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 complete list.

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

  • 15 days ago: 19:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 19:01, 03 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 19:01, 03 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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


People[edit]

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

Entertainers[edit]

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

Remove Steve Martin[edit]

Not that big enough to qualify for this list as an actor and he is not really known for his comedy these days, he is associated with acting where he is not that influential. Not vital in the field of Banjo playing either, where we don't list Earl Scruggs who if we were to represent the Banjo would be the better choice. Can't induct him as a all-rounder as Arnold Schwarzenegger has the better all round career and he is not here. Jack of all trades, vital in none. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  14:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support We're missing Earl Warren, John C. Calhoun and hundreds more Americans of more vitality than this clown. pbp 01:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss

Agree with nom. OK at both, but not a huge actor, nor comedian; Arnie had a bigger impact on cinema and was involved in other areas. I was close to nominating him myself, he's been on my radar for ages.  Carlwev  14:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld? and other waffling thoughts[edit]

Seinfeld is on my radar too, although article says he earns lots and lots, and appears top of polls, but I just don't see it, maybe he's someone who's fame doesn't spread outside the US as much. I always thought he was known mainly for the sitcom semi based on him. Which could make him comparable to possibly Lucille Ball and Bill Cosby who we do have, but also to people who don't have like Roseanne Barr and Ellen DeGeneres, all of who'm are comedians and actors with their own namesake sitcom. If his sitcom makes him notable, something like Cheers or Friends is Bigger than Seinfeld I would've thought. Or maybe it's just the view from this side of the pond. After his sitcom he's not really in the league of Robin Williams, his movies are thin and include roles like voice acting in Bee Movie and his TV isn't big outside of his sitcom and Saturday Night Live. In fact isn't Saturday Night Live more relevant to comedy than Seinfeld and more relevant than something like Soul Train is to music, we list soul train, is that vital, is it known outside US a lot, it only appear in 7 other languages, whi. Do people wanna keep Seinfeld? Also, do we need both Lucille Ball and I Love Lucy, we removed Monty Python's Flying Circus, mainly because Monty Python is included.  Carlwev  14:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Visual artists[edit]

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

Add Ivan Aivazovsky[edit]

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

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

Add Jean-Léon Gérôme[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Again, not convinced that we need a painter from this tradition, or that Gérôme is the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose--Thi (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Alphonse Mucha[edit]

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

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

Add Josef Albers[edit]

Josef Albers was a German-born American artist and educator whose work, both in Europe and in the United States, formed the basis of some of the most influential and far-reaching art education programs of the twentieth century.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed it before, but the proposal was rejected. (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Josef_Albers).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Added 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add M. C. Escher[edit]

Maurits Cornelis Escher was a Dutch graphic artist. He is known for his often mathematically inspired woodcuts, lithographs, and mezzotints. These feature impossible constructions, explorations of infinity, scenery, architecture, and tessellations.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I always thought he was included, but I see he is missing after just checking. We previously had a work of Escher's on the list, Relativity (M. C. Escher). I removed this myself a long time ago, as I believed the man himself was enough and was on board, but it appears I was mistaken. I shall support this one. Not that it's a good reason, but we do include less notable/vital people than this, in artists and elsewhere.  Carlwev  19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

tessellation itself has also crossed my mind before as well.  Carlwev  16:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Remove Peter Zumthor[edit]

Architect which has won his major awards within the last 6 years and compared to others on this list, hardly that influential in his field. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. SupportGodsy(TALKCONT) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Wang Xizhi[edit]

In China calligraphy is considered the most important of the visual arts; and there is precisely one Chinese artist most people in China can be expected to know by name and it is not Shitao but Wang Xizhi, the greatest of Chinese calligraphers. Our list is lacking when it comes to both non-Western artists and non-Western genres; adding Wang Xizhi helps fix both issues.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. One of the greatest calligraphers. GuzzyG (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Writers[edit]

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

Add Bill James[edit]

A baseball writer, historian and statistician who coined the term "sabermetrics". His work has been widely influential.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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: Whitney Houston[edit]

Whitney Houston is undeniably one of the most influential figures in pop music. She created a breakthrough for Women of Colour on MTV with her "How Will I Know" music video, allowing other artists like Janet Jackson and Anita Baker to become successful in the music industry. She also has a big influence in many of today's musicians, including Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and Ariana Grande. Ms. Houston is also the most awarded female act of all time, with 415 career awards, and has all six of her studio albums under Diamond or Platinum certification in the U.S. I do understand that she was removed on this list before, and I do understand if there is a valid reason why she isn't on it. But I think when weighing all her contributions to the music industry, she deserves to be on this list. |CanadianDude1| 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. |CanadianDude1| 17:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not in the league of Billie Holiday, Diana Ross or Aretha Franklin in terms of groundbreaking impact on pop music. Other people more important in their time than Houston was to ours, like Mahalia Jackson, Ella Fitzgerald or Donna Summer, aren't listed. There's more to what makes a musician important than commercial success and industry awards. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Pop music doesn't need our help. pbp 23:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Itzhak Perlman[edit]

Newish Violinist who mainly got popular with Schindler's List, he's not vital enough for this list, atleast not more-so then Yo-Yo Ma who we do not list. If we were to add another violinist i'd support Pablo de Sarasate or Fritz Kreisler first. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not sure that's an accurate way of describing Perlman, but the fact is that there are a number of accomplished violinists from the late 19th century onwards (such as the ones GuzzyG mentioned; Jascha Heifetz would be an example from the 20th century) that are all significant to some extent, but none of them have made enough of an impact that I think it's necessary to include them on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Rupert Murdoch should be added since he is now a media tycoon.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rupert Murdoch per above. In terms of print, Murdoch only owns media in three countries but when it comes to film and television, he owns assets in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Much of the world. Neutral on Ted Turner for the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Ted Turner is much less vital than David Sarnoff, creator of the radio and television industries. Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Ted Turner should be kept since he is the man who created the world's first TV news channel, which made television station owners think that TV news can make profit, hence TV news became less informative and more recreational.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ted Turner should remain on this list. Considering the effect of cable TV on the media landscape, he needs to be on there. Rupert Murdoch has his thumbs in a lot of pots, but he's not particularly innovative. He may belong on this list, but not at the expense of Turner. pbp 01:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add David Sarnoff[edit]

A highly influential figure in the history of radio and television, however currently it does not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that it currently does not belong to the list quite surprised me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Invented the concept of broadcasting and used it to build RCA, the first media empire. Initially a radio monopoly, its subsidiary NBC was the first national TV network in the US, which also became the first TV network in the world to regularly broadcast in colour. Cobblet (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Per Cobb. GuzzyG (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Explorers[edit]

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

Remove Semyon Dezhnev[edit]

This might be controversial and i understand he was the first but i don't think we should list him as we have Vitus Bering and it is overlap to include both in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support We need a Russian explorer/conqueror on land like Yermak Timofeyevich before a third explorer of the Russian Arctic waters after Barentsz and Bering. Yermak is a national hero; Dezhnev is nearly forgotten. I'd also consider Dezhnev less vital than the first European to sight the Pacific from the American continent. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (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.

Swap: Remove Jerome Kagan, Add Plotinus[edit]

A couple of the psychologists listed don't look absolutely vital to me. For instance Kagan isn't on the level of Jean Piaget or Erik Erikson when it comes to developmental psychologists. I suggest swapping him for Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism and through his collected writings (the Enneads) one of the most influential figures in the history of Western philosophy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. The addition of Plotinus, since his though has been quite influential.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal of Jerome Kagan, since he pioneered in developmental psychology and was listed as the 22nd most eminent psychologist of the 20th century, just above Carl Jung. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Swap: Remove Alexander Luria, Add Montesquieu[edit]

I don't think we need a second psychologist from the Vygotsky Circle beyond Lev Vygotsky himself. More vital Russian academics or scientists not listed include Vladimir Dal, Nikolay Pirogov and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Montesquieu, author of The Spirit of the Laws, was one of the most important political writers in history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - I thought there was too many psychologists myself GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Considering our detailed coverage of European philosophers, I will have to paraphrase one of Rekishi's favourite catchphrases and say I'm surprised to see Montesquieu not already included on the list! Gizza (t)(c) 12:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Montesquieu should be added, no doubt.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support pbp 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Luria should be kept, since he was one of the founders of Cultural-Historical Psychology, and a leader of the Vygotsky Circle.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Hannah Arendt[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that this article is not included in the list quite surprises me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Denis Diderot[edit]

Being a prominent figure in the Enlightenment and a co-founder of Encyclopédie guarantees his vitality.


Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that this article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Religious figures[edit]

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

Add George Fox[edit]

We have the founders of Mormonism, Methodism, Christian Science, and other Protestant sects. I propose, since we're under quota, to add the founder of the Quaker movement. pbp 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  • Support as nom pbp 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Oppose--Thi (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

This is not the kind of proposal I expected after reading your comment on the underrepresentation of non-Christian religions. We do already list the Quakers. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cobblet, I don't know who to add next for those religions. If somebody else who actually did made some proposals, I'd probably support them. pbp 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thi: What's your opposition rationale? pbp 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article about the Quakers is on the list. Menno Simons is maybe not vital enough. [1] Maybe Emanuel Swedenborg. --Thi (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Added 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Aisha[edit]

A polarizing figure in several ways, she was Muhammad's favourite wife, and is esteemed by Sunnis as one of the most knowledgeable and authoritative sources of information on his life and teachings (hadith). She was also his youngest wife and was the daughter of Abu Bakr, who became the first caliph upon Muhammad's death. Her opposition to Ali led to their confrontation at the Battle of the Camel, an action that precipitated the first civil war among Muslims, and has forever sullied her reputation among Shi'ites, who view Ali to be Muhammad's first rightful successor. To quote UCSB professor Stephen Humphreys, "more than any other woman, A'isha symbolizes Islam's quandaries about female sexuality, permissible roles for women in public life, and the formation and transmission of the Prophetic tradition."

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose too specific. If one wife is to be included, why not all of Muhammad's wives (I mean the Muhammad's wives article, not each individual wife's article).Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

@Godsy: That's like saying Peter, John and Judas are too specific and should all be replaced by Apostle (Christian). Cobblet (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll change my oppose to weak for the time being. While I'm less familiar with this religion, I'm not sure those are quite accurate comparisons. I'll stay tuned in, because I'm interested in others opinions about this possible addition.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no way a figure as central to Islamic culture like Aisha isn't vital if minor Christian figures like Columba and Mary Baker Eddy are deemed vital. Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Explain why Columba and Mary Baker Eddy are "minor figures". pbp 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"Minor" in the sense that Columba's contributions to the early growth of Christianity are not more notable than those of Thomas the Apostle, Frumentius, Saint Patrick, Saint Boniface, or Ansgar, none of whom we deem fit to list. And in the sense that the Christian Science movement is well on the decline. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What does being on the decline a the present time, or at a moment in the near past, have to do with anything? The "on the decline now" argument could be used to remove hundreds of entries from this list. pbp 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
For a person to be deemed vital their contributions ought to have left a lasting impact on the world. I think this is more debatable in the case of Mary Baker Eddy than it is for many of the other religious figures listed. There are a lot of advocates for spiritual/faith-based healing out there; what makes her more vital than the others? Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I just don't think this is the place to discuss people other than Aisha, unless they are proposed for being swapped for her. But if you want reasons why Mary Baker Eddy should remain on this list, the fact that she is one of a handful of women to have founded a Christian sect is a good reason. Or the fact that she made Atlantic's 100 most influential Americans is another; the only female religious leader to be on the list. You want her set apart from other spiritualists/faith healers; many of them didn't found religious sects; many of the sect founders founded sects that are now defunct, or are smaller than the Christian Science Movement. In full disclosure, I was the one who got her added in the first place; the reason I wanted her added is because there was a serious dearth of Christian female religious leaders on the list; when she was added, she was the only female Christian religious leader who wasn't Catholic. I also think you and I view religious leaders differently; I believe that it should be larger than you do. Columba I can take or leave; I think the main reason he made it on was because we decided that each of the Core 200 bios should be on here. pbp 01:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion about who constitutes a vital religious figure (which a discussion of whether Aisha is vital must involve) if you don't allow discussing other examples of religious leaders from the list. At least my assessment of the importance of Columba and Mary Baker Eddy is pretty much in line with yours. Regarding the number of religious figures (which is after all the name of the section, not "religious leaders"), I will note that there are several Christian theologians not listed here, but under the Philosophers section. I'm glad you've considered the number of Christian female religious leaders on the list, but I have to wonder if you (or anyone else reading this) have ever considered how many women of other religions or cultures appear on the list. User:DaGizza's mentioned an interest in adding Meera more than once; do you want to take him up on it? Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Saint Patrick does seem more vital than George Fox. Irish Catholicism has left a stronger mark than the Quakers throughout the whole world, including all major English-speaking countries. So do some of the other Christian figures suggested. Meera is the only female Hindu figure that would make it on the list on an objective basis. She is more vital than many of the modern gurus listed. After Meera you will have to become a little bit generous and add female Hindus partially because they are female rather than just on their deeds (this is not including more ancient female mythological figures whose historicity is uncertain, then again we include similar people for other religions in this section). She could fit here or in writers. There are pros and cons in both places. Gizza (t)(c) 04:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Helena Blavatsky[edit]

Through her work in co-founding the Theosophical Society and serving as its principal theoretician, Blavatsky is probably the person more responsible than anyone else for reviving interest in esotericism; in particular the modern Western fascination with Eastern religions can be attributed to her. Her role and that of the Theosophical Society in the Hindu reform movements of the 19th century makes her at least if not more vital than some of the modern Hindu figures we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - We really need someone representing this area and she is the perfect fit. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support underrated as far as influence and vitality is concerned. Gizza (t)(c) 12:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 02:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

Add John Curtin[edit]

Proposing this Australian leader as this one seems to be the one regulars here seem comfortable with, as i said before, my key arguments are "Australia is the only member of the G-20 without a leader to represent, the others have 2+ each." "We could use the argument of "Australian leader's not having a impact worldwide" but i would say Australia has more prominence worldwide then Madagascar or Turkmenistan which both do have a leader" and also the fact that Oceania has no political figures at all, to put it in to perspective Figure skating has 3x the representation of a whole continent's politicians and politicians are arguably histories most important biographies, right next to military leaders and religious founders. Would also recommend Kamehameha I and George Tupou I GuzzyG (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Swap: Remove Irene of Athens, Add Theodora (6th century) and Eleanor of Aquitaine[edit]

Irene is mainly known for restoring the veneration of icons in the Byzantine Empire; I'm not sure that's enough to make her vital when Christian figures of the likes of Gregory Palamas, Sergius of Radonezh or Catherine of Siena aren't listed. Andrei Rublev, the greatest painter of icons, isn't listed either. In Irene's place I suggest adding two of the most powerful and famous women from the Middle Ages, including the most powerful woman in Byzantine history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Good choices. --Thi (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Now this is a good swap. GuzzyG (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Diego de Almagro, Add Afonso de Albuquerque[edit]

Afonso de Albuquerque was the principal architect of Portugal's trading empire in Asia, conquering Ormus, Goa and Malacca in succession, and discovering the Spice Islands. In doing so he laid the foundation for further European exploration, trade and colonization in Asia. Diego de Almagro was just one of many semi-notable conquistadors in the New World (compare the exploits of Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Pedro de Alvarado, Francisco de Orellana or Francisco Vázquez de Coronado); he is less essential to the history of Chile and South America than Bernardo O'Higgins.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support big improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 13:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We list Conquistadors such as this one and Pizarro. I've not thought about it before but I am thinking about Conquistador article itself, we list specific historic soldier types/classes like ninja, knight, samurai. Maybe I'll propose a swap for Boyar, we don't list Tsar and we removed Pharaoh?  Carlwev  15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We actually kept pharaoh. Conquistador was just the general term for any overseas soldier in the Spanish and Portuguese empires, not a specific social class or type of combatant. European colonization of the Americas and especially Spanish colonization of the Americas (note how conquista redirects here) ought to cover the same ground. Cobblet (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Albrecht von Wallenstein, Add Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden[edit]

If we're going to include one general from the Thirty Years' War it shouldn't be the mediocre von Wallenstein but Gustavus Adolphus, one of the greatest generals of all time. His military successes, as well as the administrative reforms he instituted with the help of Axel Oxenstierna, led to the rise of Sweden as a great power for the next hundred years.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

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

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

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

Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Add C. V. Raman[edit]

