Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

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

Introduction[edit]

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

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 oppose, 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: 12:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 12:10, 03 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 12:10, 04 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Thank you for participating in the Vital Articles/Expanded project.


People[edit]

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



Entertainers[edit]

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

Add Sessue Hayakawa[edit]

Sessue Hayakawa (早川 雪洲 Hayakawa Sesshū?, June 10, 1889 – November 23, 1973) was a Japanese Issei actor who starred in American, Japanese, French, German, and British films. Hayakawa was active at the outset of the American film industry. He was the first Asian actor to find stardom in the United States and Europe. He is the first Asian American as well as the first Japanese American movie star and the first Asian American leading man. His "broodingly handsome" good looks and typecasting as a sinister villain with sexual dominance made him a heartthrob among American women, and the first male sex symbol of Hollywood, several years in advance of Rudolph Valentino.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Mehmood Ali[edit]

Mehmood Ali (Hindi: महमूद अली; Urdu: محمود علی‎; 29 September 1932 – 23 July 2004), popularly known simply as Mehmood, was an Indian actor, singer, director and producer best known for playing comic roles in Hindi films. During his career of more than four decades, he worked in over 300 Hindi films.

A very popular figure in India, he was nominated for the Filmfare Best Comedian Award several times and won it 4 times.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support can't decide between Mehmood and Johnny Walker but one having comedian from the country that produces the most films in the world is definitely reasonable. We can leave the Mehmood vs JW debate for another day. Gizza (t)(c) 13:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Mehmood is definitely right up there with Johnny Walker as the two leading Indian comedians. Tun Tun would be close and is clearly India's most vital female comedian and her addition would improve the diversity of the list in two aspects but to be honest she is not quite at the level of Mehmood and Johnny Walker. Note that during the peak of Johnny Walker's career, there were no Filmfare Best Comedian Awards given out, making it hard to compare the the two on that basis. We can look at sources from critics to decide between them.

I doubt you would find consensus for more than one comedian from India as the trend lately on this page has been to reduce the number of overall comedians. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Add Devika Rani[edit]

Devika Rani Chaudhuri, usually known as Devika Rani (30 March 1908 – 9 March 1994), was an actress in Indian films who was active during the 1930s and 1940s. Widely acknowledged as the first lady of Indian cinema, Devika Rani had a successful film career that spanned 10 years. Her awards include thePadmashri (1958), Dadasaheb Phalke Award (1970) and the Soviet Land Nehru Award (1990). It's strange that no Indian actress has been included in the VA list.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my earlier comments. Gizza (t)(c) 13:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Devika Rani seems to be at a similar level to K.L. Saigal, who was the first genuine male film star of India but not necessarily most successful nor most acclaimed and therefore not most vital. I'm not sure Devika Rani would be the first choice for Indian actresses when there is the likes of Nargis, Madhubala, Meena Kumari, Nutan, Madhuri Dixit, Sridevi and Kajol to contend with. Gizza (t)(c) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Visual artists[edit]

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

Writers[edit]

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

Journalists[edit]

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

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

Add Curtis Mayfield swap Sam Cooke[edit]

Still think Curtis needs to be an addition to the list. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're more likely to be successful this time around if you pair this with removing a less vital musician from one of the bloated genres, not just an album. Personally, I think 173 musicians is enough especially when you compare it to other types of artists (108 visual artists and 115 entertainers). And within the musician section, there are more underrepresented genres than soul. Gizza (t)(c) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree agree with you on maybe the musicians section is bloated just a tad, however relating to the soul section itself it IS under-represented considering one of the most quintessential soul musicians isn't even in the list. To tell you the truth I find it quite surprising he isn't in there. It's a tough decision, but I think Sam Cooke would be better swapped by Curtis. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Curtis and Sam Cooke swap. Gizza (t)(c) 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Hidden-Leaves (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Oakwoodtreespirit (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What's with the people whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to vote on this one particular proposal? Cobblet (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cobblet: Do you think these are sockpuppets? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not Cobblet but if i am honest both of the newer accounts have names that could be related to trees, might be worth looking into. GuzzyG (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks awfully suspicious to me. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Add Selena[edit]

