have one person to represent them to provide a fuller overview of human cultural existence, even if it is negative. The fact that we have people like Coco Chanel Al Capone Shigeru Miyamoto and Tupac Shakur for instance, as they are one person each representing a small cultural domain. Here's some ideas. (each link goes toward a person who dominates that field).

  1. Chef/Atheism/Modeling/New religious movements
  2. Circus/Rugby League (the other rugby)/Magazines/Criminal
  3. Sexology/Puppeteer
  4. Criminal 2 Criminal 3/Martial Arts
  5. Extreme sports 1/Extreme sports 2/Professional wrestling
  6. Graffiti/Wheelchair tennis (disabled sports)/Squash
  7. Table-Tennis/Bodybuilding

Heck even something like porn is a field that could be represented Linda Lovelace

Or even people who are widely known and are unique like Ayn Rand Giacomo Casanova Grigori Rasputin

P.S i know they don't really qualify under normal circumstances and i am not saying "ADD THEM ALL" i am just saying maybe we can represent some fields like chefs/criminals/Atheism or something with one person even if they might not pass the test like someone would have to in another field like politicians or acting. Mainly proposing this as a brainstorm, i know these are silly but it wouldn't hurt to think about what fields it might be good to think about adding (if any). I'd love to discuss as this is a passion of mine.

P.PS The strongest one i think merits inclusion is L. Ron Hubbard, i am not a fan at all but i really think New Religious Movements are a legitimate target for one biography.

Thanks for sharing your ideas GuzzyG. I have thought about proposing to add some of your suggestions myself, in particular Blackbeard and Jahangir Khan. I support topic diversity in the biography section for a "fuller overview of human cultural existence" as you say and I think adding a pirate would diversify the list of people (piracy itself is on the list so there would be no inconsistency in adding Blackbeard).
Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the list but removed (though he was in the actors section and I agree he would at least have a stronger case in bodybuilding than acting). With regards to atheism, I think Charles Darwin along with other comparable scientists and in a totally different way Karl Marx have expanded its horizons far more than people like Dawkins and Hitchens though I can understand the reasoning behind adding them. I would support adding history of atheism since histories of the five major religions are listed. With sexology, Sigmund Freud seems to be most famous and iconic person in the field for non-experts like me but I may be completely wrong. And just to let you know, we did have Hugh Heffner but he was removed too.
As for Dally Messenger, I think you could enter fuzzy territory since you could likewise add Leigh Matthews, Henry Shefflin, Julián Retegi, Phil Taylor, Lin Dan among many other legends of in the grand scheme of things, relatively small sports (except for possibly Lin Dan). We do have some founders of NRM's like A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada though he's in quite different territory to L. Ron Hubbard. I'll have more to say about all this later. :) Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling there will be consensus to add one or two more rappers to the list so Tupac will no longer be alone. If there are 27 rock musicians and 14 jazz musicians, two or three hip-hop musicians doesn't seem over the top in my opinion. Also Harry Houdini may be the only magician/illusionist listed so he's another person in that exclusive group of one. Gizza (t)(c) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
These are definitely names all worth considering, and I've even nominated Pablo Escobar before. It might be worthwhile to start separate discussions on specific areas like unrepresented sports or arts, or historical celebrities, so that we can have a more focused conversation. WRT new religious movements I've considered nominating Helena Blavatsky for a long time, who I think has made more of a fundamental impact on modern esotericism than anyone else, including Hubbard. Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The road block with these type of under-representations or expanding hip-hop for existence (which i do support) is that they nearly all fall under recentism or are western so people are understandably a little iffy in adding them. I think one of the missing fields is criminals (i know it was removed, i've read most of the archives) yeah it's not a positive field but there's been criminals since there's been humans, recorded criminal history starts here, ha! so i think Blackbeard best represents that as he is historical and piracy played a big part in merchant trade.

I seen Arnold removed and i honestly did not agree really while he may be more of a pop-ish actor he's also a two term governor and played a big role in the foundation and dominance of bodybuilding and he was one of the figures who arguably brought fitness to the mainstream, that's more then a lot of the actors listed here have done, but now i seem like a rabid fan (not really one).

