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 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 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: 14:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 14:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 14:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

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


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.

Visual artists[edit]

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

Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:01, 28 July 2016 (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 Sandro Botticelli[edit]

Botticelli was one of the definitive painters of the Italian Renaissance. He painted not just The Birth of Venus (listed) but also Primavera and other works.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Very surprised he isn't on there. Artists are perhaps unrepresented compared to other forms of culture. Neljack (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - per Neljack. Jusdafax 09:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Michelangelo, da Vinci, Raphael, and Botticelli are widely regarded as the four most influencial Renaissance painters and should all be included. Gpapazian (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2016 (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.

Add James Abbott McNeill Whistler[edit]

James McNeill Whistler was one of most important and influential American painters.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jusdafax 09:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Caspar David Friedrich[edit]

The most important German Romantic painter. He is called as the Europe's first truly modern artist and his works are very famous.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Strikes me as more important than some of the painters we have. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Joan Miró[edit]

One of the most important representatives of surrealism.[1].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. support Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Amedeo Modigliani[edit]

Modigliani is famous for his original portraits.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While clearly important, not on par with other important modern painters. We can only list that many painters. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Giorgio de Chirico[edit]

The father of metaphysical painting and a major influence on the Surrealist movement.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. #Oppose While clearly important, more of a painter's painter than vital to the public at large. We can only list that many painters. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Edward Hopper[edit]

This American artist is known worldwide as the painter of urban loneliness. [2]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Mark Rothko[edit]

One of the greatest abstract artists of the twentieth century.[3][4].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Writers[edit]

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

Add Patrick White[edit]

There is now only one writer from Australia, Banjo Paterson. Patrick White is "widely regarded as one of the most important English-language novelists of the 20th century" and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1973.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are more important Australian Nobel laureates missing like Howard Florey. Also J. M. Coetzee who is now an Australian citizen is listed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:04, 23 July 2016 (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 Margaret Mitchell[edit]

The book Gone with the Wind is maybe more important topic than its author.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support there are other 20th century female "one-hit wonder" authors that are far more well known such as Harper Lee. Gizza (t)(c) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Being the author of one well known story is more that can be said of Patrick White, whose works collectively are still not as famous. Nobody in Australia really cares about White at a level for him to be vital although I cannot comment on his status internationally. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (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 Alice Munro[edit]

North American writer to replace Margaret Mitchell. Novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote once that Munro "has a strong claim to being the best fiction writer now working in North America."

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support always comes up in English classes at the University, and often in short story collections. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. The fact that her work has been described as revolutionizing the architecture of short stories means that she is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Neither as groundbreaking as Juana Inés de la Cruz or Gertrude Stein nor as widely read as Maya Angelou. Those are female writers I'd support adding. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I would support adding Gertrude Stein. In terms of female writers, there are a number of Native American women writers that are excellent, like Leslie Marmon Silko. We need to cut down the emphasis on technology to make room for more shakers and movers like these. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Stanisław Lem[edit]

Since his books are as influential as, maybe more influential than Robert A. Heinlein, and his SF books are of extremely high level, this person should be added to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. To represent the non-English language SF and modern Polish literature. --Thi (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too many SF writers listed already. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Terry Pratchett[edit]

Since his books are of high level and extremely popular among adults, he should be added to the list.

Support
  1. The alleged bias in favour of science fiction writers in this section can be easily overcome by adding him to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't need more fantasy writers either. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add H. P. Lovecraft[edit]

The fact that he is now considered to be one of the most significant 20th century writers in horror fiction guarantees his vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Clearly influential and vital. Jusdafax 07:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Tom Clancy[edit]

The fact that he redefined and expanded the genre of military fiction, making many people able to publish such books who had previously been unable to do so (retold from [5]) means that he is absolutely vital at this level. Not listing such an influential figure is a huge mistake.

Support
  1. As nom. In my opinoion, any writers who contributed or is contributing to a particular literary genre (e.g. action, adventure, Western, military, espionage, politics, legal, mystery, crime or romance) substantially should be mentioned in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose Not vital at all. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose In top 100,000 like Tom Cruise. --Thi (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I had proposed to add it to the list, however later it got failed due to insufficient supportive votes(cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Tom_Clancy).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Maya Angelou[edit]

The facts that this person was instrumental in Civil Rights Movement and contributed substantially to the autobiography genre by deliberately attempting to challenge the common structure of the autobiography by critiquing, altering, and expanding the genre guarantee her vitality. Adding her also reduces the list's racial and gender biases.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This will be my last edit to this page unless that disgusting racial slur is removed from the nominator's comments. We have tolerated this user's ignorance until now but this is a new low. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Cobblet. The term is neither offensive nor discriminatory, just read [6] & [7], and you'll agree with me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
RekishiEJ, it's very concerning that you still don't get it. The word when being used by someone who is neither black nor a woman has a completely different connotation to how it is being used in the links you provided. We want the vital articles project to be welcoming to both people of colour and women (for that matter every person in the world in theory). Using that word or any similar language towards any subset of people which dissuades these people from positively contributing here and throughout the rest of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. Have a look at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. This is fundamental Wikipedia policy. Repeatedly using derogatory language can get you blocked. You should know this since you've been here for so long but this is your final warning. Gizza (t)(c) 11:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to express my agreement with the comments of Gizza and Cobblet. I thank the former for removing the offensive language and trust that we will thus not lose the excellent contributions of the latter here.
RekishiEJ, that you appear unable to understand that the offensiveness of a word can vary according to the speaker and the context (e.g. when a member of the group concerned uses it) leads me to question whether you can the competence necessary to edit here, as frankly does your often extremely superficial rationales in support of sometimes ridiculous nominations. I take no pleasure in saying this, but I feel that it must be said. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion the terms "colored", "negro" & ""negress" should be regarded as non-offensive, since there are still plenty of Afro-Americans arguing that "negroes" is a better term to describe African Americans than "blacks", and core members of NAACP regard the term "colored" non-offensive and non-discriminatory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't care whether you think they should be regarded as non-offensive. What we care about is that they are widely regarded as offensive by African-Americans. Neljack (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Really? Elderly Afro-Americans tend to regard the term "Negro" non-offensive. See negro--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No doubt some do, but it is indisputable that many - almost certainly most - African-Americans find that word - and the others you referred to - offensive. That it why they are not in common usage. And it is why, having been given a final warning, you will likely be blocked if you use any of them again. Neljack (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for adding writers to the list[edit]

I had proposed to add Tom Clancy, but no one sanctioned my proposal. I think it's weird since Tom Clancy has contributed significantly to military fiction by re-defining and expanding it, he should be vital at this level. In fact, all writers who have contributed substantially to a particular literary genre/format, e.g. by making it much more popular to readers, making more later writers willing to publish such books/works, challenging, re-defining, expanding or diversifying it are vital at this level and should be added to the list. And all writers who are more influential, or at least as influential as J. K. Rowling, e.g. Terry Pratchett, should be vital and included in the list as well. What do you think?--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about Terry Pratchett but I do know that he's nowhere nearly as influential as J.K. Rowling, author of the best-selling book series in history (450 million to 70 million for Pratchett's) which became the second-highest grossing film series in history. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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 Ralph Vaughan Williams[edit]

Some of Vaughan Williams's works are among the most popular pieces of classical music by British composer.[8] He was important for development of British music and one of the most notable symphonists of 20th century.[9][10][11][12] I found him on my paper encyclopedia, which consists of 5000 articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - A vital composer, per the nomination. Quite surprised this composer is not on the list. Jusdafax 21:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Lacks the groundbreaking impact of someone like Webern, Ligeti or Messiaen. While I love RVW as much as the next person, only an idiot would compare him to Shakespeare, and he's not even the next British composer I'd add to the list (probably Henry Purcell would be the best choice). Twentieth-century English classical music is very well represented with both Elgar and Britten on the list. Outside of the UK, I suspect Carl Nielsen's symphonies are probably more frequently heard nowadays than Vaughan Williams's. Cobblet (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I have to agree with Cobblet that RVW was not particularly ground-breaking. He was a mid-rank composer of a sort that could easily swell this section of the list to 100 if we included them all. In terms of English composers we don't have, I would rank Purcell and even William Byrd ahead of him. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Carl Maria von Weber[edit]