I believe she should be added to the list due to her elevated fame after her death and other honors established as a result. Best, jona(talk) 18:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discussion

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

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

Add Raj Kapoor[edit]

Ranbir Raj Kapoor (14 December 1924 – 2 June 1988), also known as "The Show Man", was a noted Indian film actor, producer and director of Hindi cinema. He was the winner of two National Film Awards and nine Filmfare Awards in India, and a two-time nominee for the Palme d'Or grand prize at the Cannes Film Festival for his films Awaara (1951) and Boot Polish (1954). His performance in Awaara was ranked as one of the top ten greatest performances of all time by Time magazine. His films attracted worldwide audiences, particularly in Asia and Europe. The Government of India honoured him with the Padma Bhushan in 1971 and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1987 for his contributions towards Indian cinema. He was called the Clark Gable of the Indian film industry.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree that mainstream Indian film should be represented in the directors' list (Satyajit Ray represents Indian art film). If we were looking at directing in isolation, Guru Dutt is probably more significant but when you consider Raj Kapoor's acting success as well as being the one who really propelled the Kapoor family into celebrity stardom that stands to this day, his biography is more vital. Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support: --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Thomas H. Ince[edit]

Thomas H. Ince (November 16, 1882 – November 19, 1924) was an American silent film producer, director, screenwriter, and earlier an actor. He was a pioneering studio mogul who made more than 600 films. Known as the "Father of the Western", he invented many mechanisms of professional movie production, introducing early Hollywood to the "assembly line" system of filmmaking. He wrote the screenplay for The Italian (1915), and directed Civilization (1916), both films selected for preservation by the United States National Film Registry. He was a partner with D.W. Griffith and Mack Sennett in the Triangle Motion Picture Company, and built his own studios in Culver City, which later became the legendary home of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discussion

Businesspeople[edit]

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

Explorers[edit]

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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

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

Add Pierre-Joseph Proudhon[edit]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French: [pjɛʁ ʒɔzɛf pʁudɔ̃]; 15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French politician, the founder of Mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist and is among its most influential theorists. He is considered by many to be the "father of anarchism". He became a member of the French Parliament after the revolution of 1848, whereafter he referred to himself as a federalist.

Support
  1. As nom. I think that the facts mentioned above (taken from the first paragraph of the lede of the article) make him absolutely vital. Also it is quite strange that the article is not listed while Emma Goldman is listed in this list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Bakunin is the other anarchist who has a strong claim to inclusion. Neljack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Yeah, definitely. GuzzyG (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Add Henry Parkes[edit]

Henry Parkes (27 May 1815 – 27 April 1896) was an Australian politician regarded as the father of the Australian Federation and the most important of the Australian Founding Fathers, also described by The Times as "the most commanding figure in Australian politics"

Support
  1. As nom. I think it'd be a nice addition to have a political leader from every permanently inhabited continent, if not Henry then someone else.GuzzyG (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG's persuasive comments below convinced me that we should have some sort of political representation from Australia and other currently unrepresented regions of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not convinced that he's the most important Australian political figure ever, and to be honest I'm not sure any Australian politician is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. Curtin would perhaps have the strongest claim. Neljack (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

For an earlier related discussion on Australian political figures, see the proposal to add Gough Whitlam. It was unsuccessful though a few other Australian PMs were suggested, notably John Curtin.

Speaking for myself, as significant as the Australian Federation was in hindsight, at the time it was not revolutionary. Six British colonies essentially merged into one British colony. The devolution of power came much later. And there were other figures associated with the Federation movement such as Edmund Barton. If we are to have an Australian political figure I still prefer John Curtin for reasons stated by Malerisch in the archives or Lachlan Macquarie since he was pivotal in transforming the convict island hellhole into a functioning society to which European free settlers readily migrated. Many other European colonies around the world was abandoned soon after colonisation and the indigenous or another group become the dominant culture. A major reason why this didn't happen in Australia was Macquarie. But as you can see from the archived discussion, there is some disagreement on whether we should have any Australian political figures at all. As for other leaders from Oceania, we could have George Tupou I or Kamehameha I who were among the most notable Polynesian kings in history. Gizza (t)(c) 10:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