Yeah, Gizza, i seen you mention Atheism and i do agree with you, that's why i added it as a show of support, ha! Regarding the sports you mentioned, yeah they are relatively small, i mainly added League as a nod to the other game which is commonly not as heard of as Union. I do support unique sports when there is such domination like Jahangir and Kelly Slater for instance, i had heard of the others (Thanks for introducing me to Retigi). I would have added Phil and Lin in my original proposal but the sports are too small and people don't really like athletes being on here (Although American Football has three and that is regarded in one country, although a big one i understand).

Regarding Sexology, yes Sigmund is the most important to the layman i was just offering a specific person that specifically is prominent in the field, as Sigmund was mainly Psychoanalysis. Don't have a strong opinion on Hugh being here although he could represent adult entertainment as a whole. Yes, forgot Houdini but he is the only magician (if it was 40 years in the future, David Copperfield would probably qualify), Marcel is the only mime too. A. C. i must of missed him as i did not see him on the list, my mistake. We do need to have a conversation on underrepresented sports and arts, this was supposed to be a mega-post on that but separate discussions might suffice. I'd support Helena and i do agree.

Regarding on how to handle sports i think we should cut back on some like Auto Racing to 5, Cricket to 5, Baseball to 5, Basketball to 5, Gymnastics to 5 and Tennis to 10, then we can add really dominant people in small-ish sports or something, even sports which are restricted to Eastern audiences like Lin Dan or Tanikaze Kajinosuke, that's why i included Table-tennis, also mainly Olympic ones. I know i added some fields regarded as juvenile or regarded for youths but juvenile history is still history, which is why i added Tony Hawk who has influenced a whole scene of youth extreme sports (even had a impact on video games with his own self-titled series). I noticed Professional Wrestling itself is not on the list by-itself so we can ignore that although i do think it should be as it is big in multiple continents (although only the U.S, Japan and Mexico) mainly.

My main point is to maybe add some fields which might not be historically important (as they are within the new century) but it would be good in my mind to diversify the topics as if this list is used as a point of improvement it could help our encyclopedia to improve upon people in different topics. I forgot some potential fields. con-langs sports inventors, one of the only main sports that has a definitive creator Stunt men or even small-ish fields like talk-radio, Media criticism and i think i we missing Shah Rukh Khan.

My main ones that i think should be added are NRM's, a criminal, some unique sports dominators (like Karelin), graffiti (another centuries old thing), Modeling and Martial Arts (beyond Bruce Lee).