An influential composer, vital article in general encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose As Cobblet notes, 19th and 20th century classical composers (and particularly German romantic composers) are already well-represented on the list. Weber is important, but I'm inclined to think not quite as important as the other romantic composers we have. His piano music and symphonies are not heard very often these days. Der Freischütz remains popular, as does his woodwind music, but ultimately I'm not convinced that he warrants a place. Neljack (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Yes, an important pioneer of Romanticism in German music, and someone I've considered adding for a long time. On the other hand, we already list several other German composers of the Romantic period. Compare our coverage of Romantic art and literature: German romanticism in art is completely unrepresented (if push came to shove I'd take Caspar David Friedrich over Anton Bruckner) and pioneering figures in literary romanticism like Chateaubriand and Germaine de Staël are IMO more important omissions than Weber. Honestly, 19th and 20th-century classical music is already more comprehensively covered than the other arts of the time. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Henry Purcell[edit]

One of the greatest British composers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support better choice than RVW. Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose His influence was mainly limited to music in England. Closer in significance to the tier of composers that would include Domenico Scarlatti, Lully, Rameau, Couperin, Corelli and Telemann than the ones currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It is true that his influence was mainly limited to England. I suppose the same could be said of Elgar, whom we have, but them perhaps we shouldn't have him either? Neljack (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Neither the most influential nor the most prolific of Baroque composers. pbp 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Elgar can at least be said to have led a renaissance of British music, and on an English-language list maybe that's enough to put him ahead of people like Scriabin or Grieg. Meanwhile, the decision to include Gilbert & Sullivan over Weber or Donizetti, or Britten ahead of anyone from Spain or Latin America, can perhaps only be rationalized by this being a list for the English Wikipedia. IMO that's plenty of deference to British composers. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any bias in favour of English-speaking countries. I had been wondering about the inclusion of G & S. Britten is undoubtedly one of the most important opera composers of the 20th century, but then so is Janáček, who we don't have and whose reputation is perhaps even higher these days. Neljack (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Carl Nielsen[edit]

A famous Danish composer. Mentioned in my 5000-article encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The least influential of all the composers suggested here. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A very fine composer, but not quite at the level of importance to warrant inclusion. I'm not convinced we need more 20th century composers. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Jean-Baptiste Lully[edit]

An influential baroque composer.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The French baroque composer with the strongest claim to inclusion is Rameau. Neljack (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add György Ligeti[edit]

One of the most important composers of 20th century.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Looking at the avant-garde section of the composers list, we have Glass, Stockhausen and Cage. Ligeti seems to me more important than Glass and perhaps Cage, and more or less on a par with Stockhausen. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swapped 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:22, 24 July 2016 (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 Vangelis, Add The Velvet Underground[edit]

The Velvet Underground spawned the development of punk and alternative rock and should be regarded as one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. Broke new ground in both sound and subject matter. As much as I respect avant-garde classical music and would like to add someone like Ligeti, I don't think you can justify doing that while leaving out such a seminal group in avant-garde rock, which let's face it, has been heard by and has influenced more people. Vangelis is primarily famous for one movie soundtrack and hardly vital in terms of actual artistic influence.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - I agree with the nominators reasoning for this swap. Jusdafax 21:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support for removing Vangelis, although I don't care very much about VU.[13] --Thi (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support, VU is a much more enduringly influential name in modern music. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (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.

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

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

Businesspeople[edit]

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

Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:07, 23 July 2016 (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 Ray Kroc[edit]

McDonald's was removed from the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support And now we're adding it back, so I don't really see the need for both McDonald's and the executive that made it successful. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support the concept of franchising is also something to consider although we're out of space for now. Gizza (t)(c) 14:33, 11 July 2016 (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.

Remove Larry Ellison[edit]

A successful businessman and billionaire, but probably not crucial in this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support there are thousands of islands owned by rich people. That doesn't make you vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Not just any old billionaire, he owns a major Hawaiian island. I'm saying he's vital for purposes of the list. Jusdafax 09:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - He managed to create one of America's largest technology companies, is the 3rd richest man in America (5th in the world), donates to a plethora of philanthropic causes, and owns arguably the best boat-racing team in the world. He's no George Washington, but all that combined is pretty significant. Gpapazian (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Explorers[edit]

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

Remove Juan Sebastián Elcano[edit]

The story of the first circumnavigation of the Earth is told in the article of Ferdinand Magellan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I am not convinced that it is necessary to have both Magellan and Elcano. Neljack (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 13:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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.

I have a more generic question about the balance between different groups. It appears to me that the “Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (153 articles)” as a group is under-represented compared to “Musicians and composers (171 articles)”. As a result we are missing several vital names in economics / social science front. Even if we balance these 2 groups by giving each group 162 spots each, we get 9 more names in Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists group which would allow the inclusion of vital names like: Peter Drucker, Daniel Kahneman, Philip Kotler, Franco Modigliani, Michael Porter, John Ralston Saul, Amartya Sen, William F. Sharpe, Muhammad Yunus

On the Musician list the below subgroups seem to be over-represented and may be considered for trimming:

  1. American folk and country (8 articles)
  2. Blues, R&B, and soul (9 articles)
  3. Jazz (14 articles)

- Arman (Talk) 03:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me then summarize it in a proposal format. The proposal is to take out 9 names from Musicians and composers (currently 171 articles) and add 9 new articles in Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (currently 153 articles) category to make both categories balanced at 162 entries each. More specifically I recommend to remove:

  1. George Gershwin
  2. Charlie Parker
  3. Otis Redding
  4. Joni Mitchell
  5. Cole Porter
  6. Jerome Kern
  7. Tyagaraja
  8. Hector Berlioz
  9. Anton Bruckner

And add:

  1. Peter Drucker
  2. Daniel Kahneman
  3. Philip Kotler
  4. Franco Modigliani
  5. Michael Porter
  6. John Ralston Saul
  7. Amartya Sen
  8. William F. Sharpe
  9. Muhammad Yunus
Support
  1. As nom. - Arman (Talk) 08:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Agree with Thi. I feel we should examine each of these singularly. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - One by one, not a mass swap. Jusdafax 20:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not ready to remove Berlioz or Bruckner. Gershwin and Parker seem also important. Some famous jazz musicians are still missing: Count Basie, Coleman Hawkins, Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Ornette Coleman. I would remove Vangelis first. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think first we need to decide if we agree on the proposition that the musician list is currently over-represented compared to Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. Of course every name on the musician list is important and famous, but here the question is whether for an encyclopedia a famous musician is more vital or a scholar who originated / lead / transformed an entire field of study like management or marketing or finance. Arman (Talk) 01:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The only suggested addition I think I'd be willing to support without further explanation is Amartya Sen. And I should point out Yunus was brought up a while ago. To Thi's suggestions I would add Bessie Smith and The Velvet Underground – these are artists who can legitimately be said to have made a transformative impact on the history of music, and are much more likely to be known to the average reader than any of the suggested economists/social scientists. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What I am suggesting to address here is a very apparent systematic bias which is so often associated with Wikipedia. Music industry is, after all, an entertainment industry. Compared to that Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (a broad group which also includes economists, business and social thinkers) contribute more profoundly to our life and livelihood. Furthermore, appeal of a musician often tends to be restricted to a specific language, society or era. But a fundamental contribution to a body of knowledge remains relevant for entire mankind for all times. Unfortunately because of the systematic bias in Wikipedia popular topics like "musician" can have higher number of entries on lists like this than more academically important topics of Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. It is not surprising though that a proposal to fix a popular bias will be rejected due to "popular" sentiment against it. - Arman (Talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In a general sense, I support a reduction in musicians and an increase in philosophers and social scientists including economists. But I don't support every single removal and addition choice here. I don't believe anybody has opposed the motivation behind this proposal, only the detail.
Some of the suggestions are quite good which I could support but overall they introduce other biases. All of the economists proposed compiled their most significant work in the second half of the 20th century and are therefore very recent. They're also all male. That aside, IMO the most vital missing economist is Friedrich Hayek, considering that he heavily influenced two leaders on the list (Thatcher and Reagan) along with several others in the field. Modigliani is not vital as the MM theorem is not close to vital and even the efficient-market hypothesis isn't on the list. Likewise with Sharpe and CAPM (although CAPM itself has a stronger case to be added). They are no more important than other originators of key financial and economic models like Fischer Black, Myron Scholes and Stephen Ross. Michael Porter has at least created and contributed to many frequently concepts in economics as opposed to one, which makes him a stronger choice. Gizza (t)(c) 12:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Great. I, too, am not particularly fascinated by inclusion or exclusion of any specific name. To see if there is a possible consensus that these 2 groups should be balanced, can we vote that notion first? Then we can have two separate polls - one for the addition of the 9 social scientists and another for choosing the exclusion names from the musicians? Arman (Talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there tends to be a bias towards popular culture topics on Wikipedia and that this is an issue in the list. I would be inclined to support some of the proposed removals (but not all - I certainly wouldn't support removing Berlioz, Bruckner or Gershwin), as well as some of the suggested additions (certainly Sen and Drucker). Neljack (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebalancing Poll[edit]