With Lachlan you'd kill two birds with one stone (Successful example of the transformation of a colony + a leader), ideally i'd say both John and Lachlan but i am just basing that off that i find it a little weird that Australia is the only member of the G-20 without a leader to represent, the others have 2+ each. We should definitely have a Polynesian king too or both (George + Kamehameha), i was going to nominate George before so he'd be my first choice just for the fact Tonga was one of the major islands that didn't become a colony. We have 5+ people for each sub region like Central America and Central Asia so i don't see why 4 for one (Although, small) continent is a bad thing. We could use the argument of "Australian leader's not having a impact worldwide" but i would say Australia has more prominence worldwide then Madagascar or Turkmenistan which both do have a leader (Although for diversity reasons, i understand, but what's more diverse then a whole continent, descent aside?) , it's not like we're over the limit either with 24 biographies till our cap and politicians (love em' or hate em') are the top of the historical biography pile (Well maybe Religion founders are but that's another debate!). GuzzyG (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

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

Add Jack the Ripper swap Peter Zumthor[edit]

I don't know where he/her would fit on the list (Rebel?) but him/she should be on here. One of the few people who has kept the public interest for a centenary, has a group of people dedicated to his/her study "Ripperology". A good peek into the mind of a evil being and i was surprised when i went through the archives that when the criminal section was removed there was no discussion to his/her individual removal, certainly more notable then Capone, the only downside is he/her has no section to go into but his/her infamy and the continual study of him/her certainly qualify him/her into this list. I'd say swap him for this relatively recent architect.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I'd prefer someone like Blackbeard first though. Gizza (t)(c) 12:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Jack the Ripper is certainly very notorious, but I question how influential or significant he really is. I'm just not convinced he has had sufficient impact to be vital for the purposes of this list. Neljack (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

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

Sports figures[edit]

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

Add Aleksandr Karelin[edit]

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Karelin (Russian: Александр Александрович Карелин; born 19 September 1967) is a Hero of the Russian Federation and retired Greco-Roman wrestler for the Soviet Union and Russia. Nicknamed the "Russian Bear",[1] "Russian King Kong",[2] "Alexander the Great" and "The Experiment", he is considered the greatest Greco-Roman wrestler of all time.[3][4] Karelin won gold medals at the 1988, 1992 and 1996, as well as a silver in the 2000 Olympic Games. His wrestling record is 887 wins and two losses.[5][6] Karelin was the national flag bearer at three consecutive Olympics: in 1988 for the Soviet Union, in 1992 for the Unified Team, and in 1996 for Russia.

He is the greatest Russian athlete purely by accomplishments and between 1994-2000 was not only undefeated, he never even had a point scored against him in any match. He was the most dominant wrestler in history. –– Lid(Talk) 02:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. nominator –– Lid(Talk) 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Absolutely dominated his sport. Certainly one of the greatest Russian sportspeople. Neljack (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per above. Gizza (t)(c) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Was gonna add him myself. Definitely one of the most dominant recorded athletes. GuzzyG (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Oppose[edit]

Discussion[edit]

History[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Add collective memory and periodization[edit]

Both are vital concepts in historiography, however they do not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Is collective memory any more vital than archival research? It doesn't seem to be. It's just some niche theory. Periodization is better though I wonder if historiography needs to be expanded. Note that historiography is introduced to the list at this level (Level 4). Sometimes subtopics are added to the list at the same level as the main topic if there is a compelling reason. I can't see a compelling reason in this case at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 09:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Early modern history[edit]

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

Modern history[edit]

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

Historical cities[edit]

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

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

Geography[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Add Tropics[edit]