P.S i think if more hip-hop is to be added we should include atleast one group (like Run–D.M.C.) for example. Disclaimer - I am not a big fan of any of these people or fields i just think some diversification of topics and the potential of adding some fun, non-academic type fields might be good for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Although it's important that we have a list that captures the diversity of human experience, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the smaller fields might not be important enough to deserve representation. I'll take the example of Lin Dan since now both of you have mentioned him and I've thought about suggesting him in the past as well. Even though China dominates the sport, badminton has never been the most popular sport in China: it used to be ping-pong and these days it's basketball. Lin Dan is big but not that big in his home country: for example, when you look at page views on the Chinese Wikipedia, he gets fewer page views than Yao Ming or Jeremy Lin. If you're going to pick a Chinese athlete of the current generation to add to the list, it really has to be Yao Ming, who was the first truly internationally famous Chinese athlete of any kind and is responsible to a great extent for the popularity of basketball in China. And still Yao has no chance of making the list since he's not anywhere close to being the greatest basketball players of all time. There may be other areas where the Chinese are underrepresented but I don't think sports is one of them. You can't possibly justify adding Lin Dan to a list missing a figure as vitally important to Chinese culture as Yue Fei for example. Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, Badminton does not make the cut, the only thing that helps it's case is that it's an Olympic sport, although it does outnumber the views on the English wiki 7x the amount of Alpine skiing [2] which has two athletes on the list [3] but Alpine is representative of the Winter Olympics, i am not that fussed about adding new sports, i understand some of them are too obscure and people don't like adding athletes, although ones like Kelly Arnold Esther (Paralympics) Jahangir Tony, Sébastien and Fedor are highly, highly dominant in their respective sports (which each are in the vital life section), with that i do think if we are going to have 14 of great but not super, super amazing players like Pancho Gonzales it might be good to cut back and add some highly dominant people in lesser known sports. I am also in favor of adding a sporting figure from a sport like Sumo which is one of the oldest currently competing sports. But not too big on sports as athletes are not overall that important and consensus is against them.
I was mainly meaning maybe adding in some culture stuff like a performing artist, graffiti artist, model, chef, puppeteer, one or two criminals, maybe someone representing sexuality/adult entertainment, stuntman, radio/talk-radio, media criticism (like film), new religious movements (but i see we have that covered) and i was going to suggest the performance art of Professional wrestling but i see the main article is not in here and has not been voted in before, just fields like that which are centuries old and well known unlike ones like Sailor Jerry or Juan Belmonte. I was also wondering about people's thoughts on people who are widely recognizable by their surnames Rand Casanova Rasputin and De Sade. I am not here as a fan who is trying to put in their "fav celebrity" i have no affinity for anyone i suggest, i am just wondering if we might be missing any fields.
Yue Fei i agree with you on that, before any other fields are added i think we should add an Australia leader (only member of the G-20 missing) and the Hawaiian and Tongan king first, what do you think of them? Or even a top Caribbean politician.
Cobblet what do you think of the fields and names thrown around? Like i said now that we are on our last legs to our limit i am just making sure if we are covered with what we could be. People like Jeanne Calment, Robert Wadlow and Lina Medina might be worth looking into as-well. GuzzyG (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think people one would associate with Ripley's or the Guinness Book of World Records are vital.
  • I've never paid much attention to Oceanian politicians but I think I'm OK with adding Kamehameha I unless there's someone even more notable we're missing. I'm not convinced yet we need a second one besides him. The one politician from Jamaica I've considered in the past was Marcus Garvey.
  • I don't think there's any chef I'd consider vital. Within any culinary tradition I'd rather list characteristic ingredients, eating habits, cooking methods, and dishes, before individual chefs. If no chefs are vital, there's no way any graffiti artist is vital.
  • Hitchens was just a pundit, not someone who made fundamental contributions to the development of Western thought. Dawkins would be slightly better, but I'm pretty sure there are several much more vital biologists we need first.
  • When it comes to fashion, there are several designers, movie icons (we removed James Dean and never listed Brigitte Bardot) as well as executives like Anna Wintour or Helena Rubinstein I'd consider to have made more of an impact on the history of fashion than any model.
  • People notable for being connected to sex in some way have to be judged against other people of their time. Maybe Sappho could be vital, especially if more of her work was extant and could back up her reputation. I'm not convinced anyone after her makes the cut. Lord Byron and Margaret Mead are people I consider definitely vital; Casanova and Kinsey are definitely less vital by comparison – whether they're still vital enough to make the list, I'm not really sure. We're still missing foundational writers of the Western canon like Rabelais and Tasso; de Sade's far, far down the list.
  • I don't remember having thought of Henry Luce before but he seems fairly vital. I thought David Sarnoff was clearly vital and that nomination still failed, and I haven't really thought about media execs since then.
  • We list Sesame Street and I'd probably list the Muppets before Jim Henson, but that's just me.
  • I doubt there are many people who care about Howard Stern and Ayn Rand outside of the US, and even in the US they're not exactly mainstream figures.
  • Rasputin could be a good choice, definitely crossed my mind before. Undecided on Blackbeard.
  • Have thought about Emelianenko before, but not really sure I'd take him over Royce Gracie. MMA is a young sport (ditto with extreme sports) and in a sense Bruce Lee is the first MMA fighter. I might not oppose adding professional wrestling as a form of entertainment but I really don't think we need professional wrestlers. I absolutely agree we have too many tennis players and Pancho Gonzales is the obvious person to remove, but I'm not sure who you'd remove after him. Tennis players are generally far better known than, say, squash players, and removing someone like Bjorn Borg or Margaret Court just to add Jahangir Khan or Nicol David doesn't seem right. When it comes to Japanese cultural figures, I'm not sure we need sumo wrestlers any more than we need, say, go players like Honinbo Shusaku or Go Seigen. (Izumo no Okuni seems more vital than any Japanese sportsperson that isn't a baseball player.) Based on impact on society as a whole, if I had to pick one disabled athlete I think I'd go with Terry Fox, and even he doesn't seem clearly vital to me – I don't think he's well known outside Canada.
  • I think I'd rather add one more film director from an underrepresented tradition or genre, say Abbas Kiarostami, than Roger Ebert. Has Ebert actually changed the way people make films? Are people going to study what he wrote a hundred years from now? Cobblet (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the vital list is a balancing act between adding people who were/are actually important versus diversifying the list to include underrepresented people and topics like women, minorities, "ancient" history, etc. In an encyclopedia you expect to read about people who made an impact on society but also a wide variety of content so you can broaden your knowledge on everything. Forming an opinion on where to draw the line is one of the most interesting and exciting parts of this project. I agree with most of what Cobblet said above.