Let us first poll the notion: The group "Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists ( currently 153 articles)” should be balanced to “Musicians and composers (currently 171 articles)" in a way to make these groups equally represented.

Support
  1. as nom. - Arman (Talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think the intellectuals presented above have a better claim to be on the list than the musicians that were simultaneously recommended for removal, so I'm not convinced this proposal is a good idea. I think the concept of "balancing" the two sections is a bit simplistic. There are many philosophers and social scientists on the list not listed as such, e.g. ancient polymaths like Pythagoras or Avicenna, a sizable fraction of the religious figures, writers ranging from Han Yu to Wollstonecraft to Umberto Eco, agitators like Sayyid Qutb, even political leaders like Lenin. OTOH I believe the only musician not listed as such is Hildegard of Bingen. Overall, I'd say we've made a great deal of progress in adding important intellectuals to the list. While I'd like to see more people outside the Western intellectual tradition included on the list, the suggested additions (with the exception of Yunus) don't really help in that sense. I think more meaningful discussions can be had if additions and removals are proposed on an individual basis. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - also per Cobblet. Jusdafax 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

If this poll gathers sufficient positive responses as per norm on this page, we can then have two separate polls for the inclusion and exclusion of the names from the two groups (i.e. 9 topics to be taken out from musician group and 9 topics to be added to the social scientist group.) If we fail to get the positive poll results here, we'll maintain the status quo. Inclusion and exclusion to these lists will still be considered by individual merit of each topic. - Arman (Talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Clark L. Hull[edit]

There is now 26 psychologists on the list. Daniel Kahneman is probably the next to be added. Hull, a behaviourist psychologist, is important as a historical figure, but his theories are currently out of fashion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Is it really not a reason? Surely true theories are in general more important than false ones, unless those false ones have had big effects on the world. I think we do tend to take this approach. The great majority of the scientists on the list are known for scientific breakthroughs, not false theories. And we don't, for instance, have Becher or Stahl, despite the importance at one time of the phlogiston theory. Neljack (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just because his theories have been disproven is no reason to remove him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Johann Friedrich Herbart[edit]

The fact that Herbart founded pedagogy as an academic discipline means that he is absolutely crucial at this level. Omitting him is a serious mistake.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too obscure to be vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Friedrich Fröbel[edit]

The fact that he founed the concept of kindergarten and coined this word in both German and English means that he is vital at this level. Omitting him is a serious mistake.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too obscure to be vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Pestalozzi, Herbart and Fröbel are no obscure, since all introductory books on pedagogy emphasize these men's contribution to Western education. The problem is if all proposals to add particular figures made and/or sanctioned by me are passed, the quota of 2,000 will be exceeded. The only solution to it is to expand the quota.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
You're telling the person who brought precisely these three figures to your attention in the first place. The problem isn't the quota; it's between your ears. Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious figures[edit]

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

Both removed 5-1 and 7-3 respectively. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:05, 28 July 2016 (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 Menno Simons[edit]

Not vital enough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support I'd rather have an article about the denomination than the founder, though Anabaptists would be a better choice than Mennonites. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: Didn't he found the Mennonites? Isn't that kind of important? pbp 00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Charles Spurgeon[edit]

Spurgeon is England's best-known Baptist minister, but I couldn't find him from my encyclopedia which has 60,000 topics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Any lingering fame and impact appears to be limited to the UK, making it non-vital for the global context. Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, he is known as the "Prince of Preachers", he is "John Chrysostom" of protestants. --Igrek (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. From the lead of the article I clearly know that it's vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'm not from England and not part of the community he speaks to, but I have heard of him. His list of works is impressive. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Articles like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Desmond Tutu seem more important to religion than these.  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are more familiar for modern people, but what about 100 years test? --Igrek (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure protestant religious leaders is where the fat is. If both of these pass, there will be 11 Protestant leaders on our list. That's 100 for 500 years of history, dozens of major sects, and dozens of countries. Even if we add Tutu, and we throw in Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy (currently listed as "Other Christians"), that only 14, which seems a tad low. pbp 00:21, 14 July 2016 (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 Desmond Tutu[edit]

Been bandied about from time to time. Very influential man in the realm of social activism. We've got very little for religious leaders of any religion from sub-Saharan Africa. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - His importance is more political than religious. In the anti-apartheid political arena, he is, however, much less vital compared to Mandela.
Discuss

Add Sun Myung Moon[edit]

Founder of the Unification Church I kind of feel like we need an Asian Christians on this list. Prominent, though highly controversial, figure. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The unification church itself is not even considered vital, let alone their founder. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Organizational tweak[edit]

At present, Christian religious leaders are subdivided into "Eastern/Orthodox" and "Western/Catholic". However, both sections include people prominent before the Schism (people from Western and Central Europe listed under Western/Catholic; people from Eastern Europe and the Middle East listed under Eastern/Orthodox). I propose that the people active before the schism from both East and West be pulled out into a new section entitled "pre-Schism". I also propose that the first 8 people listed under Christianity be categorized as "New Testament figures" pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Add Elizabeth Fry[edit]

One of the first notable social activists of any kind. Her advocacy and recommendations for prison reform were influential throughout Europe; she also worked to improve the plight of the sick, the insane and the homeless in Englnad.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

FWIW, she's also been on the 5-pound note since 2002, although a new bill featuring Churchill is coming out later this year. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


Add Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette[edit]

Lafayette was a key figure to American War of Independence, French Revolution and July Revolution. He was an exponent of human rights and civic nationalism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gazaret (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Once the French Revolution turned violent, Lafayette pretty much turned against it and was eventually exiled so I don't see how he is that key of a figure in it. The July Revolution just isn't that significant, and as far as the American Revolution is concerned there are more important political figures unlisted such as Patrick Henry or John Jay as well as military figures such as Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben and Horatio Gates. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (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.

Add Hermann Weyl[edit]

One of the 20th century's most important mathematicians.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add John Forbes Nash Jr.[edit]

Known for his pioneering work on game theory. His lifelong struggle with mental illness and the famous Hollywood movie depicting his life has made him a legend.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Arman (Talk) 09:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not that important a mathematician – this is like saying Oskar Schindler's vital because he did good things and had a good movie made about him. Nash is nowhere close to the level of Weyl or Paul Erdős or Norbert Wiener or André Weil. John von Neumann is the mathematician who made the most fundamental contributions to game theory – having him on the list is enough. Cobblet (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Sports figures[edit]

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

Add Dale Earnhardt Remove either Jackie Stewart or Alain Prost[edit]

NASCAR or stock car racing isn't represented at all (AJ Foyt doesn't count). Arguably the most famous stock car racer of all time, legacy is clear in his career as a seven-time champion and his death and the significant safety changes that happened because of it. We don't need 5 Formula One drivers. Or 13 tennis players.