We list the Lines of latitude, the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn but not the general area, The Tropics, I think a real encyclopedia would have it the other way round. Much of the articles about the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, are lists of countries they pass through. While there is other information too, it's included or could be included in the tropics article too. I'm not suggesting removing the lines of latitude here though, although it could be discussed. Compare to the Arctic, we do list the Arctic Circle in addition to arctic, so we could have the tropic circles in addition to the tropics, however the Arctic itself is higher priority vital article appearing in the 1000 list, so I would think the Tropics article itself, is equal or slightly more important than the articles about tropics of cancer and capricorn. We list several geographic zones/types but not this major one, it would fit in well; the article is quite short, much could be added to it, so it may benefit being added here.  Carlwev  10:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  10:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I note that tropical climate, wet season and dry season are all listed. I think listing the tropics is a good idea, but I also think we should remove at least the tropical seasons. Cobblet (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had tropical climate as well. We don't list Arctic climate in the 10'000 even though Arctic is in the 1000. Would tropics be more vital than tropical climate? Also the list of nations and regions on the tropic lines, in those articles, don't include nations between them that don't touch the lines themselves. The articles only talk about the regions on the lines not between them in the middle of the tropics, I haven't thought and read extensively about it, but my instinct dislikes the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, but there's probably a reason I'm wrong.
I'm also wondering how vital Antarctic Circle is? One could say, if you have the Arctic circle you gotta have the other too. It's a shame the polar circles are not summed up in one article, and the same for the tropic lines. In fact I just discovered we have Polar Circle, it's underdeveloped, and I'm not sure how well used the term is.  Carlwev  18:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to leave out the Antarctic Circle if you include the Arctic Circle, but it's certainly worth asking whether all major circles of latitude are equally vital. You could say that the significance of the two Tropics could be covered by, well, tropics. I could see an argument for including tropics and tropical climate separately, but I don't have a strong opinion either way about that. Cobblet (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Physical geography[edit]

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

Add Pico de Orizaba[edit]

It is North America's third tallest mountain (also a volcano) at over 18,000 feet tall. it is dormant but not extinct with its last eruption occurring in the 19th Century. It is the second most prominent volcanic peak after Mount Kilimanjaro. As Mexican geography is lacking on the list, the addition of this mountain would be a good addition for the list.

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I really would've preferred adding the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt instead. I think mountain ranges are usually more vital than individual mountains, e.g. Sierra Nevada (unsuccessfully removed in a previous !vote) vs. Mount Whitney (successfully removed) or the Alps vs. Mont Blanc or the Matterhorn. Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We could have both if you really wanted to. I am fine with adding the range too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Parks and preserves[edit]

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

Countries[edit]

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


Regions and country subdivisions[edit]

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

Cities[edit]

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

Remove Dongguan[edit]

Let's try this again. In an earlier proposal to remove this it was suggested that with a population of 8 million, this "is one of the largest manufacturing centres in the world". This is true; but according to Brookings, Suzhou, Wuxi, Foshan, Ningbo and Tangshan were all cities with larger GDPs (in 2012) that aren't on our list. And all those cities have a longer history than Dongguan, which was a rural agricultural area before the '80s (its previous claim to fame was its lychee). I doubt anyone here would consider Karlsruhe vital and we have previously removed Portland, Oregon from the list: these were two other cities with GDPs larger than Dongguan's in 2012 (although it's very possible that Dongguan's passed them since). Other cities with GDPs larger than Dongguan's that we don't include are Malaga, Abu Dhabi and Baltimore: I would rather add all of those in place of Dongguan. We've already included the more notable cities of Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Macau from the Pearl River delta; we don't need Dongguan as well. Foshan is both a bigger manufacturing centre and much more culturally vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Abu Dhabi[edit]

Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates. With a population of almost 1 million, it is the second largest city in the UAE. Abu Dhabo is ranked 9th in per capita GDPs for cities at $49,600 due to its massive oil supply. It is the largest oil producer in the UAE. The airport in the city is a vital hub for travelers heading anywhere in the Near East, acting as a hub for flights to India, the Middle East, and the rest of the world. Considering that the Middle East is underrepresented in the city section, Abu Dhabi seems like a fair city to add to the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev 
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support OK why not? There are more obscure Middle Eastern cities listed. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Just being the capital of a particular country guarantees its vitality. Besides, it is quite abundant in oil.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Arts[edit]

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

Architecture[edit]

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


Literature[edit]

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

Music[edit]

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.