With regards to Indian cinema, the biggest hole is the absence of actresses. Three male actors is plenty in comparison. There really should two female actors as a minimum from a country that produces the most films in the world and has done so for a long time, something that 600 million odd people aspire to become one day. And Shah Rukh Khan would face tough competition from Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna for the next male spot. I will probably support John Curtin simply because Australia ought to have representation in political leaders though if we're looking for people with power and influence, Rupert Murdoch would be a good addition too (more vital than Ted Turner in my opinion and gets more views). Gizza (t)(c) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. Just thought that "world's oldest person" could be a vital study in longevity.
  • I had both because Kamehameha I was a very influential king in his own right and i suggested George Tupou I because he was one of the few leaders of a country (let alone islands) who managed to keep his country intact and not colonized. Big yes on Garvey, i was gonna nominate him but i forgot, do you think i should?
  • I understand
  • Yeah, there's not enough evidence of their historical worth (if any) yet.
  • I do think one more person could be added to fashion along with Coco Chanel, Wintour or Charles Frederick Worth would probably be right, some models like Twiggy or Kate Moss can have cultural impact but not vital impact i guess, James Dean and Birdot i would not support. Rubinstein only if we were to include cosmetics which might be too small a field.
  • I probably would be in support of Sappho as she seems to be quite significant for BCE women poets and fits in as a erotica writer.
  • I would support Henry and i would Smirnoff, surprised he failed actually.
  • The Muppet's are a big cross media franchise and could be historically important, i guess....
  • True, just throwing out names.
  • In my mind if they thought he had enough power to kill him, i would say he might be notable (i would vote support if he was up). For sure would support Blackbeard.
  • I'd only vote for Royce out of MMA if we are doing are "one of the first important figures" i think historically Fedor out-ranks him. I probably will try Pro Wrestling itself again later. it's extremely popular in 3 major world countries for going on 60 years now. As for Tennis my first two to remove would be Pancho and Pete Sampras they're good but Tennis is packed with amazing players and their accomplishments have been largely left behind. I'm in full support of Jahangir because his record transcends his sport although it's downtrodden because Squash is not a Olympic sport, how about Karch Kiraly? He's got dominance and a gold medal in two Olympic sports (indoor & outdoor Volleyball) apparently the only one to do so. Yeah, Sumo is a one off country and Japan is not up there with the U.S in numbers in order to support a one country sports add, so that rules out Go and Sumo. Izumo looks to be a good add.
  • Abbas is more notable then Roger yeah, Roger probably will be read/studied as a starter on film criticism but that's not a really important field, i concede.
  • How about this guy Cobblet? Alfred Wegener he seems to be vital and influential in polar research. Nominate Helena too, if you want, i'll support her.
  • The biggest problem with the ideas i have pointed out is the recentism in them, although i was originally under the idea it might be good to have some unique/small fields get representation with figures who are/were a dominant force in them (influenced by Al Capone being here, which i agree with), but i concede that historical importance and vitality trumps that. Let's wait a couple years (or decades, haha!) Do you have any fields you think we have not covered Cobb?
  • @Gizza How about Madhubala or Nargis? What two other hip-hop artists would you choose to get the nod? I would support a Ted Turner and Murdoch swap. GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois should probably be nominated together as their influence on African-American history is comparable. The trouble with Karch Kiraly is again the relative prominence of volleyball athletes vs. other sports – is Kiraly really more vital than Joe Montana or Kobe Bryant? We definitely haven't paid enough attention to earth scientists and the guy who came up with continental drift definitely needs to be considered. It has occurred to me before that Alfred Russel Wallace isn't on the list.
Fields we haven't covered at all... honestly I've never really thought about it in a global sense like you have (which is why I'm glad you're here). I ought to nominate Wang Xizhi soon. I've also thought about adding someone to represent the decorative arts like maybe Louis Comfort Tiffany or Peter Carl Fabergé. I've also noticed for a very long time that engineers are underrepresented, particularly people associated with the Industrial Revolution like John Smeaton, George Stephenson or Richard Arkwright just to name three possibilities. Remarkably we once had a proposal to rename the "Inventors" section to "Inventors and Engineers" that failed which is why I've personally put those ideas on the backburner. That being said, none of the people who opposed it at the time are still around. Also, I think the only judge we have is John Marshall. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Du Bois and Garvey we could probably only get one and Garvey would be that one in my opinion. I'd have both though. I'd say Volleyball is a bit more important worldwide then American Football as it's a Olympic sport, it's popular in Brazil and it's along with Netball one mainly played by women. Basketball beats it, but then again Kobe is more important then some of the other sport figures there too, but he is just not historically in the top 5 of basketball yet. I would have said we should cut Basketball to 5 and i would've chose Larry but he's the only person to win a Series in all four roles so i would not pick him..
Wallace not on the list is surprising.. I'd vote for Wang but i don't know if he'd get in. Decorative arts sound good, just the type of field i meant to say. Tiffany and Fabergé could go either way, both influential people, maybe more Fabergé. I would have thought Smeaton and Arkwright would be in here, Inventors and Engineers has a nice ring to it. Judge's are hard as they mainly influence one country like Warren and Denning. There's Roland Freisler but i would not add another Nazi as Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring are not on here, you could go biblical with Samson but he's not the most vital biblical figure, we could go with a Nuremberg judge? . Lawyer's are even harder as they are more singular like Giovanni Falcone and Clarence Darrow. We could add Syed Ahmad Khan, what do you think? I am shocked that Cesar Chavez is not on the list either. How about an Indigenous Australian? Bennelong might fit, he's up there with Sitting Bull. It's an interesting discussion but it is hard because most people's importance is relagated to a single country or continent. What did you think of L. L. Zamenhof? How about Aleister Crowley? What do you think of Pancho and Pete being removed from Tennis? GuzzyG (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Göring is listed under military leaders. As for judges, we have John Marshall. pbp 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I just remembered that we did briefly discuss adding William Blackstone. I'd say no to Zamenhof – I don't think Esperanto's that important. Syed Ahmad Khan seems to have a good case – I haven't thought much about 19th-century South Asian history although I've considered nominating Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani under the journalist category. Bennelong seems distinctly non-vital – it seems to me a much closer comparison could be made to Squanto who is way less vital than, say, Pocahontas, let alone Sitting Bull. Never considered Crowley but I think I'd still take Blavatsky over him, since her impact has been more global. I agree with removing Pancho but rather doubt that Sampras should be the next player to bump off, he seems a better choice than Borg at least. Also, I just realized we do in fact list Sappho – for some reason I thought we hadn't. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Either Blackstone or his book is a must, either way it/he was highly influential. I missed the banner on Sappho too, haha! Göring does not have a VA banner on his talk so i assumed he was not here. I'd support adding Himmler actually. Jamal is a good choice. Pocahontas would be a good pick if American history wasn't over represented. I'll nominate Pancho later, how many people do you think would fit tennis good? I'd say 10. But we are under the limit so we probably should wait until we hit the limit. These could be good Francis Galton, Thomas Bayes, Jean-François Champollion, Aldus Manutius, Heinrich Schliemann, William Morris, Wernher von Braun, Gottlieb Daimler, Richard Stallman or Valentina Tereshkova to represent women in space. GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree ten tennis players would be all right. I've tagged Göring now. No idea what to make of Galton. No to Bayes. We list Egyptian hieroglyphs and Rosetta Stone and I think that makes Champollion redundant. Manutius is interesting, Schliemann is vital – what other archaeologists are we missing? Morris – I knew I was missing someone when I was naming decorative artists. Von Braun is OK though Sergei Korolev deserves just as much consideration and I have to wonder if Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky aren't better choices – you could argue that von Braun and Korolev are subsumed to some extent by the articles on their respective space programs. Yes to Daimler, Stallman's too recent and in my last sentence I named two people more important to the Soviet space program than Tereshkova. Cobblet (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer Tsiolkovsky. I am not that knowledgeable on archaeologists but i know the big names are V. Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Louis Leakey, Richard Owen, Othniel Charles Marsh, Edward Drinker Cope then there's the most famous one Howard Carter but he's a one hit wonder. I also noticed Robert Koch is missing, i think he's perfect for this list. There's also some known last names that might make it, that have not been discussed, Louis Braille and Rudolf Diesel, you won't like these next ones but i would think if we got rid of some modern sports people these would not hurt Milo of Croton and Pierre de Coubertin. What do you think of Gizza's suggestion of possibly adding two or one more hip-hop? wait a couple of years? Make Tupac less lonely, ha! I am thinking of nominating Itzhak Perlman and Steve Martin for removal, what do you think? There's also Julian Huxley GuzzyG (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I mentioned Koch in the discussion on the Chandrasekhar-Raman swap and I agree we really need to look at biologists like him and Huxley. Braille is a better choice than Diesel. Leakey seems the best among the choices you gave; I think Georges Cuvier and Flinders Petrie also have a shot. Can't take Milo when we don't have Theseus, Hipparchus or Polybius. (When you warned me I thought you were going to say Gaius Appuleius Diocles.) De Coubertin is interesting but would lose to Henry Dunant. I'm all for adding more hip hop artists but the only one I listen to is Nujabes so don't ask me who to pick. I agree Perlman and Martin can go. Just realized Hugo Grotius is listed so we have a second jurist. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Koch's a must, in my opinion, we really do need to look at biologists. Both are good but out of those two Cuvier seems to be the better shot. Haha, i knew you would think that, there's not much evidence for him but if those times had as much documentation us now he most likely would be a shoe-in, same with a gladiator, just no documentation so it's impossible to judge their impact. Forgot about the Red Cross, i'd say for hip-hop based on significantly changing the industry i would go with Run–D.M.C. and Eminem but you could say the latter is too recent so i am not sure. Yeah, Hugo is really vital, not surprised, ha. Found some more potentially vital people like Igor Sikorsky, Cornelis Drebbel, Mel Blanc, Eadweard Muybridge and Nicéphore Niépce. Also before we add more hip-hop shouldn't we have a punk representative like Sex Pistols? it's been around longer.GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Before adding punk rockers (the Ramones have been suggested before) I'd like to see The Velvet Underground added back since they were basically the creators of alternative rock. Of the other people you mentioned I think Sikorsky's the only one who has a shot. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that (Velvet), especially if we list Nirvana. Really i would have thought for sure Muybridge and Blanc left a pretty big impact. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither of them stand out strongly when compared to their peers who also aren't on the list, e.g. Étienne-Jules Marey and Auguste and Louis Lumière for Muybridge and all the other people associated with Warner Bros. Cartoons for Blanc. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unfortunately Bennelong isn't vital. It would be good to represent Aboriginal Australian culture a bit better on the list but I don't think adding people is the answer. There are other aspects that are more well-known within Australia and around the world. At the moment, Aboriginal Australians itself, Aboriginal Australian mythology and boomerang are listed. Dreamtime for all purposes is just a synonym for Aboriginal Australian mythology. The only article I can think of with some chance is didgeridoo.
Madhubala and Nargis are both great choices. Along with Meena Kumari, they represent the Golden Age of Indian cinema in the 50s and 60s. Alternatively, if we want to have to have two from different eras, we could pick someone like Hema Malini, Mumtaz or Madhuri Dixit but I lean towards two of the first three.
Regarding hip-hop, Eminem used to be on the list but was removed two years ago here. Coincidentally, the most people that have been listed on VA is 2260. See here. That was when the entire list was very much over the limit because anyone could anything they wanted to the list without discussion. It is interesting to note how the list has progressed. Gizza (t)(c) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not that knowledgeable on Indian Cinema but if you want to pick 1-2 representatives i will trust your judgment and support, as one of the biggest film industries it does need at-least 1-2 actresses. True no Indigenous Australian has really reached worldwide prominence, David Unaipon is probably the closest, it's a shame, the topics you mentioned are good representations though. I actually think Eminem should be on here aswell as Run–D.M.C. for a group, but Eminem is probably too recent. Other then way too many recent comedians/actors/authors/american athletes i do not think that list was that bad, it had a good variety. Thanks for linking me that diff, appreciate it, very interesting to compare it to today. GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: Come to think of it, the most vital Indigenous Australian would be Eddie Mabo since his successful landmark court case resulted in Indigenous Australians obtaining genuine land rights for the first time since British colonisation. He is ranked sixth in a list of 50 top Australians which explains why he is important better than I could It's a shame his Wikipedia article doesn't do him justice. Gizza (t)(c) 14:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotas changed per proposal 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Tweaking the science quotas[edit]