Support

  1. Prevan (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose addition. I would rather add Richard Petty if I were to add a NASCAR driver. Neutral on removals. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion Comment Stock car racing is fairly much limited to the USA (and to some extent Canada). In the few other countries it is done, it is not considered anywhere near the most important racing class as far as I can see. Formula1 is to some extent (and tennis is definitively (and also a sports with both male and female contestant)) a more important sports in the global context. That said, we might indeed consider whether motorsports (as that should be the larger category) is served best by 5 formula 1 drivers and 1 driver who did many US dominated forms of motorsports (AJ Foyt and this includes stock car). I could imagine that we either expand the section and/or remove space allotment to F1 drivers). However, adding a driver who has competed in non-global/US dominated disciplines would not have my preference. Perhaps we should look for someone like Valentino Rossi who is generally considered to be the greatest motorcycle racer of all times. Arnoutf (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that Foyt is much more well-known for being the four-time winner of the Indy 500 (U.S. equivalent of F1), while Earnhardt's fame is solely based on NASCAR. That being said, as I have noted above, Earnhardt would not be my first choice if I were to add a NASCAR driver. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But do we need 2 drivers from US dominated racing categories? Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Add Honolulu[edit]

Largest city in Oceania outside of Australia and New Zealand. Metro population of almost 1 million.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too much overlap with Hawaii. Nearly 70% of people in Hawaii live in the Honululu metro area. Gizza (t)(c) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per comments below. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Honolulu is definitely not the next American city I would add to the list; that would be Baltimore. (Of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in the Americas, Baltimore and the Inland Empire are the only ones not on our list.) The US Census Bureau defines Honolulu's metro area as essentially coextensive with the entire island of Oahu, which is home to two-thirds of Hawaii's population. Note that we currently don't include capital cities that contain most of their country's population, and some of these are more populous than Honolulu (Kuwait City, Doha). Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I proposing it as an Oceanian city (not an American one), of which there are only six. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And why do we need a seventh Oceanian city? And why Honolulu over Adelaide, especially when we list Hawaii but not South Australia? Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Honolulu is pretty geographically isolated, so it's a hub for the entire Pacific region (basically the only large city between California and Japan) in a way that Havana could be considered a hub for the Caribbean. Perhaps Adelaide should be added as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
27th busiest US airport and 39th busiest US port hardly qualifies Honolulu for major hub status. Most air and marine traffic between North America and Asia takes a great circle route across the North Pacific and does not come anywhere near Hawaii. Cobblet (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
By Pacific region, I meant the Pacific Islands. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Baltimore[edit]

The fact that it is the largest independent city in the United States guarantees its vitality at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in the Americas, Baltimore and the Inland Empire are the only ones not on our list. Historically an economically vital American seaport, modern Baltimore still has a bigger GDP than a third of the American cities on the list. A much more important city than Calgary which was just recently added. Cobblet (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support for the city's size and historical significance.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Add Architecture of Africa[edit]

This list needs to be more balanced in region. The lack of this article evidently demonstrates the problem.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This article appears to be a list of different styles rather than an explanation of a specific pan-African style. I feel that each style should be added individually in accordance with current practice if it is deemed vital enough. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Presidentman. Still not a fan of Sub-Saharan African music traditions, African art and especially African literature. The continent is too big and diverse and we wouldn't add the equivalent for any other continent. Gizza (t)(c) 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

European architecture & Asian architecture are currently redirects, however there's an independent article on African architecture. Also African architecture is, to Malerisch's mind, vital (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Ancient_Roman_architecture)--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you follow the discussion in that archive, you would notice that my view has remained fairly consistent over the past few years since I had my doubts about African architecture back then. Gizza (t)(c) 14:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Add Iranian architecture[edit]

This architectural style is definitely vital, as this style had been of high level before the Islamization of Iran, and it has influenced Arabs a lot, along with Ancient Egyptian architecture, Architecture of Mesopotamia and Byzantine architecture.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I've proposed to add it to the list before, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_42#Add_Iranian_architecture).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Added 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (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 Great Sphinx of Giza[edit]

Very famous statue with famous missing nose.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the most recognizable sculptures in the history of art and exceptional in many ways, including its age and size. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Quite vital in my book. Surprised it's not already on the list. Jusdafax 03:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

Cultural venues[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Cultural venues 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.

Swap: Remove Dashakumaracharita, add Kathasaritsagara[edit]

The 11th century Kathasaritsagara is significantly more famous and influential than the 8th century Dashakumaracharita. Kathasaritsagara also contains early recensions of the Panchatantra in Book 10; and the Vetālapañcaviṃśati, or Baital Pachisi, in Book 12. Even Baital Pachisi itself seems to be more notable than Dashakumaracharita and has generated greater number of derivative works. The inclusion of Dashakumaracharita over such more notable works is very surprising - current article on Sanskrit literature does not even mention Dashakumaracharita.

Support
  1. . As nom. - Arman (Talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Gone with the Wind[edit]

I suggest swapping the author for the book. In 2014 poll Gone with the Wind was the second favorite book of American readers and it has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. The book is both popular and influential in the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not really convinced we need both the book and the film. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. The film is probably more well-known. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Neljack (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Music[edit]

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

Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 24 July 2016 (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 (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction[edit]

"Satisfaction" is not that great of a song and not as important topic as the band itself. The Rolling Stone magazine's list of notable rock songs seems to have influenced the list of modern songs.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support the song and album list is indeed very strongly influenced by Rolling Stone's great of all time lists. Nowhere else in vital articles do we rely on one source as much as we do we with modern specific music works, not even the Time 100. Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Iamozy (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I'm not sure that any songs are vital. 1950s-1970s rock music in over-represented to the exclusion of other genres (Rapper's Delight?). Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Highly vital. Ranks at the top of rock music songs. Jusdafax 18:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

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

Remove Pet Sounds[edit]

There are many other classic rock albums. Listing The Beach Boys is enough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support we don't need both the artist and the album. --Iamozy (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Cited by Paul McCartney as a major influence, and often listed as the masterpiece of Brian Wilson's career. Jusdafax 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This is rightly considered a landmark in 20th-century music. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 24 July 2016 (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 Rock Around the Clock[edit]

"Johnny B. Goode" is the best example of early rock and roll.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support The weakest of the rock songs on the list. There's nothing musically special about it – it's just like any other song of the time. It just happened to go viral like Gangnam Style did a couple years ago. That's not enough for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Bill Haley would be better, but probably not vital either.  Carlwev  21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Meets my criteria for vital. An influential hit song at the time and still vital to this day. Jusdafax 18:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

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

Swap: Remove What's Going On (song), add What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album)[edit]

There are many famous soul songs (like "Respect" on the list), but What's Going On is also as a theme album, soul music's first "art" album. It has been voted as one of the greatest albums of all time, just like Sgt. Pepper.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back[edit]

Rap music is currently represented only by Tupac Shakur. Public Enemy[14] has released only few notable albums, but It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back was very influential. In many rock magazines it has been voted as one of the greatest albums of all time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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.