Arguably the greatest physicist to have emerged from India. A Nobel laureate, Bharat Ratna recipient, discoverer of Raman effect, etc.,

Support
  1. Support as nom Vensatry (ping) 11:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I've taken the liberty of recasting this proposal as a swap. There are several modern scientists from India whose contributions are of similar importance, but Raman's impact on the development of science in India (founded the Indian Academy of Sciences and the Indian Journal of Physics) makes him more vital than the others IMO. His biggest scientific achievement was the discovery of the Raman effect, which is the basic principle underpinning Raman spectroscopy, which is widely used in materials and surface chemistry nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Raman was already proposed recently. While he's unquestionably one of the most notable modern scientists from India (although we did also add Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar recently) I'm not convinced he's vital when compared to other modern physicists, who are probably the best-represented group of scientists on the list. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Chandrasekhar seem more notable than Raman? Vensatry (ping) 14:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably not – I'm not even sure Chandrasekhar is more vital than Satyendra Nath Bose or Jagadish Chandra Bose. Frankly, I think that only scientists who have made discoveries of fundamental, even revolutionary significance should be considered vital, and in that respect I think all these figures fall short, even Raman. The kind of scientists I'd consider vital but are not currently listed are people like Hermann von Helmholtz, Louis de Broglie, Rudolf Clausius, Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff, Theodor Schwann, Robert Koch and William Herschel: these are the sort of people who would likely be mentioned in any discussion of "greatest physicists/chemists/biologists/astronomers of all time". On the other hand, if one looks at the bigger picture, Raman's contribution to the development of science in India at least makes him more noteworthy than the other Indian scientists I mentioned, and cannot be ignored. Cobblet (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I guess Chandrasekhar might have been added mainly because of the Nobel Prize. In any case, I don't think any physicist from India are more notable than Raman. We should probably remove Chandrasekhar and Raman instead, what say? Vensatry (ping) 07:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe it would be an improvement. What do others think? Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I can support that swap. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Gordon Gould[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support- As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

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

Add George Stephenson[edit]

Father of Railways. Built first steam railroad. pbp 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Sports figures[edit]

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

Add Rahul Dravid, remove Donald Bradman if need be[edit]

Rahul Dravid is an iconic personality as far as cricket is concerned. I don't really feel the need to enumerate his achievements here to justify his case which are just too many. Anybody who follows cricket knows that if there is one cricketer whose article should be of high-quality on wikipedia, it is Rahul Dravid, who is one of the greatest batsman India has ever produced and a thorough gentleman. I can see that the target for 'People' category in the expanded project has been kept to 2000. It is 1979 at present, so I don't think there is a need to replace anyone in order to add Dravid. Still if need be, I'd suggest to remove Donald Bradman from the list. Donald Bradman, no doubt, should have a high quality article on wikipedia. But considering the fact that his article is already FA-class and the fact that he is no more, there is little room for improvement in his article. I suppose his article would remain more or less the same with little or no edits till the end of time. His page doesn't need to be tracked on Vital Article project. Dravid's page does. He deserves a better page than what he is having right now. I'm not saying that he should replace Bradman as there is still scope left for addition of 'people' without removing anyone. But if need be, Dravid should replace Bradman, after all who better to replace Bradman than the person who is the only non-Australian cricketer to speak on Bradman Oration.Skagrawal4k (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nominator(I'd prefer both be kept, but if need be replace Bradman with Dravid).Skagrawal4k (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. A crucial figure in the history of cricket.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Article quality is irrelevant to vitality. Many of the articles on the list have a star next to them. We need to track all vital articles form stubs to Features Articles. If/when most of these articles become FA, we would then create another level of vital articles (not likely to happen in a long time though). Besides, Rahul Dravid is nowhere close to the next vital cricket player to add to the list. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Sports figures are overrepresented. We should only have 1-2 cricketers. pbp 18:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Too many Cricketers, we have enough, @pbp it's the 2nd biggest team sport (India, The Commonwealth, Bangladesh, The Caribbean, SA and Pakistan) 7 is a fair number (although i'd accept 5 too.) GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

There are a sufficient number of batsmen and sufficient number of modern (1990s-) cricketers listed. Modern players are if anything overrepresented. Even among modern batsmen, Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting are ahead of Dravid, and possibly Jacques Kallis and Kumar Sangakkara too. As modern spin bowling is well-covered too, the only modern player worth considering is a pace bowler, so Glenn McGrath, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose and Dale Steyn will all be far ahead of someone like Dravid and the other batsmen.

Then there is the fact that many eras and facets of the game are not represented on the list. From pre-WWI (Victor Trumper), wicketkeepers Alan Knott and Adam Gilchrist, bowling dominant all-rounders (Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee, pace bowlers in general (Dennis Lillee, Malcolm Marshall, Sydney Barnes) to cricketers who actually revolutionised the game (Ranjitsinhji for inventing the leg glance, George Headley and Frank Worrell for bridging racial divisions in the cricketing world, Sanath Jayasuriya for changing limited overs batting strategy forever, etc.) FWIW, Dravid doesn't appear in ESPN's top 25 "Legends of Cricket" [2] nor is he among the 80 cricketers inducted in the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame (though he may in the future)

Among Indian cricketers, taking into account that Sachin Tendulkar is already listed, apart from Ranjitsinji, Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar, Erapalli Prasanna and possibly Vijay Hazare are all more vital than Dravid. Anil Kumble is probably at the same level as Dravid since modern spin is well represented. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, if that's what you truly believe then we should have no baseball players at all. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need more than 50 sportspeople on this list. Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson are more than adequate to represent baseball. pbp 22:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
People is already under quota. If we cut sportspeople by that much, we will have to cut other entertainment/pop culture biographies too (modern music, actors, directors, modern writers, modern artists) Where will all the extra space go? More politicians? Many politician add proposals have failed in recent times. The only other option is reduce the people quota by a big amount. Maybe down to 1800 or even 1500. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Am I the only person who finds it disengenuous that there are more athletes than religious leaders? Especially of non-Christian religions? pbp 00:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure we can do with a few more non-Christian religious figures. But often people are not that important in certain religious and mythological traditions compared to God/s and other divine beings. All of the indigenous, pagan, shamanistic, folk types of religion out there don't really have a founder or a person who radically changed the beliefs of the people. We can add someone for Shinto I guess like Motoori Norinaga even though we added the Kojiki. There are regular contributors here who know Japanese culture pretty well so we could ask them.
Also there are probably more non-Western religious figures that you think. There are Indian religious poets like Kabir and Tulsidas that can fit in either writers or religious figures but are currently in writers. Tulsidas in particular is considered by his followers to be a reincarnated form of Valmiki (author of the main Ramayana and who is currently in religious figures) and also allegedly performed miracles. Meera who isn't listed, would also fit in both places. Similarly, Laozi who is regarded as a deity in religious Taoism is listed in "Philosophers".
I wonder if we should add some prominent atheists too. It might be premature to add Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens but history of atheism could be a good add. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Pete Rose and Barry Bonds[edit]

The former is the man who made the most hits during his MLB career, and the latter is the man who made the most homers while being an MLB player. Both are quite controversial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The consensus has been that we need fewer sports figures, not more. We recently removed Roberto Clemente, Satchel Paige and Cy Young. Cobblet (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Too many sports figures (and definitely too many baseball players) as it is. pbp 00:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: per Barry Bonds being included in the proposal, though I'd probably oppose Pete Rose too. As Cobblet said, fewer sports figures, and I don't think these two meet the bar for inclusion.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: - too many baseballers already we should cut by one (i'd say Lou Gehrig). GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. Lou Gehrig is vital, since he was the first MLB player to have his uniform number retired.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Many non-Americans watch MLB games, though baseball is less popular than soccer in the world, thus MLB superstars like Barry Bonds are sometimes vital, and adding these two men would let the list have just another 2 baseball players, while there are still more soccer players than baseball ones in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You cannot compare the global popularity of baseball to soccer. Think of the disparity in the global audience for the World Series or the World Baseball Classic vs. the World Cup. There's a reason why soccer is the only team sport we include on the level 3 list. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, in Taiwan soccer is much less popular than baseball, in terms of both playing and watching. However, there are more amateur basketball players than baseball ones, since Taiwan's population density is too high so that in some cities it is quite hard to find a decent baseball park for amateur players.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Taiwan is hardly representative of the world. Cobblet (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But baseball is popular among Canadians and Australians as well, not just Americans. It is also popular in Mexico, Dominica, Venezuela and Brazil. And Israel established its own professional baseball league this year, meaning baseball is gaining more popularity in some states.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't contradict what I said before. Of the countries you mentioned baseball is only the most popular sport in Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. (You forgot Cuba by the way.) What's more popular in Brazil and Mexico, baseball or soccer? Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if we were gonna add Baseball players, there's no way we should add any more hitters if we don't have a pitcher. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Now that you said so, I would add more proposals about excellent MLB pitchers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Add Ed Walsh[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Tommy John[edit]