The earth science section is now the only part of the list that's over its quota (by four articles). I've proposed some removals over the last few months to try to solve this, with mixed success. At this point I can only think of things that to add to the list: from geology and mineralogy alone we're still missing two of the major rock-forming minerals (amphibole, also known as hornblende; and olivine), jade which I just nominated, potash, and two closely related sedimentary rocks, mudstone and shale. Maybe some of these are a bit technical and I'm not saying we have to add all of them, but really they're no more technical than Great Oxygenation Event which we agreed to add last year, or things on the list like alluvial fan or Hadley cell or thermohaline circulation. And again, those were just examples from geology and mineralogy. So I think we should try to raise the quota, even if only slightly.

I will say though that the quota for the physical sciences looks generous compared to the humanities and social sciences: the Arts, History and Society sections are all very close to full and we're only just getting around to adding topics as basic as literary criticism, radiocarbon dating and homelessness. Meanwhile in the physical sciences we have topics as specialized and advanced as H II region, organosulfur compounds and supersymmetry. So I don't think we should raise the quota for the entire sublist as a whole. Rather I propose rearranging the quotas for chemistry, earth sciences and physics as follows:

Topic Current article count Current quota Proposed quota
Chemistry 269 275 270
Earth science 254 250 260
Physics 263 275 270