Add Argentine comics[edit]

Since Argentine comics are one of the most important comic traditions internationally (taken from the lead of the English article), it is weird not to have this article on the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I could support adding Hugo Pratt. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose For crying out loud. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Really? Argentine comics is vital, though not to the extent of manga and anime, since people in Taiwan read manga much more often than Argentine comics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC) fixed wording

Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 28 July 2016 (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 Persian art[edit]

I think this article should be listed as a vital article, it had a great impact on neighboring regions such as Mughal and Ottoman Empires, and according to the lead section of the article itself, it is one of the richest in the history. Also, it covers important topics such as Iranian architecture, Persian miniature and Persian carpet, currently none of them are covered by this project. -- Kouhi (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Articles about art traditions are very common in encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Art is the most significant and enduring aspect of Persian civilization. Their poetry would come second. Gizza (t)(c) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support (We need to include nom as a support too?)  Carlwev  17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

Add Japanese art, Buddhist art and Christian art[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Japanese art. Important non-Western tradition. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Christian art. We already have plenty of articles related to Western art, and this article is nothing special beyond just discussing Western artworks with Christian-related subjects (of which we have six individual examples listed). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Also oppose Buddhist art per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ukiyo-e is the most significant Japanese art movement and is already listed. Buddhist art is covered by Chinese and Indian art. Cobblet (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Remove a fair number of films[edit]

Film might just be slightly over-represented, considering that film was nonexistent for the majority of human history.Gonzales John (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It is impossible for WP to cover that portion of 'human history'; so logically it must cover what it can. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Actually, I'd be in favor of adding another 5 or 10. Jusdafax 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Many people may agree with the statement but the proposal is very, very vague. How many is fair number? The general trend over the last few years has been to remove films so the easy pickings are slowly going away. You have to compare it with other sections. Yes music and literature have been around for a longer time but the number of specific musical works from the last 100 years and the number of books from the last 100 years may be similar to the number of films listed in the last 100 years. Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We currently list 36 films; a "fair" number to remove would be around 6 to 11. We list more films than paintings and sculptures combined, and they are more important than movies.Gonzales John (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, my point is that film is relatively unimportant especially when compared to architecture, books, sculptures, etc, all of which are essential to the human race and have been with the human race for quite a longer time than movies.Gonzales John (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with a lot on what you say Gonzales. I proposed film itself to be removed from the Level-2 vital list because it is the only specific art form listed but it failed.
One thing to note however, is that film in essence is just theatre using modern technology. Humans have been acting and role-playing for as long as they have been drawing, telling stories and making songs. Most of pre-modern theatre has not survived because it could not be recorded, copied and distributed as easily as film. It's the same with music where most of the genres, musicians and songs listed are modern and were composed after the invention of musical notation or sound recording even though folk songs were probably dominant for most of human existence. Visual arts and architecture are fortunate in the sense that they are more likely to survive and be preserved over millennia. Literature has survived over thousands of years in literate societies or cultures where oral preservation was very strong but was also lost in parts of the world without these characteristics. My view is that film shouldn't be looked at on its own as part of performing arts as a whole. This doesn't mean I don't support removing some of the weaker films listed though. `Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that 30 films would be a good number, considering that it's a 20th-century genre, unlike art and architecture which get fewer than 40 examples each. But I don't know enough about film to feel comfortable proposing any more removals myself. Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should aim for 30. I work on film articles, and ideally we should aim for ground-breaking key works. I enjoy The Sound of Music as much as the next Julie Andrews fans, but what is its legacy? It's no Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove The Mirror (1975 film)[edit]

Highly regarded, as many films are, but I don't think it's been as influence as some of the other films on the list and it isn't as revered as much as something like Solaris (1972 film).

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Filmmakers have rated The Mirror as one of the 10 best movies of all time. --Thi (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  • @Thi I am sure they have, but there are many films, hundreds even that have been rated as one of the ten best ever. Just look at Sight & Sound to see how many films there we don't have here. Being rated among the 10 best ever doesn't seem to be a tight enough criteria in itself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The Art films sublist consists of two articles. Tarkovsky is the most influential Russian filmmaker since Eisenstein and The Mirror is his key work. Tarkovsky is one of the greatest filmmakers and The Mirror one of the most beautiful films of all time. In this list it is comparable to D. W. Griffith's The Birth of the Nation, Ingmar Bergmans The Seventh Seal and Stanley Kubricks 2001. --Thi (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove Un Chien Andalou[edit]

Likewise, highly regarded but hasn't really shaped the medium.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Dr. Strangelove[edit]

Brilliant film, one of my favourites, but it simply hasn't shaped the medium on the same scale that something like 2001: A Space Odyssey has. If we were recommending films to watch I would include it (probably more so than 2001), but I would stop short of calling it essential.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not the first film I'd remove. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Breathless (1960 film)[edit]

An influential film of the French New wave, so essential for discussing the French New wave, but a vital film topic? We don't have Bonnie and Clyde (New Hollywood). We don't have Room at the Top (Brit New Wave).

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove La Dolce Vita[edit]

In the same boat as Dr Strangelove: a key work of 60s film, but not as revered and as influential as Fellini's 8½.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support One Fellini film is enough. (Again, compare the authors that have more than one work listed.) Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Very well-known film, even if not that influential cinematically. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Oppose very influential in the larger cultural context, if not necessarily in cinema. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Rashomon[edit]

Like Dr Strangelove, La Dolce Vita and Intolerance, Kurosawa's signature piece is The Seven Samurai.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It doesn't seem to be on the list, but it does have the vital template on the talk page. Plantdrew (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove The Sound of Music (film)[edit]

Like I said above, I actually like this film. How can you not fall in love with 16 Going on 17, but including it on this list is a joke.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I feel that many of these nominations from this user are from a refined cinematic and artistic perspective, and not necessarily from the POV of the average reader. I agree with the nominator that "It's [The Sound of Music] no Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey", but it still remains very popular today. There was an entire 2-hour special on ABC devoted to its fiftieth anniversary as well as modern-day televised adaptations in both the US and the UK. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Presidentman and the discussion below. Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

OTOH, that is a valuable perspective to have, and one that is sorely missing from so many of the discussions on this page. Here and elsewhere on the list, I think one has to strike a balance between what is well-known to the public and what is important to specialists in the field. Wikipedia is used by both kinds of people. Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • To address the point above, in the context of my nominations I am coming at it from the position of how important a film was in shaping the medium. I am not against popularity, hence why I have not nominated Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and Star Wars for removal, and I nominated Stagecoach for addition below. They are more populist works than artistic works, but they remain key works in the medium. The Sound of Music was immensely popular but so was Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park etc. Where do we draw the line? On the other hand I have nominated critical darlings like The Mirror, Un Chien Andalou and Breathless for removal, because despite being revered I don't regard them as key works in cinema. I think we should be trying to bypass box office success and critical reverance and focus on key, landmark films. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with both points. However, I feel that if films such as this one were removed, it would tilt the "balance between what is well-known to the public and what is important to specialists in the field" in favor of the latter rather than the former. When adjusting for inflation, The Sound of Music is the fifth-highest grossing film of all time. I think at that point you have to consider a film so popular that it necessitates inclusion transcending whatever value it may hold to the genre as a whole. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Add Cinema of Russia and Cinema of Hong Kong[edit]

Since nowadays cinema of Russian Federation and Hong Kong cinema (especially action films) are influential in the West, and cinema of India is the parent article of Bollywood, all three article should be added to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Russia pbp 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cinema of Russia and Cinema of Hong Kong. We already have Cinema of the Soviet Union and Cinema of China. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. Cinema of Hong Kong is more influential than that of Taiwan, Macau or Mainland China, and cinema of China does not mention history of Hong Kong cinema. Also post-Soviet Russian cinema is quite influential in the West, which is mentioned in the lead of the article cinema of Russia.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hong Kong cinema is represented by Bruce Lee and Wong Kar-wai. I can support swapping Soviet cinema for Russian cinema but there's no need for both. Cobblet (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Hong Kong: pbp 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
Japanese cinema is represented by Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, etc., however cinema of Japan is still listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to say that Japanese cinema's been more influential than HK cinema, but you're welcome to propose removing Japanese cinema if you disagree. Cobblet (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No, if you read the lede of the article about Hong Kong cinema you'll know that for decades, Hong Kong was the third largest motion picture industry in the world (after Indian cinema and Hollywood) and the second largest exporter, and its action films influenced European and American ones a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
And if you actually were from HK and watched HK film, you'd have something more substantial to say about the subject than regurgitate a paragraph you read on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Taiwanese, and Taiwanese cable movie channels often broadcast Hong Kong films, meaning they are quite popular in Taiwan, hence it is crucial for many residents in Taiwan.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
So you're familiar with what it means to be a 井底之蛙. Don't be that guy; it's embarrassing to watch. Cobblet (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
But nowadays Hong Kong action films influence Hollywood a lot, and Hong Kong is the second largest film exporter, don't these two facts mean that Hong Kong cinema is vital at this level?--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A lot of genres have influenced Hollywood – that is no argument for adding specifically HK film. As for your second "fact", not only is it not what the article says (was, not is), but there's also no citation for that statement. Can you please go work on your critical thinking and reading skills before rejoining this discussion? I see no point in talking to you when all you ever do is regurgitate what someone else said (especially when you can't even do that properly). Cobblet (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Though Hong Kong is no longer the second largest film exporter, the fact that it once was means that Hong Kong cinema is no doubt crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 12:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Added the word "largest"

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (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 Bugs Bunny[edit]

I suggest swapping Bugs Bunny for Looney Tunes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support A reasonable swap. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support: Though I wish that this and Looney Tunes were a unified proposal instead of two split proposals. pbp 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Bugs Bunny is a cultural icon of the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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.