Philosophy[edit]

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.

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.

Mythology[edit]

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.

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Domestic partnership add Marriage of convenience[edit]

Domestic partnership is very similar to Civil Union, some countries refer to civil union as "domestic partnership". Much more important and different topic is Marriage of convenience, wich is covers both heterosexual and homosexual relations.

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Remove not add.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removal only. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support removal, oppose addition. Jucchan (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support removal, oppose addition Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The three are very different concepts: Civil Union is much like a marriage for LGTB. Domestic partnership is living together without marriage and marriage of convenience is a whole different animal. I would support the straight add, but domestic partnership shouldn't be removed. --Melody Lavender 14:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I've never heard of homosexual partnerships being "convenient", the only case that might fit that is the case of marriage between Nuer widows. To me marriage of convenience is completely different from Civil Union and Domestic partnership and marriage of convenience is the idea of marrying for money or influence or connections or to make a household work. On the other hand Domestic partnership does in fact cover homosexual partnerships in many countries. I dont see any good reason to swap. I will support remove civil union since this is currently redundant both with civil marriage, marriage and domestic partnership. The article on marriage should cover all of those. In cross cultural anthropological perspective they are the same phenomenon, namely lasting socially privileged domestic partnerships. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Living together without marriage" is called cohabitation. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah right, obviously domestic partnership is a legal term, cohabitation is on the list, so I'll support.--Melody Lavender 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

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

Household items[edit]

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


Sexuality[edit]

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

Stages of life[edit]

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

Sports and recreation[edit]

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


Timekeeping[edit]

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

Colors[edit]

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

Society and social sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anthropology[edit]

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


Business and economics[edit]

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

Culture[edit]

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

Education[edit]

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

Ethnology[edit]

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

International organizations[edit]

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

Language[edit]

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

Law[edit]

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

Add ethnic cleansing[edit]

In my opinion since not all ethnic cleansings are genocides (some do not involve killing) and it is a concept no less crucial than genocide (which belongs to the list), this article should be added to the Level 4 list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

If this is successful, it should be placed somewhere under "Society" not "Law". Ethnic cleansing itself is not regarded as a crime even by the International Criminal Court. Gizza (t)(c) 07:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass media[edit]

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


Museums[edit]

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

Politics and government[edit]

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

Psychology[edit]

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

Society[edit]

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

Sociology[edit]

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


War and military[edit]

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

Biology and health sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Add Hand[edit]

We cover much anatomy and biology including many organs, tissues, chemicals etc some I would regard as more speciallized/expert articles and less vital than the hand. The hand is important to the human body and human evolution but nothing really covers it other than articles like human anatomy, and the things which hands are made of, eg. muscle and bone.  Carlwev  00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Suppose
  1. Support  Carlwev  00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Human Hand is a redirect, so I prefer this article. The hand is one of the reasons humans have thrived for so long, specifically having opposable thumbs. It is one the the key parts of the body (for example, I am typing this !vote with my hands right now) and an evolutionary masterpiece, and thus should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Better than fingerprint. Gizza (t)(c) 10:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Definitely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose

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.

Add Oxytocin[edit]

A hormone that has recently grown to be considered among the most important in producing behavior and emotion in humans - particularly in promoting prosocial behavior and emotional bonds between partners and parents/children. We have 5 hormones, and I think we could add a couple of more. Oxytocine is at least as vital as epinephrine and plant hormone.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Steroid[edit]

Suggested above. It is a vital type of hormone in the human body, containing many different hormones such as cortisone. Synthetic steroids have been made to imitate this type of hormone. As one of the major classes of hormones, it should be on the list.

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Essential topic in biochemistry. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Surprised it's not in the list already...GuzzyG (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  23:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Biological processes and physiology[edit]

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

Botany[edit]

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

Cell biology[edit]

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

Ecology[edit]

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

Zoology[edit]

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

Organisms[edit]

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

Add Smilodon[edit]

Better known as the sabre-toothed tiger, the Smilodon is one of the best-known prehistoric animals. Because of that, people will be curious to read about it. It's popular, very popular.