That way all three sections are still under their quotas and the earth sciences get a little breathing room. It's a lot of fuss over a minor tweak, I know, but there's no point in having quotas if we don't follow them. Either we change the composition of the list, or we change the quotas.

  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Fine with me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is reasonable. Another possible area to cut is biology. I have my doubts on whether the general reduction in organisms will be compensated by a corresponding increase in the non-organism sections but I may be wrong. Looking to other sections, social sciences is almost full and it seems that most addition proposals in the section pass. It could go over quota soon. Arts is close to the limit but while there are parts that could be expanded there are other sections that are excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We could cut biology (although I'm not sure by how much – at the moment I don't see us listing fewer than 900 organisms) but even so I don't think the physical sciences quota should be increased. Cobblet (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably a move in the right direction, Earth science is an area I can think of many interesting absent articles. I could probably think of more than one decent missing chemistry article though. But we can always revisit quotas and of course remove things.  Carlwev  07:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The chemistry section does need some help, but there are some fairly obvious candidates for removal (organic/inorganic compound are redundant to their branches of chemistry; I don't think we need the conjugate bases of the mineral acids; tannic acid isn't vital; we could probably get by without dispersion or vapor) so I'd like to see how far we can get with swaps first. Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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

People from the Islamic Golden Age: a case study on the completeness of the list[edit]

Some people seem surprised that I'm very picky when it comes to proposals adding more people to the list, even though we're still below the quota by 17. I want to show how there are many people who are very significant in their discipline or time period that we haven't yet included, and as an example of that, I've decided to examine how well we cover the Islamic Golden Age. This used to be a weak spot on the list, especially in terms of people who were not political or military leaders, but we've made significant progress, having added Al-Biruni, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Geber, Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Aisha over the last couple of years.

Have we done enough? Look at the following people (just intellectuals for now – I'll discuss political and military leaders further down) who aren't on the list, sorted by number of page views over the past 90 days. I don't use page views as an absolute measure of vitality (any two-bit celebrity today will beat these page views easily), but when comparing people belonging to the same culture and historical period, I find it a useful way of seeing at a glance whose importance stands out.

  • Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, also known as Rhazes (20,176 page views): polymath especially known for his contributions to medicine. Britannica flat-out calls him "the greatest physician of the Islamic world" which is a bold claim with Avicenna, Geber and al-Zahrawi to contend with, but perhaps not unjustifiable – for example, he was the first person to note the difference between smallpox and measles. I'm not surprised he's missing since we got around to adding two terribly important physicians only recently.
  • Al-Farabi (19,163 views) and Al-Kindi (17,692 views): the two most distinguished figures of Islamic philosophy before Avicenna – the Arabs considered Al-Farabi the greatest philosopher after Aristotle and Al-Kindi the father of Arab philosophy. Both wrote on a wide variety of subjects and played an important in preserving, disseminating and building upon the work of the ancient Greeks.
  • Al-Jazari (14,509 views): the most famous of Arab inventors (next in line would probably be the Banū Mūsā brothers with only 3214 views), noted for his intricate designs of machines and automata.
  • Maria al-Qibtiyya (13,102 views): the only one of Muhammad's wives besides Khadija bint Khuwaylid to bear him a child.
  • Rabia Basri (12,908 views): the first of the Sufi mystics, and the only one of four women listed in The Muslim 100 not on our list. The only other notable women of the period who weren't wives or daughters of Muhammad I could find were Al-Khansa (3953 views), one of the greatest Arab poets, and Arwa al-Sulayhi (3276 views), Queen of Yemen for over 60 years (known as the "little Queen of Sheba") and the only significant example of a female Arab ruler in Islamic times.
  • Abu Hurairah (12,447 views): one of the most important narrators of hadith, #10 on The Muslim 100 and the only one in the top ten not to appear on our list.