Add Hermeneutics[edit]

Now that we have statutory interpretation, is it fair not to include this article, which is closely related to that vital legal topic?

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Has nothing to do with judicial interpretation. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Remove Creator deity[edit]

We already have Creation myth (Level 4) and Deity (Level 3). While not every Creation myth has a Creator deity, the important information about every Creator deity is covered by a Creation myth. I think the overlap is sufficient that we can drop one from the Vital articles list. Additionally, although Creator deities are a common feature in many world religions, they are not always deities that are central to the religion itself (particularly in polytheistic religions).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Creation myth is not synonymous with creation deity, and in my opinion both are vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

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.

Remove Jehovah[edit]

Might as well open this since two others have suggested the swap with Yahweh.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Iamozy (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It's still commonly used today (see e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses or this online hymnal). Plus, it has an important historical usage no matter how incorrect it is. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

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#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Color[edit]

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.

Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:09, 22 July 2016 (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 Hot dog[edit]

Anything important about hot dogs is already covered by Sausage, which is already a Level 4 vital article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Jusdafax 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Sausage and sandwich are enough. Gizza (t)(c) 13:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Although hot dogs are indeed sausages (I didn't know this fact until this July!), hot dogs are still crucial at this level since a lot of non-Westerners consume them and hot dogs are a symbol of the U.S.A, hence the article about hot dogs should still be listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (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 sports drink and milkshake[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sports drinks are useless. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sports drink is as vital as energy drink IMO, which was recently removed per discussion. Milkshake even less so. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not vital subjects --Iamozy (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add cream[edit]

We have butter but not cream, which is illogical since cream has been frequently consumed as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. pbp 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not a fundamental culinary ingredient the way butter is. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Champagne[edit]

There doesn't seem to be consensus to add varieties of coffee, ice cream or soda to this list, but do we feel the same way about varieties of beer and wine? I'm nominating what I consider the most widely-known variety of wine to test this.

Support
  1. pbp 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too specific. But maybe we can add sparkling wine --Iamozy (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

With the removal of lemonade and energy drink, 13 of the 20 drink articles listed are related to alcohol, which is already very high. Alcohol seems over-represented compared to non-alcoholic drinks and other recreational drugs. Is champagne any more vital than cappuccino, green tea, cigar, cocaine, MDMA or hookah? Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cappuccino, green tea, cigar, cocaine, MDMA should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not hookah which is the most common recreational drug/drug taking method in many parts of the Middle East and adjoining areas? It has its own subculture unlike some of the drugs I mentioned. Gets more page views too. Gizza (t)(c) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed 6-3 and 7-2 respectively. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (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 Main course and Entrée[edit]

No one seems to like these. Partly covered by dinner. Not as much to write compared to dinner, lunch and dessert. Just courses of dinner. We list specific cuisines like French, which sometimes have these courses. We list restaurant, which is a place one would often be served different courses formally...Also covered by meal.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Obvious example of Western bias. These are even less vital than dish (food), which is at least a universal concept. Most people in the world do not take meals one course at a time. Cobblet (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support removal of both. --Iamozy (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support entrée, oppose main course per pbp. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support removing both. Dinner covers this. Jusdafax 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of one of them: I think we should have exactly one of Main course and entree. We don't need both. pbp 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Both should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

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

Remove Pub[edit]

We already have the more-inclusive Bar, and they are just too similar to both be in the "Preparation and serving" section. The article on bar says that "pub", "saloon", and "tavern" are all different terms for a bar. Pubs are generally restricted to refer to bars in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. A "bar" is more worldwide. --Iamozy (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Maybe add drinking establishment as the broadest term?Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support The list would be more balanced with additions along the lines of coffee culture and tea culture. Either that, or remove bar as well. Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Been up once before by the way. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_18#Remove_Pub prefer to keep this, important cultural and historical establishment, been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and still going strong today. If we can have cuisines of countries, and drinks associated with one country like Sake, I think Pub deserves a place. Relevant in many countries, maybe not all, but more than just a few. Seems odd to have articles on 13 alcoholic drinks but not allow a centuries old establishment where they are often consumed. Seems more vital than several drinks to me.  Carlwev  21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm still not sure. I get that it might be weird for some people to call their local pub a "bar", but isn't it one? There are bars all over the world, and I'm sure they're all very unique and have specific types and cultures. Why is this specific bar type vital? "Bar" is inclusive of "pub", so it's not as if we're ignoring bar/pub culture altogether. --Iamozy (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I support removing sake. Japanese culture is one of the best covered outside of the West but sake isn't as well known or common in the rest of the world as anime, haiku, samurai, kabuki, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 03:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree. Sake's the only variety of rice wine that's well-known internationally and does a better job of representing East Asian drinking culture than something like gin or cider does for Western drinking culture (which is already much better represented to begin with). Cobblet (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd support removing gin and cider too. They are not even the most popular drinks in the countries where they originated (the Netherlands and UK respectively). Rice wine could be a better choice than sake. We don't list famous types of whisky like scotch whisky ahead of whisky itself. Gizza (t)(c) 09:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Add Housekeeping[edit]

Basic human activity.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Arnoutf (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Sexuality[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Sexuality 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.

Add Bundesliga, Nippon Professional Baseball[edit]

Second (NPB) and sixth-largest (Bundesliga) leagues by attendance (more than La Liga, UEFA Champions League or either auto racing league). Additionally, Germany and Japan are traditionally major powers in their respective sports (association football and baseball).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. All.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support we've been under quota in this area for awhile and both leagues are more valuable than local sports like bocce. They're comparable to the other sports tournaments and leagues listed. We should also add Wimbledon but at the same time remove a few tennis players. Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Serie A should probably come before the Bundesliga, and NPB is a big competition but is not on the level of MLB. I don't think we should just go by statistics in determining what are the most important sporting competitions; they do not necessarily capture their historical and cultural significance. Nor do I think we should have lots on the list. Neljack (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. Nowadays some Japanese persons became MLB players and later succeed there after they had achieved acertain degeree of success in the NPB (e.g. Ichiro Suzuki & Masahiro Tanaka), hence a new indicator measuring an MLB player's hitting achievement was born : hits combined in NPB/MLB. This assures NPB's vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Attendance figures might not be the best way to compare the popularity of different leagues – that's constrained by the size of the stadium/venue. TV/broadcast audience would be a better measure but global statistics for each sport are not so easy to come by. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Add UEFA[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose even FIFA isn't listed. Gizza (t)(c) 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose UEFA Champions League is already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Pong[edit]

I think that Tetris is a good example of old video games and this article is probably not as vital as History of video games (not listed). Games are some kind of toys and for example Barbie was removed.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Pong is the first sports arcade video game, hence it is absolutely vital at this level. The fact that Barbie was removed can not be the reason why Pong should be removed since this removal was not acceptable, as Barbie is extremely popular among girls on earth, except for girls in the Middle East.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Pong is not just an old videogame, it individually represents the beginning of arcade games and first-generation video game consoles. Pong is an iconic and essential piece of video game culture. --Iamozy (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Barbie[edit]