Support
  1. Support I think this was ML's proposal. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, I did not come up with this idea myself, no. I wasn't even sure if I supported it until now. I apparently forgot to sign? Odd. ~Mable (chat) 11:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I will probably support this. I noticed that Smilodon was missing when proposed to remove mastodon. At the time there were two extinct elephant-like animals (now there's only mammoth) but no sabre-toothed tigers, which I thought was bit of an anomaly. In comparison to other extinct animals, I would probably have smilodon before 8 different species of dinosaur though others may have different opinions. Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Esox, Add Northern pike[edit]

Esox is the genus of fish commonly called pike or pickerel. I think it might be better to list the most notable species of Esox than the genus itself. Northern pike are a popular sport fish in the Northern Hemisphere and it was Wikiproject Fishes's 79th most popular article last month.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, the Northern pike specifically is more interesting to cover than the genus it makes part of. ~Mable (chat) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Gourami, Add Siamese fighting fish[edit]

Swapping the family for its most notable member, which was 35th in popularity on WP:FISH last month. (Gourami was 280th.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are other species of Gourami that are popular as pets but I'm not sure if they're popular enough to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Scombridae, Add Bonito Add Alaska pollock[edit]

We list mackerel and tuna, two notable tribes of the Scombridae. I suggest adding the next most notable tribe, the bonitos (146th most popular WP:FISH article) and removing the family altogether (347th) and adding the second most commonly fished species in the world by tonnage, the Alaska pollock. Your Filet o'Fish, fish sticks and surimi are all made from this species.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Scombridae, Neutral on Bonito, which doesn't look particularly vital either. EDIT: Neutral on the pollock too. ~Mable (chat) 11:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support removal only. Jucchan (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support the removal and the addition of Alaskan Pollock. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I just realized bonito probably gets a lot of hits because people are looking for skipjack tuna, which is sometimes also called the oceanic bonito, but is classified as a tuna. It's the third most commonly caught fish in the world, behind the Peruvian anchoveta (we don't list that but we do list anchovy) and the Alaska pollock. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Alaska pollock definitely looks better, but I don't think there is enough to it to make it vital. It's a enourmous source of palatable fish and people are worrying of the consequences of a collapse on the ecosystem, but I have a hard time seeing the species' cruciality for an encyclopedia. There's its use in the fast-food industry, though... ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
On a list of ~100 fish articles I don't think it looks out of place. Compare grass carp and silver carp which were previous suggestions of mine that were added; they're notable farmed species. If we want to keep even less fish articles though (we've already removed about 40 over the last year), then I agree it may not be essential. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I do think less fish articles is generally better than more, so even if it's as vital as some of the otehr fish articles in this list, I'd rather see those removed than this one added. It's hard to decide which are and aren't vital in many cases, though, which just means that I personally try to limit what gets in with the argument "it's just as vital as these 40 fish that are in!" I'm generally not the best to judge on what fish are vital, though, which is why I'm just neutral ~Mable (chat) 09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a clerical note. Are all the support votes for the current proposal with our without adding the bonito? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:44, 6 March 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.

Basics[edit]

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

Measurement[edit]

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

Astronomy[edit]

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


Chemistry[edit]

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

Add Valence bond theory[edit]

It is as vital as molecular orbital theory (see the lede of the valence bond theory article).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I can't see the justification for excluding one but including the other. Neljack (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Researchers use MO theory almost exclusively nowadays because it's better at actually predicting how molecules behave. However, its complete reliance on QM calculations makes it much more abstract and hence less useful than VB theory as a way of teaching chemists how to understand reactivity. Valence bond theory has introduced many terms that are still commonly used by chemists to describe molecules – resonance (chemistry), orbital hybridisation, sigma and pi bonds are all basic concepts still taught in any high school or university. We certainly don't have the room to include all those concepts individually, but this article could do the job (even though it's in a woefully inadequate state right now). Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Earth science[edit]

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

Add Great Oxygenation Event[edit]