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

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

Add Mariano Rivera[edit]

The greatest closer in the history of the Major League Baseball.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. IMO, we shouldn't necessarily have a full set of the greatest at each of the major nine positions, let alone the greatest at a "fake" position like closer. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose Although the position of closer is as valid as a position as the position of starter, I don't think the position of closer is important enough to warrant Rivera's spot on the list. It may also be a bit of recentism too. I do think we have a decent set of baseball players now though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Pancho Gonzales[edit]

We should definitely lower the number of Tennis players from 14 down to preferably 10 and he is the least vital on the list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support I appreciate he was the greatest tennis player of the 50s, but I think pre-Open era tennis is sufficiently well represented by Lenglen and Tilden. Gonzales is not well remembered by the general public these days – he wasn't mentioned on SportsCentury at all, and came in at only #35 on Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest of All Time. His notoriety pales in comparison to other athletes of the 50s like Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio or Rocky Marciano, not to mention Americans outside of sports like Joseph McCarthy or James Dean; and we don't list any of these people. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Olga Korbut[edit]

I think five gymnasts is what we should have and she is the least vital/accomplished out of the ones listed in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Ludmilla Tourischeva may have won more medals but her impact on the sport might be less notable than Korbut's. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to do Ludmilla first but i think her being one of two that has won the grand slam of all-around titles is more vital then inventing a technique, if we were to have a high jumper i don't think we would list Dick Fosbury and if we were i'd prefer the Fosbury Flop the technique is probably more important then Korbut too. GuzzyG (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (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.

Add Ancestral Puebloans[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

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

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Swap, Remove Boyar, add Conquistador[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Unlike knyaz which we removed earlier, it's more than just a rank: it was in fact the upper level of Slavic society and in that sense is similar to knights and samurai. I'm not sure why the Wikidata link doesn't show up on the English Wikipedia but the article definitely does exist in many languages. As I said to you in the earlier discussion, conquista redirects to Spanish colonization of the Americas (which is listed) and conquistadors are simply the people who carried it out. I think the two articles are largely redundant with each other. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

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

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.

Add History of atheism[edit]

If we have the history articles of five major religions we should have the history of atheism article. The article discusses not just atheism but related ideas like the history of agnosticism, secular humanism, etc. If these ideas together were classified as a religion itself, it could be the the third largest in the world. Atheism also has a long history, longer than many probably think.

Individual atheists may not stand out as vital apart from those scientists, philosophers and political leaders already listed but this article will be a valuable source of knowledge.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

Add Excavation (archaeology) and Radiocarbon dating[edit]

As far as I can tell we have nothing on the methods and techniques of archaeology. I propose adding the most obviously notable aspect of archaeological fieldwork and the most important of archaeological dating techniques.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital techniques to discover ancient civilizations. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Anyone with an interest in archaeology needs to know about these techniques. Gizza (t)(c) 08:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Other general aspects of archaeological work, i.e. archaeological field survey and post-excavation analysis, may also be vital. Cobblet (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

Arts[edit]

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

Architecture[edit]

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

Literature[edit]

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

Add textbook[edit]

Most teachers of academic subjects use textbooks while teaching, and the term has been frequently used, and textbook controversies occur in many countries, for example, USA, Japan, South Korea, Mainland China and Taiwan, so this article is definitely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for a long time but I'll lean towards support because our coverage of educational topics other than universities and libraries is underdeveloped. If there are better choices than textbook, I'll support adding them or swapping them in place of textbook in the future but for now textbook will do. Gizza (t)(c) 14:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already have curriculum, which covers the textbook. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Textbook fits better in "Education" than "Literature". I haven't formed an opinion on its vitality yet. Gizza (t)(c) 01:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several types of nonfiction that for me fall somewhere between vital and not vital: things like letter (message), diary, essay, biography/autobiography/memoir, almanac, recipe/cookbook and travel literature for example. It could be said that choice or content of a textbook is determined by a curriculum, which we already list. Textbook controversies should at least be touched upon in propaganda and historiography; more directly related subjects we don't list include historical revisionism (or more accurately historical revisionism (negationism) – interesting how that topic got forked) or media manipulation. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Remove Thesaurus[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support maybe this is just me but I expect an encyclopedia to have an article on synonyms before a reference work containing mainly synonyms. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A Thesaurus may not be as important as a dictionary, but it is important enough that writers use them all the time in order to choose word choice. I have personally used thesauruses countless times when writing essays and other pieces of writing. That is why I think thesauruses are vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Sum of Logic[edit]

We already list Aristotle's Organon. Ockham's textbook on Aristotelian logic is less vital than, say, the writings of Augustine (we don't list Confessions (Augustine) or City of God (book)) or The Imitation of Christ. If we want better coverage of Aristotelian logic the obvious thing to do would be to add term logic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Literary criticism[edit]

Art has aesthetics and music has music theory, but we don't have an article that talks about the analysis and interpretation of literature even though the history of this field goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Our article is basically an outline at this point but the Britannica article gives a better idea as to what such an article could cover. I nominated this rather than literary theory as this article seems broader in scope.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. You bet!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Music[edit]

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

Performing arts[edit]

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

Remove Audition[edit]

Résumé/curriculum vitae and job interview aren't listed and auditions are even more specific. Neither this nor artist's portfolio ought to be vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support had my eye on this.  Carlwev  13:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support someone must have run out of ideas when they added this. Not as bad as celtuce or paper clip though. Gizza (t)(c) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Visual arts[edit]

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

Remove Fine art[edit]

An unnecessary umbrella term already covered by other umbrella terms. The question of what constitutes fine art is covered by both art and aesthetics. The rest of the article is basically just a duplicate of the content in visual arts. Also we don't list applied arts, the antipode to fine art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, Chinese art, Indian art and Islamic art[edit]

Since we already list African art and several articles on architecture and film by culture, and the articles on we've chosen on art styles focus exclusively on the European tradition, would it be a good idea to add articles to at least broadly cover the art of major cultural areas outside Europe?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We can't be too Anglo-centric. - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 01:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

While it could be argued we should be doing the same for literature and music, I'd say that this is a more pressing issue for the visual arts than for the other fields. First of all, we have fewer articles on either topics or biographies in the visual arts compared to literature and music. Secondly, unlike writers, artisans (especially in non-European cultures) frequently remain anonymous, so we wouldn't get very far if we tried to expand our coverage of world art by adding more biographies. Thirdly, I think it's a little easier to pick out vital genres of world music than vital genres of world art. (For example gamelan and Indian classical music are more obviously vital than batik or cave paintings in India.) I'm not saying we shouldn't list broad genres of world music (there's been some discussion of this before), but for better or worse we seem to have settled on listing more specific musical styles instead. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Remove color motion picture film[edit]

Less vital than color photography or color printing and no more vital than sound film (none of these are listed). Film stock is being phased out by digital cinematography anyway. (FWIW, we again list neither of those articles.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Philosophy and religion[edit]

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

Philosophy[edit]

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

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Specific religions[edit]

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

Esoterics, magic and mysticism[edit]

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

Mythology[edit]

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

Everyday life[edit]

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

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

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

Remove Scallion[edit]

Covered sufficiently in onion which is already listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Allium, onion, garlic and possibly leek seem sufficient IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 09:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

User:Plantdrew has suggested swapping this with Allium fistulosum which is the "green onion" used extensively in East Asian cuisine. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Upon further investigation Scallion and Onion actually contradict one another on what a "scallion" is. I'd have no problem with including Allium, but Allium fistulosum is too specific in my opinion as it only concerns one variety of scallion.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you remembered my list, Cobblet. I suppose I should update it since a bunch of stuff has been added/removed here. At the moment, I'm pretty neutral on Allium fistulosum. I guess I was considering it for inclusion in an effort to balance vegetables more globally (not just what's common in western supermarkets). Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I'd have to say Nelumbo nucifera ought to be our next choice for an Asian plant, and peony would be a good choice as well. Cobblet (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Household items[edit]