Barbie is a cultural icon around the world. Its introduction was transformative in the toy industry in terms of advertising and name recognition. It is estimated that over a billion Barbie dolls have been sold worldwide in over 150 countries, with Mattel claiming that three Barbie dolls are sold every second. It is the most prominent figure in the world of toy fashion, and has even crossed into the world of high fashion. Barbie has been the subject of sociological study and countless controversies/lawsuits and media projects (film, TV, video games, music, studio art).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. moderate support While I agree Barbie is important, I am not sure it should be the first toy to be added (and we may need to expand the toy category). Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. The article on doll does not deal much with Barbie, hence the rationale behind the removal does not stand.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Not quite as widespread as Lego but still up there. The fact that it is controversial like McDonald's makes it more vital IMO if anything. I believe the gender gap here and on Wikipedia more generally was one of the reasons why Barbie was removed while obscure sci-fi characters and shows were kept. Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I know that Barbie was removed 3 years ago with the claim that it overlaps too much with Doll, already a vital article, but Barbie is much more than a doll, and it's importance far surpasses that of a simple toy. Note that there are 79 Wikipedia pages in the Barbie category alone. --Iamozy (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the toys category (9 articles in total), is rather underrepresented considering that games has 29 articles - of which 4 sublevels for video games. Among toys Barbie is indeed among the most influential dolls and I would not object adding it. But to be honest, I would probably add other toys before Barbie (such as model train, model car or meccano. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Add educational toy[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Meccano[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add toy piano[edit]

The fact that this model construction system is quite popular, influencing the careers many people chose guarantees its vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add model train & model car[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add toy weapon[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. It is no doubt vital since many boys play toy weapons (me too!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add water gun[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. It is no doubt vital since many boys play water guns (me too!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add action figure[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that plenty of men and boys enjoy playing action figures means that it is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add G.I. Joe[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. It is no doubt vital since: (1) some comic books, television animated cartoons, movies and video games are based on this product (2) its development of the product led to the coining of the term "action figure" (3) Its appeal to children has made it an American icon among toys.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Though this article was removed from the list without any opposition (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_17#Remove_G.I._Joe), this removal was no sensible since the rationale "Unknown outside the US." was no true, as some television series and movies based on G.I. Joe are widely known outside the U.S., e.g. G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1985 TV series).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Add model figure[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add toy soldier[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that "Military figures have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs, and have appeared in many cultures and eras" means that it is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Stages of life[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Stages of life 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.

Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 24 July 2016 (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 McDonald's[edit]

This company has franchises in 119 countries and serves 68 million customers. Besides being the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, it is a heavyweight advertiser and operates a massive charity organization. It has also played major political roles throughout history (see History of McDonald's). It's been the subject of many movies and at the center of several major controversies. The Golden Arches have become major social/economic/political symbols.

Support
  1. Support as nom --Iamozy (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  07:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

A kind of swap for the businessman who ran it for a while. Balancing the companies, presently heavy with internet, computer, tech, cars. An international company, more so than Walmart. More people probably eat McDonald's than some other food and drink we list. etc  Carlwev  07:32, 9 July 2016 (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.

Culture[edit]

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

Add Nowruz[edit]

It's an ancient and mostly secular Iranian festival that is celebrated by more than 300 million people, from Syria to China, for over 3,000 years. Also, it has been registered on the UNESCO List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. -- Kouhi (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Kouhi (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. I think adding Nowruz along with Persian art, Persepolis, Shahnameh, etc. makes our coverage of Persian culture and civilization sufficient for this list. Gizza (t)(c) 10:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Also Nowruz's range of celebration goes further west of Syria, up to parts of Turkey. Gizza (t)(c) 10:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Education[edit]

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

Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:30, 24 July 2016 (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 Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania[edit]

Not the most important Ivy League institutions and one could argue that other non-Ivy League institutions such as Georgetown or Stanford are more vital to the U.S.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support The US has too many universities on there. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Cornell University is quite well-known to non-Americans, while University of Pennsylvania is famous for its quantitative geography and so on, hence both are vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2016 (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.

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.

Remove Old English[edit]

Not necessary, loosely connected to English but not used anymore.

Support
  1. Support as nom JerrySa1 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that this is English Wikipedia guarantees Old English's vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gpapazian (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Middle English[edit]

Not necessary, loosely connected to English but not used anymore.

Support
  1. Support as nom JerrySa1 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that this is English Wikipedia guarantees Middle English's vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gpapazian (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Law[edit]

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

Mass media[edit]

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

Add Television in the United States[edit]

U.S. television programming is an important part of American culture and also one of the most popular forms of entertainment worldwide. General article is better choice than listing many examples of tv shows.[15]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. U.S. TV news and television dramas are quite influential on earth (though nowadays BBC News & RT are as influential as CNN), hence TV in the US is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC) altered the rationale
  5. Support per RekishiEJ. Gpapazian (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I can see the argument for this, and would be open to a swap for one of the American TV programmes listed, but the TV section is already highly tilted towards the US and we don't have articles on TV in any other country. Neljack (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Neljack and V3n0M93 in the archives. This article is mostly not about popular American shows outside its borders. It is about how TV is domestically distributed, watched and regulated in the United States. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about that. Americanization is the article about the country's influence on global pop culture. Gizza (t)(c) 09:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove I Love Lucy[edit]

Lucille Ball is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd rather remove All in the Family if I were going to remove a sitcom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The TV show is more important than the actress herself. I would support a removal of Lucille Ball instead. --Iamozy (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. The fact that this television drama has been considered to be one of the best and most influential TV shows guarantees its vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Well known and is vital for entertainment. JerrySa1 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Gpapazian (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I agree that there should only be one. But what reasons do we have to conclude that an article on Lucille Ball is more essential than I Love Lucy? --Iamozy (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For one, her biography consistently gets more page views than the article on the show. Cobblet (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point to indicate popularity, but what does this means in terms of vitality? Is there anything I'm unaware of that makes Lucille Ball vital besides I Love Lucy? --Iamozy (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the intro, Desilu Productions seems to be the next most significant thing about Ball herself, producing a number of well-known TV series (e.g. the original Star Trek and The Andy Griffith Show), but I doubt we'd listed anyone else solely because they were a major TV producer. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove The Jack Benny Program[edit]

Old radio and TV show, not very well known worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 16 July 2016 (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.

Remove Meet the Press[edit]

I prefer general articles about journalism (History of American journalism).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd rather remove 60 Minutes if I were going to remove a news program. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. The fact Meet the Press is the longest-running TV programme in U.S. television history guarantees its vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
News does a decent job of covering news broadcasting, and with the advent of online journalism I'm not convinced it's as vital as it used to be. Cobblet (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed 5-2. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (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 Tom and Jerry[edit]

I think that Looney Tunes is better example of cartoons, then we don't need separate article for Bugs Bunny.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Iamozy (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I feel like we should have representation of the animators, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Having two biographies may or may not be too much. Their studio/company Hanna-Barbera can't really be added when Disney is the only studio here, other much bigger ones are missing. Or a cartoon, like Tom and Jerry, Scooby Doo or Flintstones.  Carlwev  15:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 9 July 2016 (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.

Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (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 Looney Tunes[edit]

I suggest swapping Bugs Bunny for Looney Tunes.[16]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support as a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support: Though I wish that this and Bugs were a unified proposal instead of two split proposals. pbp 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

Remove The Tonight Show[edit]

Johnny Carson is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support So what if it's the longest-running talk show? Do we list the world's oldest TV network or theatre company or opera house? Age by itself is hardly a good criterion for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The longest-running talk show in the world, definitely more vital than All in the Family or Gunsmoke. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Removed 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (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 All in the Family[edit]

Much of 70's popular music remains popular, but TV shows look dated.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  15:33, 16 July 2016 (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.

Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (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 Gunsmoke[edit]

Maybe it's overrated[17] and the public remembers the western movies better.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support although I believe it was the longest running program at some point --David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  15:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. The facts that according to John Dunning, among American radio drama enthusiasts, "Gunsmoke is routinely placed among the best shows of any kind and any time" and Gunsmoke is the USA's longest-running prime time, live-action drama, and American television dramas' high popularity in the world guarantee Gunsmoke's vitality--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2016 (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.

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.