As stated in the conversation below: "It's odd to call that event "not well known". I've never heard of it under that name, but it is definitely a well-known happening that should probably be vital as well. I've heard plenty about the biologically-induced appearance of oxygen in the atosphere, but I never actually read about it. Having a good description of it on Wikipedia should definitely be vital. I'll suggest it right away."

support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I can support this. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add each of the big five extinction events[edit]

These are Ordovician–Silurian extinction events, Late Devonian extinction, Permian–Triassic extinction event (already in), Triassic–Jurassic extinction event and Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (already in). The three articles that aren't already in are still incredibly major events in the big history of the Earth and life. They are grouped together in these articles for a reason, after all, and are all vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 12:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Per Cobblet. I don't see why mass extinctions should be given more attention than the rest of geological history. We don't even have the most recent ice age which is surely more vital than the three unlisted extinctions. Also Earth Science is over quota. I prefer discussing quotas and possibly increasing it before adding another bunch of articles. Gizza (t)(c) 05:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I've moved this proposal to the "Earth science" section, since the nominator's proposal is to add another three articles about palaeontology, which belongs to geology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I simply put it in the same section where the current extinction events were already located. I guess those would need to be moved as well then. ~Mable (chat) 08:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure all these events are of general interest, and I think mass extinction might be better. If all of these are vital then the Great Oxygenation Event ought to be as well – it's not widely known either but in a way it is more significant than any mass extinction event in geological history. Cobblet (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's odd to call that event "not well known". I've never heard of it under that name, but it is definitely a well-known happening that should probably be vital as well. I've heard plenty about the biologically-induced appearance of oxigen in the atosphere, but I never actually read about it. Having a good description of it on Wikipedia should definitely be vital. I'll suggest it right away. ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Add Meteorite[edit]

I'm very surprised this is not included, they are of significant interest to scientists and to common readers too, for numerous reasons. We list many rock types or minerals, seams odd to leave this one out; many rock types we have, in my opinion, seam less vital than this such as Schist or Gneiss, to pick on a few. The geology project rates meteorite as high importance, compared to many rocks/minerals we include which are only mid importance; Meteorite is also in more languages than many rocks/minerals we have.  Carlwev  23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I like the idea of adding this. I am not sure what the overlap between meteorite and meteoroid is though. Perhaps only meteorite should be added though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Also, we are missing meteoroid too, I may open than to in astronomy, what are peoples thoughts on that? BTW, Meteorite is a rock on Earth which is of extraterrestrial origin, a meteoroid is an object in space smaller than an asteroid, and a meteor is a rock whilst burning through the atmosphere and the word redirects to meteoroid. (If meteoroids overlap with anything it would be asteroid, although they are not the same though, but since asteroid, comet, planet, natural satellite are all 1000 list articles I would have thought a few more space object types acceptable for the 10,000 list)  Carlwev  23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Add Ozone layer[edit]

More important to the Earth than many individual lakes and rivers etc, and more vital. We have Ozone, but Ozone itself only makes up a small percentage of the Ozone layer, and I believe the ozone layer in itself is looked up, studied and read about just as much if not more than ozone is alone. It is well studied by experts, interesting to general readers and is often in the media due to it's depletion....I was also looking at Ozone depletion as a potential article, but the ozone layer itself is probably enough, thoughts?  Carlwev  00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We did already add ozone depletion. Taking account the additions being proposed above, I don't think there's room for this kind of slight redundancy. Cobblet (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Ozone depletion is enough and earth science is over quota as it is. Gizza (t)(c) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Would anyone prefer ozone layer over ozone depletion? This seems like a 50-50 argument. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Physics[edit]

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

Technology[edit]

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

Agriculture[edit]

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


Biotechnology[edit]

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

Computing and information technology[edit]

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

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

Add Composite material[edit]

From plywood to (reinforced) concrete to fibreglass to Kevlar to graphite-fibre sports equipment, composite materials are ubiquitous in modern society and are one of the most significant technological innovations of the last century.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 00:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
PASSED:

6-0 for addition and 5-1 for removal, swapped Gizza (t)(c) 00:52, 3 May 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.