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

Add Paper clip[edit]

An article about a definitely crucial stationery.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose even within the stationery products category, its function isn't that vital.Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Paper clip? Really? Wouldn't be my first choice at another stationery article by a long shot. What makes it stand out more than other articles of a similar area? Looking at Category:Stationery There's 80 articles in that category, and many more in the sub cats, one could pick stationery from. Articles that seem equal or higher status to me include, ruler, eraser, pencil sharpener, rubber band, staple/stapler, Adhesive tape, pin, knitting needle, sewing needle, ballpoint pen, Protractor, Compass (drawing tool), envelope and many more. We don't list staple either but we do list fastener, that includes staples, paper clips and more; well at least in it's category anyway, and nothing's stopping us adding it to the article either.  Carlwev  16:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Add stationery[edit]

No doubt it is crucial. Much more crucial than, say, paper clip.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it does not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think we need to list this generic term – articles on the more notable stationery items are sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add eraser, rubber band and envelope[edit]

No doubt they are all crucial, though not as crucial as stationery.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Envelope is slightly better than the others but I'd prefer listing packaging and labeling instead – the history of packaging would cover tin cans, shipping containers, vases, amphorae, folding cartons, jars, etc., along with paper envelopes. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Ruler is more of a measuring instrument than a household item, and is the one thing here that might arguably be vital. Measuring length at with a high degree of accuracy and precision is an important, unappreciated aspect of civilization. Everything else is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 09:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruler would belong under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Measurement in any event. Measuring_instrument, which is on the vital article's list, links to List of length, distance, or range measuring devices. The concepts of accuracy and precision are also already VAs. Rwessel (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I started moving measuring instruments under the physical quantities they measure (e.g. spectrometer under spectroscopy) since many of them were not listed there in the first place, e.g. clock or sextant. I don't know why I stopped. Ruler and calipers should go under length in math, for example. Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've moved ruler to the measurement section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality[edit]

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

Add Nudity[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm going to move "clothing and fashion" out of the household goods section (one encounters clothes outside the house as well; things like body piercing and swimsuit are not "household goods") and into their own section; then nudity clearly fits there as well. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Stages of life[edit]

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

Sports and recreation[edit]

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


Timekeeping[edit]

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

Add Anno Domini[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support as nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Calendar era seems like a better choice to me; it covers how years are numbered in other calendar traditions as well. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

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

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

Add Julian calendar and Buddhist calendar[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Julian calendar. Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Buddhist calendar. The Hindu calendar upon which it is based is definitely more vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Color[edit]

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

Add industrial organization and international economics[edit]

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

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

Add economic system and economic growth[edit]

Undoubtedly crucial concepts.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support economic growth. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support economic growth. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I had proposed it here before, but my proposal was not passed (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_38#Add_economic_system.2C_economic_growth.2C_Gini_coefficient.2C_Misery_index_.28economics.29_and_Human_Development_Index).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Culture[edit]

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

Education[edit]

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

Add Georgetown University[edit]

It's the oldest Catholic institution of higher learning in the United States and played an integral role in the evolution of the American university. It also is historically significant for the manner in which it shaped and was involved in the history of the capital District of Columbia, particularly the historic district of Georgetown (Washington, D.C.). Additionally, it created the first school dedicated to international affairs in the United States (Walsh School of Foreign Service), which contributed to the formation of the US State Department's Foreign Service and is considered among the top in the world (ranked as the top by several publications). Its law school is frequently cited among the oldest and best in the United States. The Georgetown University campus contains several historic and functional buildings (e.g. Healy Hall). Lastly, its alumni include numerous prominent political leaders and royalty from the United States and around the world (see aforementioned link for list).

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.

Add grapheme[edit]

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

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

Add language change[edit]

A definitely crucial article.

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

Add Tone (linguistics)[edit]

Not really used in English and other European languages, but important part of many languages in East Asia, Central America and Africa, including some widely spoken like Mandarin. Use of tone can change the meaning of otherwise identical words, and is important to languages that use them, and important for people learning them to understand.  Carlwev  09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom,  Carlwev  09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Stress should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Words in English can change meaning depending on stress (e.g. record, proceeds, contract); does this make stress vital? The general topic of prosody (linguistics) might be a better addition. Cobblet (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Prosody (linguistics) sounds good, I wasn't familiar with that topic before reading it here, it covers tone, stress and more. We should open a thread for that soon, I'll leave this open too though, it has 3 support now.  Carlwev  08:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Add stress (linguistics)[edit]

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

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

Add lexicography[edit]

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

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

Add Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic[edit]

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

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

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

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

Add lingua franca[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

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

Add Prosody (linguistics)[edit]

Brought up above, suggested as better and encompassing compared to tone, stress and other articles proposed above. Decent article, covers many things that would have a chance at being included singularly like stress (linguistics), Tone (linguistics), rythem and intonation (linguistics). Unwritten things that suggest question, statement, command, mood/feeling, irony and more. The article explains it better than me.  Carlwev  21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Somehow we don't have a dedicated article on suprasegmentals but "prosodic feature" is a term also often used to refer to phonetic features that operate over syllables, words or phrases. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add diacritic[edit]

Many written languages use diacritics, hence it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Should be covered by orthography. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Law[edit]

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

Add Match fixing[edit]

Undoubtely crucial. Match fixing often causes people to distrust a particular professional sports league. For instance, the Black Eagles Incident caused many people stop attending CPBL games.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We didn't add Cheating, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_30#Add_Cheating. Or Regulation Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37#Add_regulation. We removed Regulation of sport, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_33#Remove_Regulation_of_sport. However we did add doping in sport, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_28#Swap:_Remove_Lance_Armstrong.2C_Add_Doping_in_sport.  Carlwev  19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nordic Skiing?[edit]

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

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

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

Mass media[edit]

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

Remove Grand Ole Opry[edit]

I don't care if it's the longest-running radio broadcast in history: we don't list the world's longest-running company, longest-running parliament, longest-running NGO, etc. Nashville should be listed first and if there was ever one music event that was vital it should be Woodstock (which receives five times as many views).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
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.

Remove Constitutionalism[edit]

Why do we need both this and constitution? This is like listing new institutionalism along with institution – in fact maybe it's worse, since constitutions are just one type of institution.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Pointless article. Redundant to constitution, separation of powers and rule of law. Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove ambassador[edit]

Note that we include both ambassador and diplomatic mission. There's no need to have the head of an embassy when we don't include more important heads of organizations like chief executive officer, president, prime minister and monarch. The only general head of something that is vital is head of state.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Psychology[edit]

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

Remove authority[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Society[edit]

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

Add Homelessness[edit]

I would have thought this a huge social and economic issue. It, and its causes and effects are written and read about and studied, and efforts to combat the issue, help those it effects, are pretty common. The article states over 100 million people worldwide are homeless. Although it is probably more common in some areas compared to others, the issue is pretty wide spread across different parts of the world, not confined to one or two regions, and quite well known in history too, it's not exactly just a recent issue.  Carlwev  19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Good catch. Exactly the kind of topic we need to make sure we have. This doesn't overlap with house any more than, say, poverty overlaps with money. Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support There is overlap between this and house too but not enough to make it non-vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. SupportPointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The only thing that cover this I believe would be Poverty. However the two are not the same, Poverty is in the vital 1000, and if you view Category:Poverty you will notice several articles included there are vital 10'000 as well anyway, such as hunger, malnutrition, famine, slum, welfare. So I don't think being a poverty related issue makes it redundant to poverty.  Carlwev 

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.

Add Mendelian inheritance and genetic code[edit]

As I try to trim the Organisms section further, I'm also slowly compiling a list of concepts in biology we need to add. Here are two of the most obvious omissions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove biological classification, add taxon[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that taxon is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Oppose addition. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

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

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Dissection[edit]

Foundational to the study of anatomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

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.

Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Salvia officinalis[edit]

Why list sage when we don't list rosemary or oregano or marjoram, other species of the mint family with a similar level of notability? Besides, we also already list the genus Salvia. We list Mentha but not individual species of mint like spearmint or peppermint.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 06:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Kelp[edit]

A variety of seaweed with tremendous ecological importance (kelp forests).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Green iguana[edit]

We list no examples of iguanas despite this being one of the most notable types of lizards. "Iguana" usually refers to members of the subfamily Iguaninae (including species like the marine iguana) but on Wikipedia it's used to refer to just the genus of the same name, while Iguaninae redirects to Iguanidae which includes related lizards like anoles. So I've decided to nominate the most familiar species of iguana, notable as a pet and an invasive species.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  06:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose I'd rather see a broader article about iguanas added, as opposed to one particular species. "Weak" because the nominator pointed out the article I described doesn't exist in a preferred fashion.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Since they comprise ~60% of all reptile species, the lizards could use a little bit more representation. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This or a broader iguana article, but there are issues, already pointed out.  Carlwev  06:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Commment Green iguana was the 11th most viewed lizard article last month (Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Popular pages) if I've counted correctly. If we're adding more lizards (which seems like a good idea to me), green iguana is a strong candidate. Not that page views should be the sole criterion for inclusion on the vital list (for one thing people do seem far more interested in snakes than lizards based on the popular pages). For what it's worth, lizards with more views than green iguana that also aren't on the vital list are: monitor lizard, Jackson's chameleon (apparently a popular pet), Pogona (bearded dragons, also popular pets) and iguana. And the lizard on the vital list with the lowest views is horned lizard, which comes in just behind green iguana (with a bunch of snakes and amphibians in between). We have 7 of the 12 most viewed lizard articles on the list. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. I decided against monitors since we already list the Komodo dragon. And I figured that being a type species made the green iguana more vital than the other highly viewed lizard species and other notable iguana species like the marine iguana. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily view type species status as indicating vitalness; it's mostly a taxonomic detail. The type species often will be one of the most common species in the genus, but not always. Vaccinium uliginosum is the type species of Vaccinium, but my first pick for a vital Vaccinium would be Vaccinium corymbosum, which is the most commonly cultivated blueberry. And Drosophila melanogaster is not the type species for Drosophila; there's some pretty good evidence that Drosophila should be split into multiple genera, in which case the most well known species would become Sophophora melanogaster. This resulted in an (ultimately failed) proposal to make D. melanogaster the type species. 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
True, I guess what I really meant was that when people talk about an "iguana" this is the most likely species they're referring to. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Broadbill, Cotinga and Tapaculo[edit]

I don't see why we need so many members of the Tyranni – the listed Antbird, Ovenbird (family) and Tyrant flycatcher seem sufficient to me. The Andean condor would be a much better choice to represent South American birds.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It looks like the intent was to include the larger Tyranni families, but species count alone shouldn't determine inclusion here. Broadbill and tapaculo actually have fewer species than some families that aren't listed (e.g. pitta has 34). Cotinga is fairly large (~60 species), but it seems pretty arbitrary to draw a line for inclusion somewhere between the pittas and the cotingas. Plantdrew (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove Cuckooshrike, Motacillidae, and Nuthatch[edit]

Other non-vital groups of passerine birds.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Old World babbler and Old World warbler[edit]

These were formerly wastebin taxa that are currently undergoing major reorganization; it looks likely that when the dust settles, these families will be much smaller than they used to be. I think it's more important to list notable bird species than taxa that non-specialists are unlikely to care about.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Old World warbler especially; it's an article about an obsolete taxonomic concept (the current circumscription has a separate article at Sylviidae). Old World babbler covers multiple circumscriptions, but it's not clear that any of them are vital. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Common starling and Common myna[edit]

For instance, take these two members of the starling family, both of which have adapted well to human environments (they're notorious as invasive species and the common starling is one of the most widely distributed birds in the world) and are also well-known for their ability to mimic sounds and voices.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support at least for the Common starling. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support both. Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Whistling duck, Add Mallard[edit]

Not sure why we list the whistling ducks when we don't list the diving ducks, the seaducks or the shelducks and sheldgeese. I think it's better to include the most notable duck species, which is also the ancestor of almost all domestic ducks.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Never heard of whistling duck before :-P --Thi (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Inclusion of whistling duck is rather puzzling. Perhaps it was considered a family fairly recently (subfamily now, but article mentions treatment as a family though doesn't give dates)? I can't see any reason to include it now. Mallard is a good choice to add. Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support even whistling is more vital than whistling duck. Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Streptopelia, Add Rock dove[edit]

Again, swapping a taxon few people will bother to look up for an extremely notable species, in this case the oldest domesticated species in the world. I think it's an even better choice than picking a specific Streptopelia species like the European turtle dove (I'll let you guys decide if you want to add that too).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely support How did rock dove ("pigeon") get missed for so long? Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Also bizarrely, both rock dove and domesticated pigeon are rated as low-importance for WikiProject Birds. Gizza (t)(c) 13:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support agree with other comments, I'm surprised this has been missing for so long and is only rated low importance?  Carlwev  15:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Buttonquail, Skimmer and Skua[edit]

Non-vital members of Charadriiformes. Bear in mind we already list seabird so I don't think we need to include every single type of seabird out there.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Wader[edit]

No longer a taxon in use, as far as I can tell. We already include the sandpipers, the largest group of waders/shorebirds; if we had to I would prefer to include a second group like the plovers than an obsolete taxon.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Obsolete taxa are no eligible for the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Do my eyes deceive me? I think this is the first time Rekishi is supporting a removal at this level for an article that is not a redirect. Gizza (t)(c) 12:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Storm petrel and Diving petrel, Add Procellariiformes[edit]

I think it's better to list the order as a whole (which includes all the seabirds collectively known as the petrels, including the albatrosses) than to include the two smallest families in that order, which aren't very notable on their own.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support indeed storm petrel and diving petrel are not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 09:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

good catch, not completely sure on removing storm petrel, but I can support this.  Carlwev  15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather list wandering albatross than these families. Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Little owl, Add Barn owl[edit]

Currently the little owl ranks 411th on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages; the barn owl ranks 51st.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support My only question was how widely distributed barn owls were. Went to the article and saw "the most widely distributed species of owl". If we're including any single owl species, barn owl is the one. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove True owl and Barn-owl[edit]

I don't think we need to list the two owl families. Owl is good enough.

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

Remove Harrier (bird)[edit]

The hen harrier is probably the most notable species of this small group of raptors. If we needed another group of raptors I think Buteo (the buzzards) would be a better choice; but better still would be to list a couple of the best-known species (see the next proposal).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I guess harriers are here because they're a subfamily? Buteo would be better even though it's only a genus. Plantdrew (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Golden eagle and Peregrine falcon[edit]

Outside of the US, the golden eagle is the eagle that appears commonly in myth and symbolism – it's apparently the most common national animal in the world. So when it comes to listing a notable eagle I think it's the best choice. The peregrine falcon is noteworthy for its speed, its cosmopolitan distribution and its recovery from DDT use in the 1970s.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Good choices, I still keep thinking of wider bird articles like bird migration and falconry. Others don't seem to like them though.  Carlwev  15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means bring them up now that I've proposed some cuts. Cobblet (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove Live oak[edit]

I'll take User:Plantdrew up on the suggestion. We already list oak and I'm not sure we need to separately list evergreen oaks. Quercus virginiana may be a symbol of the Southern US but I would've thought magnolia was the better choice. Taxus baccata has been brought up before and is more vital; so is Populus.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support If there's anything vital here, it's Quercus virginiana, but I don't see any reason to open the door to individual oak species Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Turkey (bird). Add Domesticated turkey[edit]

The turkey (bird) article covers the genus Meleagris which has a few extinct species, and two extant species. One extant species is rare and has a limited range. The other extant species has a huge range in North America, and has a domesticated form found all over the world. The genus isn't vital at all. The domestic form is clearly vital. Wild turkey may also be vital, but let's get domestic turkeys listed first.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Pig[edit]

The pig article covers animals in the genus Sus. Wild boar and domestic pig are on the vital list. Wild boars are broadly distributed, but the other species of Sus are restricted to small parts of southeast Asia. Doesn't seem to be anything vital about the genus itself. Also, Wikipedia choice to equate "pig" with Sus is pretty arbitrary. In most contexts pig equals domestic pig. While "pig" is sometimes more broadly defined to include relatives of the domestic pig, the broader definitions don't usually stop at Sus. I think most people using a broader concept of pig would consider a peccary to be just as much a pig as a Javan warty pig. Perhaps Suidae or Suina are worth including as vital, but Sus/Pig is not. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I note that peccary is also listed. The only other member of Suidae that's worth considering is the common warthog but I don't think we need it. None of Sus, Suinae or Suidae look vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Health, medicine and disease[edit]

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

Physical sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Measurement[edit]

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

Add ruler[edit]

I just separated this proposal from another proposal which I had posted before in #Household_items. Hope that you support my proposal.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems trivial to us now, but historically important nonetheless. If we list calipers we ought to list this as well. I would however put it in the math section, under length. (Same with calipers; and I'd move thermometer under temperature.) Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Stack (geology)[edit]

Not a type of erosional landform with much significance besides its unusual shape, like natural arch or hoodoo. We don't have space for this when coastal features of real significance like barrier islands are missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Wet season and Dry season[edit]

Tropical climate and monsoon ought to cover these topics in sufficient detail.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

Add Jade[edit]

Valued by the Chinese as highly as gold and also prized in Mesoamerica, jade is as vital as any of the gems we currently have on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This one's been on the cards for ages, I was waiting for someone to open this, or i was gonna do it myself. Been brought up a couple of times in discussion, several people seem to like the idea of this.  Carlwev  15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Physics[edit]

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

Technology[edit]

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

Agriculture[edit]

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

Biotechnology[edit]

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

Computing and information technology[edit]

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

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

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.