Remove Oedipus complex[edit]

Rejected theory, not supported by empirical data.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support not essential as a theory or phenomena. --Iamozy (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. In addition, the lingering (historical) importance of the Oedipus Complex is mainly related to Sigmund Freud, and the complex is extensively covered in that article (which is a level 3 important article). Arnoutf (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongly Oppose: regardless of whether empiricists have rejected the theory, this theory had a huge historical influence, including in literature, that goes far beyond science. We are not going to take out Freud or psychoanalysis even if these things have fallen out of favor. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per David Tornheim. Gizza (t)(c) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Me too.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per David Tornheim. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

What suggests that Oedipus complex is a vital piece of information for an encyclopedia to cover? I don't think there really is a sound case that this theory shaped literature. What historical/societal influence are you talking about? Besides, there is far too much overlap if Freud and psychoanalysis are already in the list. --Iamozy (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Society[edit]

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

Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:40, 24 July 2016 (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 Varna (Hinduism)[edit]

Articles Caste and Caste system in India (and Dalit) cover this topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support while these articles aren't identical, the overlap among them is too great to have four articles on the topic. Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

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.


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.

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 Bald eagle[edit]

National animal of the United States, probably better-known than golden eagle (though I would argue to keep that article).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet (US centrism). Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

See Golden eagles in human culture. The golden eagle is arguably the only bird of prey that's culturally significant on a global scale. If the American flag or anthem or the White House aren't vital articles, being the national animal isn't a terribly convincing argument for vitality either. Compare Andean condor or African fish eagle which are culturally significant to the continents they live in, but are also not quite as globally notable as the golden eagle. (If I had to add another bird of prey to the list the Andean condor would probably be it – it's not a second eagle, and apart from its cultural significance, it's also known for being the heaviest bird capable of flight.) Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I could support this as a swap with eagle. Eagle, like hawk and vulture, is a common English word describing some types of birds but it is not a monophyletic group. The bald eagle always has very high page views (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Popular_pages). Even taking into consideration the high percentage of English Wikipedia readers hailing from the US, the numbers are impressive. We could also add Accipitridae or Accipitriformes. There are birds listed with a more limited geographic range and less cultural value. Gizza (t)(c) 13:59, 20 June 2016 (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.

Add Asperger syndrome[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support, we list some slightly less common conditions, over 30 million people world wide and is thought to be underdiagnosed, more people have this than the listed Down Syndrome, for example, according to articles.  Carlwev  19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems to be pretty common these days. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose but I would support adding Autism Spectrum Disorder, swap for Autism --Iamozy (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It would seem very odd to add Asperger syndrome when the DSM has just removed it as a diagnosis - autism, Asperger syndrome and a couple of other diagnoses have been merged into the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Therefore I support Iamozy's proposed swap, though I note that the article is actually at Autism spectrum. Neljack (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Iamozy and Neljack. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, support Autism spectrum. --Thi (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

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.

Earth science[edit]

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

Add La Niña[edit]

We have El Niño, why not La Niña as well?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One is enough. Cobblet's suggestion also works. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd recommend swapping El Niño for El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which covers both phases of this weather cycle. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (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.

Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (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 Transhumanism[edit]

I never heard of this, even though I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering. Never heard of this "technology". AI would be more appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Definitely not technology, just a minor ideology. Gizza (t)(c) 11:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Ideologies belong in a different category, and this one wouldn't even be considered vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  21:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Cybernetics or possibly cyborg would be better. Probably Cybernetics.  Carlwev  21:29, 15 July 2016 (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.

Industry[edit]

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

Infrastructure[edit]

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.

Media and communication[edit]

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

Added 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:57, 29 July 2016 (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 remote control[edit]

If we are including individual programming languages and things like computer mouse, it seems fair we should include the devise many people have been using for decades longer to control a range of devises, TV and entertainment devises, toys like cars, as well as some use in industry, military and space as well. Was in two minds picking from this and radio control, but this seems a bit better shape, and a bit wider including radio infrared and things like motion sensor and voice control too. We seem heavier on computer tech than other media broadcasting, even though some other things are a bit older and maybe more common often universally used.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I have long noted the inconsistency between the articles in computer tech and the lack of the equivalents in other areas. This is one such instance. Gizza (t)(c) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gpapazian (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I wouldn't mind removing computer mice, but at least those are fairly complex devices to design and program. Remote controls are trivial by comparison. Cobblet (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

We seem heavier on the computer side of tech, covering both devices and general techs of the same area. In other areas the articles Videocassette recorder, and Television set crossed my mind, although they seem unnecessary; we do however individually list the computer displays computer monitor and touchscreen.  Carlwev  21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The other big inconsistency I see is having blog on the list when news article is not. Gizza (t)(c) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (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.

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.

Space[edit]

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

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.

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.

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

Add meta-analysis[edit]

A frequently used research method.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support definitely an important research method. Systematic review may also be a good candidate to add. --Iamozy (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I had proposed to add it before, however later it got failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37#Add_meta-analysis).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Other[edit]

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


General discussions[edit]

Propose 'Formerly listed as Vital Article' template for Talk pages of delisted articles[edit]

Just as we mention former Good Articles with such a template, I suggest a template for articles formerly included here on any of the four lists. This template would be included on the Talk page of such articles.Jusdafax 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can understand this, and it kind of makes sense. However to become a featured or good article, I believe there was always a procedure and requirements the article had to meet, even though they may be more difficult now than the past. Some articles that have been listed in this project get added through voting, then removed through voting, like potato chips among many. Some get added without voting by new comers, then usually removed. Some are removed due to article mergers/deletions. Some become, or always were, redirects to something else with the same meaning, or encompassing it (like baby and infant). We kind of removed all lists, but previously had many listed. Some articles were added ages ago before discussion, and were listed for ages, then were removed with or without discussion. These articles perhaps should never have been listed, they were added with no discussion, and when suggested for removal got huge unanimous support for removal. We have listed many many very non vital articles like Halo (optical phenomenon), relish, Wilco, Erewhon, Be Without You, Kevin Costner, Shania Twain, Bay of Pigs, American–Antarctic Ridge, lava dome, Victoria Land just among many many more. Among lists, redirects, early odd listings, etc Which would we include, and which would we not, as a "former vital article". I feel maybe it would be awarding a status to an article that doesn't deserve it, that just happened to be listed because early editors wanted to fill this space quickly, while there are some articles that have never been listed, but been suggested got much support, but only just failed to get in by one vote, sometimes more than once, there are several of these, David Attenborough and Gothenburg are examples, never listed, nearly got in, although I'm sure all would agree they are more vital than American–Antarctic Ridge which has been listed. Former good article status informs users that said article no longer meets the requirements but with a little more work users may be able to get article listed again. Informing users an article was listed here before but was removed doesn't mean they can work to make the topic more vital once again.
For these reasons, I don't know if I'm keen on this, perhaps if the criteria had set guideline, but I don't know. Which articles would we include, and which not?  Carlwev  18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What would be the purpose of doing this for several thousand articles? Like Carlwev said, there was a time when anyone could put whatever they wanted on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As Carlweb and Cobblet say, being a former vital article is not a guarantee of the article being almost vital. There were some ridiculous articles listed here. There still may be a few remaining. Celtuce is the one that sticks out the most in the mind. I also remember seeing office supplies before I was active here. Making a list of all of the former vital articles could be useful, perhaps. You can compare the removals with the current articles and get a feel of which former articles were wrongly removed or which current ones fit better in the former list and need to go. Gizza (t)(c) 10:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I quite like Gizza's suggestion, and reading the other comments, would prefer it to the original proposal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You guys are welcome to start maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed again. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Doing so now! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
But why? What purpose would this template serve? Vital articles are supposed to be almost timeless. I'm afraid a template like this would just encourage people to try to force their pet articles in on grounds of popularity, not vitality. --Iamozy (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Intolerance[edit]

Intolerance was closed as a "remove" above at #Remove Intolerance (film) by Presidentman but it still appears on the actual list itself at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Arts#Modern visual arts (64 articles). Is this an oversight or is the delay part of the process? Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I just fixed it, Presidentman probably just forgot. After a proposal is closed as successful, any change is as quick as a user can edit, should be no more than a few minutes.  Carlwev  18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)