Swap: Remove Blacksmith, Add Forging[edit]

Swapping the historical profession for the technique which is still very much relevant today.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support the addition, Opposethe removal. Blacksmith as a historical profession should not be removed. it was an extremely important profession historically, and should remain on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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


PASSED:

5-0, swapped Gizza (t)(c) 01:00, 3 May 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.

Swap: Remove Quenching, Add Heat treating[edit]

There are many ways in which material properties can be usefully altered by the application of heat: quenching's just one of them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Quenching is one type of heat treating and it's important to know the other types too. Gizza (t)(c) 00:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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


Infrastructure[edit]

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

Remove Tower Bridge[edit]

It's a famous symbol of London but is of little significance as a work of engineering. Many iconic symbols of important world cities aren't listed (e.g. Arc de Triomphe, Brandenburg Gate, St. Basil's Cathedral, Merlion, Willis Tower) and London's already got Palace of Westminster on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose An old bridge should probably be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Swap: Remove Paris Métro, Add Pont du Gard[edit]

The Paris Métro isn't even all that notable among mass transit systems – for instance, there are six subway systems with more ridership that aren't on the list. I think the Pont du Gard is a much better example of a vital piece of engineering – it's the tallest aqueduct the Romans built, has survived intact for nearly two millennia, and has attracted and inspired visitors throughout its history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removal Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support removal only Jucchan (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

And I would swap Tokyo Subway with Shinkansen. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Pont du Gard is a better example of Roman engineering than Hadrian's Wall or the Appian Way. Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think a classic example of an arch bridge (few things are better at visually conveying the usefulness and elegance of good engineering, IMO) is a better choice than an ancient road (the Via Appia has to compete with the Royal Road) or a second example of a defensive wall (we've got the Great Wall of China), but that's just me. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Machinery and tools[edit]

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

Media and communication[edit]

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

Medical technology[edit]

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

Add Dialysis and Cardiopulmonary bypass[edit]

Techniques/machines that are part and parcel of modern medicine.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support although I'ma bit more comfortable with Dialysis than bypass  Carlwev  13:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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.

Swap: Remove Photodetector, Add Charge-coupled device[edit]

I don't think we need to list classes of sensors, be they photodetectors, chemosensors, biosensors, etc. I suggest replacing that article with the CCD, which is the semiconductor device that made digital imaging practical for the first time and is still employed in a variety of applications ranging from endoscopy to the Hubble space telescope.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Space[edit]

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

Remove James Webb Space Telescope[edit]

Per above discussion. A telescope that hasn't even been launched yet is not vital. We don't really know what its impact will be. We can only speculate.

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  08:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Thoughts on removing the Herschel Space Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope? IMO one space telescope is enough for the list (Hubble Space Telescope), and they don't stand out as more vital than several other spacecraft/space missions not listed like Cassini–Huygens, Mir, Galileo, Pioneer 10, the Viking program, Spirit and Opportunity, or Voyager 2. I'm not even sure if they're more vital than the other unlisted space telescopes like the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Malerisch (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support ;p I agree, those seem much less vital than some of the examples you've given. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove Proton (rocket family)[edit]

Per above as well. If we don't list any specific examples of notable cars (Ford Model T) or aircraft (North American P-51 Mustang or Boeing 747), we shouldn't be listing more than a few specific examples of space vehicles. Proton seems to be the least notable example of the ones we have listed, so I'm nominating it for removal. Malerisch (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Textiles[edit]

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

Transportation[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Tokyo subway, add Shinkansen[edit]

There are five examples of rapid transit systems and zero examples of high speed rail. This imbalance needs to be rectified. The Shinkansen is the most notable high speed rail network in the world. The Tokyo Subway was not the first of its kind (the London Underground was) nor it doesn't even have the highest ridership in East Asia let alone the world (Beijing, Seoul and Shanghai all have busier rapid transit systems).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Mathematics[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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


Algebra[edit]

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

Calculus and analysis[edit]

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


Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Geometry[edit]

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

Add Parametric equation[edit]

Basic concept in analytical geometry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Other[edit]

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.

General discussions[edit]