Add color photography[edit]

No doubt this article is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we had an article on colour reproduction that would be the obvious choice; alas, we don't. IMO colour photography by itself is not really vital: I think the coverage in Photography#Color, Photographic film#Color and Charge-coupled device#Color cameras suffices for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add color printing[edit]

This technology is now quite widespread, and absolultely crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

Add terrestrial television[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed it before, however the proposal was rejected (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_mechanical_television.2C_analog_television.2C_digital_television.2C_terrestrial_television.2C_pay_television_and_IPTV).--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Add color television[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Colour TV was developed in the 60s; TV only became popular in the 50s. As such the appearance of colour TV hardly marks a new "era" in the history of television (monochrome television does not exist as an article) and Television#History ought to cover this in sufficient detail. Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

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.

Other[edit]

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

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

Add statistic[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

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

General discussions[edit]

Just a thought[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although it's important that we have a list that captures the diversity of human experience, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the smaller fields might not be important enough to deserve representation. I'll take the example of Lin Dan since now both of you have mentioned him and I've thought about suggesting him in the past as well. Even though China dominates the sport, badminton has never been the most popular sport in China: it used to be ping-pong and these days it's basketball. Lin Dan is big but not that big in his home country: for example, when you look at page views on the Chinese Wikipedia, he gets fewer page views than Yao Ming or Jeremy Lin. If you're going to pick a Chinese athlete of the current generation to add to the list, it really has to be Yao Ming, who was the first truly internationally famous Chinese athlete of any kind and is responsible to a great extent for the popularity of basketball in China. And still Yao has no chance of making the list since he's not anywhere close to being the greatest basketball players of all time. There may be other areas where the Chinese are underrepresented but I don't think sports is one of them. You can't possibly justify adding Lin Dan to a list missing a figure as vitally important to Chinese culture as Yue Fei for example. Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, Badminton does not make the cut, the only thing that helps it's case is that it's an Olympic sport, although it does outnumber the views on the English wiki 7x the amount of Alpine skiing [3] which has two athletes on the list [4] but Alpine is representative of the Winter Olympics, i am not that fussed about adding new sports, i understand some of them are too obscure and people don't like adding athletes, although ones like Kelly Arnold Esther (Paralympics) Jahangir Tony, Sébastien and Fedor are highly, highly dominant in their respective sports (which each are in the vital life section), with that i do think if we are going to have 14 of great but not super, super amazing players like Pancho Gonzales it might be good to cut back and add some highly dominant people in lesser known sports. I am also in favor of adding a sporting figure from a sport like Sumo which is one of the oldest currently competing sports. But not too big on sports as athletes are not overall that important and consensus is against them.
I was mainly meaning maybe adding in some culture stuff like a performing artist, graffiti artist, model, chef, puppeteer, one or two criminals, maybe someone representing sexuality/adult entertainment, stuntman, radio/talk-radio, media criticism (like film), new religious movements (but i see we have that covered) and i was going to suggest the performance art of Professional wrestling but i see the main article is not in here and has not been voted in before, just fields like that which are centuries old and well known unlike ones like Sailor Jerry or Juan Belmonte. I was also wondering about people's thoughts on people who are widely recognizable by their surnames Rand Casanova Rasputin and De Sade. I am not here as a fan who is trying to put in their "fav celebrity" i have no affinity for anyone i suggest, i am just wondering if we might be missing any fields.
Yue Fei i agree with you on that, before any other fields are added i think we should add an Australia leader (only member of the G-20 missing) and the Hawaiian and Tongan king first, what do you think of them? Or even a top Caribbean politician.
Cobblet what do you think of the fields and names thrown around? Like i said now that we are on our last legs to our limit i am just making sure if we are covered with what we could be. People like Jeanne Calment, Robert Wadlow and Lina Medina might be worth looking into as-well. GuzzyG (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think people one would associate with Ripley's or the Guinness Book of World Records are vital.
  • I've never paid much attention to Oceanian politicians but I think I'm OK with adding Kamehameha I unless there's someone even more notable we're missing. I'm not convinced yet we need a second one besides him. The one politician from Jamaica I've considered in the past was Marcus Garvey.
  • I don't think there's any chef I'd consider vital. Within any culinary tradition I'd rather list characteristic ingredients, eating habits, cooking methods, and dishes, before individual chefs. If no chefs are vital, there's no way any graffiti artist is vital.
  • Hitchens was just a pundit, not someone who made fundamental contributions to the development of Western thought. Dawkins would be slightly better, but I'm pretty sure there are several much more vital biologists we need first.
  • When it comes to fashion, there are several designers, movie icons (we removed James Dean and never listed Brigitte Bardot) as well as executives like Anna Wintour or Helena Rubinstein I'd consider to have made more of an impact on the history of fashion than any model.
  • People notable for being connected to sex in some way have to be judged against other people of their time. Maybe Sappho could be vital, especially if more of her work was extant and could back up her reputation. I'm not convinced anyone after her makes the cut. Lord Byron and Margaret Mead are people I consider definitely vital; Casanova and Kinsey are definitely less vital by comparison – whether they're still vital enough to make the list, I'm not really sure. We're still missing foundational writers of the Western canon like Rabelais and Tasso; de Sade's far, far down the list.
  • I don't remember having thought of Henry Luce before but he seems fairly vital. I thought David Sarnoff was clearly vital and that nomination still failed, and I haven't really thought about media execs since then.
  • We list Sesame Street and I'd probably list the Muppets before Jim Henson, but that's just me.
  • I doubt there are many people who care about Howard Stern and Ayn Rand outside of the US, and even in the US they're not exactly mainstream figures.
  • Rasputin could be a good choice, definitely crossed my mind before. Undecided on Blackbeard.
  • Have thought about Emelianenko before, but not really sure I'd take him over Royce Gracie. MMA is a young sport (ditto with extreme sports) and in a sense Bruce Lee is the first MMA fighter. I might not oppose adding professional wrestling as a form of entertainment but I really don't think we need professional wrestlers. I absolutely agree we have too many tennis players and Pancho Gonzales is the obvious person to remove, but I'm not sure who you'd remove after him. Tennis players are generally far better known than, say, squash players, and removing someone like Bjorn Borg or Margaret Court just to add Jahangir Khan or Nicol David doesn't seem right. When it comes to Japanese cultural figures, I'm not sure we need sumo wrestlers any more than we need, say, go players like Honinbo Shusaku or Go Seigen. (Izumo no Okuni seems more vital than any Japanese sportsperson that isn't a baseball player.) Based on impact on society as a whole, if I had to pick one disabled athlete I think I'd go with Terry Fox, and even he doesn't seem clearly vital to me – I don't think he's well known outside Canada.
  • I think I'd rather add one more film director from an underrepresented tradition or genre, say Abbas Kiarostami, than Roger Ebert. Has Ebert actually changed the way people make films? Are people going to study what he wrote a hundred years from now? Cobblet (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the vital list is a balancing act between adding people who were/are actually important versus diversifying the list to include underrepresented people and topics like women, minorities, "ancient" history, etc. In an encyclopedia you expect to read about people who made an impact on society but also a wide variety of content so you can broaden your knowledge on everything. Forming an opinion on where to draw the line is one of the most interesting and exciting parts of this project. I agree with most of what Cobblet said above.