These are all the people I could find with over 9000 page views during the last 90 days. Other people that nearly met this threshold of 100 views/day were Ibn al-Nafis (8981 views), Al-Jahiz (8604 views) and Attar of Nishapur (8381 views). There are still a number of interesting figures whose biographies get even less attention, e.g. Yunus Emre (6934 views), the first great figure in Turkish literature; Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (4092 views), the first astronomer to record observing the Andromeda galaxy and Large Magellanic Cloud; Imru' al-Qais (3807 views), the most distinguished of pre-Islamic Arab poets; Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād (3267 views), the best-known of Persian miniature painters and one of the few plausible choices to represent Islamic art, and Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (2570 views), pioneer of the study of the Arabic language and compiler of the first Arabic dictionary.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves how many of these figures they deem vital. Personally I'm only strongly inclined to add Rhazes and al-Farabi.

That was intellectual history. While our coverage of Muslim political and military leaders of this period is better, there are still some notable omissions:

  • Mahmud of Ghazni (48,136 views): the first of Muslim invaders of India, and as brilliant a patron of the arts and literature as he was a warrior. His court entertained such luminaries as Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi, author of Shahnameh which is even on our level 3 list.
  • Alp Arslan (17,476 views): second Seljuk sultan whose victory over Romanos IV signaled the decline of the Byzantine Empire, and whose vizier Nizam al-Mulk (6571 views) was one of the most capable political administrators in Islamic history.
  • Tariq ibn Ziyad (16,151 views): Moorish conqueror of Spain – Muslim rule there would endure for another 500 years.

I also came across figures like Al-Mansur (10,809 views) and Al-Ma'mun (10,418 views) who I don't think are particularly vital. The Barmakids (3755 views), the great viziers of the Abbasid Caliphate mentioned in the Arabian Nights, seem more interesting to me but the page views would suggest others don't share this opinion. Of the list above, I think the first two definitely make good additions, while Alp Arslan could be swapped with Tughril (3575 views) and Tariq with 'Abd al-Rahman I (6143 views).

So this is how our coverage of the Islamic Golden Age looks: we have many key people but are still missing quite a few, and there is no way we could include every person that has the slightest claim to being vital. I personally think we should consider a net addition of four people and they're all from this one cultural region 800-1400 years ago. Who knows how many people closer to our time we still don't have? Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned Al-Kindi once too. This will take time to research and discuss. Hopefully I'll get the time in the next couple of days. Gizza (t)(c) 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding some of these guys. If we go over 2,000, we can just cut some more sportspeople. pbp 13:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of all pop culture sections in People, modern music has taken the smallest hit. There are 27 Rock musicians, nearly all from only two decades (60s and 70s) and two countries. For comparison there are 15 soccer players spread from the 1940s to 2015 and from all over the world. Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I had to pick four, I would choose Rabia, Al-Razi or Al-Kindi (hard to decide), Muhammad of Ghor and Tariq. I'm less certain with the intellectuals than political and military leaders. Muhammad of Ghor is the foremost symbol of early Islam in South Asia and is revered as a hero in Pakistan and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Assuming there are no other Islamic conquerors of Iberia listed, Tariq should be listed as his conquests lead to the only instance of long-term Muslim rule in Western Europe. I'm guessing he gets low views because Spain and Portugal are no longer Muslim so nobody really reveres him in a patriotic sense but 500 years of history and influence is enough IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 10:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Berry and Berry (botany)[edit]

The "Berry" page has been split, with the colloquial and horticultural use of the term now at Berry and the botanical/scientific use of the term at Berry (botany). I suspect that only the latter should be listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences. Certainly it's the one that belongs under "Plant morphology and anatomy". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Cobblet (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, as no-one has dissented, I'll do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)