With regards to Indian cinema, the biggest hole is the absence of actresses. Three male actors is plenty in comparison. There really should two female actors as a minimum from a country that produces the most films in the world and has done so for a long time, something that 600 million odd people aspire to become one day. And Shah Rukh Khan would face tough competition from Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna for the next male spot. I will probably support John Curtin simply because Australia ought to have representation in political leaders though if we're looking for people with power and influence, Rupert Murdoch would be a good addition too (more vital than Ted Turner in my opinion and gets more views). Gizza (t)(c) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. Just thought that "world's oldest person" could be a vital study in longevity.
  • I had both because Kamehameha I was a very influential king in his own right and i suggested George Tupou I because he was one of the few leaders of a country (let alone islands) who managed to keep his country intact and not colonized. Big yes on Garvey, i was gonna nominate him but i forgot, do you think i should?
  • I understand
  • Yeah, there's not enough evidence of their historical worth (if any) yet.
  • I do think one more person could be added to fashion along with Coco Chanel, Wintour or Charles Frederick Worth would probably be right, some models like Twiggy or Kate Moss can have cultural impact but not vital impact i guess, James Dean and Birdot i would not support. Rubinstein only if we were to include cosmetics which might be too small a field.
  • I probably would be in support of Sappho as she seems to be quite significant for BCE women poets and fits in as a erotica writer.
  • I would support Henry and i would Smirnoff, surprised he failed actually.
  • The Muppet's are a big cross media franchise and could be historically important, i guess....
  • True, just throwing out names.
  • In my mind if they thought he had enough power to kill him, i would say he might be notable (i would vote support if he was up). For sure would support Blackbeard.
  • I'd only vote for Royce out of MMA if we are doing are "one of the first important figures" i think historically Fedor out-ranks him. I probably will try Pro Wrestling itself again later. it's extremely popular in 3 major world countries for going on 60 years now. As for Tennis my first two to remove would be Pancho and Pete Sampras they're good but Tennis is packed with amazing players and their accomplishments have been largely left behind. I'm in full support of Jahangir because his record transcends his sport although it's downtrodden because Squash is not a Olympic sport, how about Karch Kiraly? He's got dominance and a gold medal in two Olympic sports (indoor & outdoor Volleyball) apparently the only one to do so. Yeah, Sumo is a one off country and Japan is not up there with the U.S in numbers in order to support a one country sports add, so that rules out Go and Sumo. Izumo looks to be a good add.
  • Abbas is more notable then Roger yeah, Roger probably will be read/studied as a starter on film criticism but that's not a really important field, i concede.
  • How about this guy Cobblet? Alfred Wegener he seems to be vital and influential in polar research. Nominate Helena too, if you want, i'll support her.
  • The biggest problem with the ideas i have pointed out is the recentism in them, although i was originally under the idea it might be good to have some unique/small fields get representation with figures who are/were a dominant force in them (influenced by Al Capone being here, which i agree with), but i concede that historical importance and vitality trumps that. Let's wait a couple years (or decades, haha!) Do you have any fields you think we have not covered Cobb?
  • @Gizza How about Madhubala or Nargis? What two other hip-hop artists would you choose to get the nod? I would support a Ted Turner and Murdoch swap. GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois should probably be nominated together as their influence on African-American history is comparable. The trouble with Karch Kiraly is again the relative prominence of volleyball athletes vs. other sports – is Kiraly really more vital than Joe Montana or Kobe Bryant? We definitely haven't paid enough attention to earth scientists and the guy who came up with continental drift definitely needs to be considered. It has occurred to me before that Alfred Russel Wallace isn't on the list.
Fields we haven't covered at all... honestly I've never really thought about it in a global sense like you have (which is why I'm glad you're here). I ought to nominate Wang Xizhi soon. I've also thought about adding someone to represent the decorative arts like maybe Louis Comfort Tiffany or Peter Carl Fabergé. I've also noticed for a very long time that engineers are underrepresented, particularly people associated with the Industrial Revolution like John Smeaton, George Stephenson or Richard Arkwright just to name three possibilities. Remarkably we once had a proposal to rename the "Inventors" section to "Inventors and Engineers" that failed which is why I've personally put those ideas on the backburner. That being said, none of the people who opposed it at the time are still around. Also, I think the only judge we have is John Marshall. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Du Bois and Garvey we could probably only get one and Garvey would be that one in my opinion. I'd have both though. I'd say Volleyball is a bit more important worldwide then American Football as it's a Olympic sport, it's popular in Brazil and it's along with Netball one mainly played by women. Basketball beats it, but then again Kobe is more important then some of the other sport figures there too, but he is just not historically in the top 5 of basketball yet. I would have said we should cut Basketball to 5 and i would've chose Larry but he's the only person to win a Series in all four roles so i would not pick him..
Wallace not on the list is surprising.. I'd vote for Wang but i don't know if he'd get in. Decorative arts sound good, just the type of field i meant to say. Tiffany and Fabergé could go either way, both influential people, maybe more Fabergé. I would have thought Smeaton and Arkwright would be in here, Inventors and Engineers has a nice ring to it. Judge's are hard as they mainly influence one country like Warren and Denning. There's Roland Freisler but i would not add another Nazi as Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring are not on here, you could go biblical with Samson but he's not the most vital biblical figure, we could go with a Nuremberg judge? . Lawyer's are even harder as they are more singular like Giovanni Falcone and Clarence Darrow. We could add Syed Ahmad Khan, what do you think? I am shocked that Cesar Chavez is not on the list either. How about an Indigenous Australian? Bennelong might fit, he's up there with Sitting Bull. It's an interesting discussion but it is hard because most people's importance is relagated to a single country or continent. What did you think of L. L. Zamenhof? How about Aleister Crowley? What do you think of Pancho and Pete being removed from Tennis? GuzzyG (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Göring is listed under military leaders. As for judges, we have John Marshall. pbp 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I just remembered that we did briefly discuss adding William Blackstone. I'd say no to Zamenhof – I don't think Esperanto's that important. Syed Ahmad Khan seems to have a good case – I haven't thought much about 19th-century South Asian history although I've considered nominating Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani under the journalist category. Bennelong seems distinctly non-vital – it seems to me a much closer comparison could be made to Squanto who is way less vital than, say, Pocahontas, let alone Sitting Bull. Never considered Crowley but I think I'd still take Blavatsky over him, since her impact has been more global. I agree with removing Pancho but rather doubt that Sampras should be the next player to bump off, he seems a better choice than Borg at least. Also, I just realized we do in fact list Sappho – for some reason I thought we hadn't. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Either Blackstone or his book is a must, either way it/he was highly influential. I missed the banner on Sappho too, haha! Göring does not have a VA banner on his talk so i assumed he was not here. I'd support adding Himmler actually. Jamal is a good choice. Pocahontas would be a good pick if American history wasn't over represented. I'll nominate Pancho later, how many people do you think would fit tennis good? I'd say 10. But we are under the limit so we probably should wait until we hit the limit. These could be good Francis Galton, Thomas Bayes, Jean-François Champollion, Aldus Manutius, Heinrich Schliemann, William Morris, Wernher von Braun, Gottlieb Daimler, Richard Stallman or Valentina Tereshkova to represent women in space. GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree ten tennis players would be all right. I've tagged Göring now. No idea what to make of Galton. No to Bayes. We list Egyptian hieroglyphs and Rosetta Stone and I think that makes Champollion redundant. Manutius is interesting, Schliemann is vital – what other archaeologists are we missing? Morris – I knew I was missing someone when I was naming decorative artists. Von Braun is OK though Sergei Korolev deserves just as much consideration and I have to wonder if Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky aren't better choices – you could argue that von Braun and Korolev are subsumed to some extent by the articles on their respective space programs. Yes to Daimler, Stallman's too recent and in my last sentence I named two people more important to the Soviet space program than Tereshkova. Cobblet (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer Tsiolkovsky. I am not that knowledgeable on archaeologists but i know the big names are V. Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Louis Leakey, Richard Owen, Othniel Charles Marsh, Edward Drinker Cope then there's the most famous one Howard Carter but he's a one hit wonder. I also noticed Robert Koch is missing, i think he's perfect for this list. There's also some known last names that might make it, that have not been discussed, Louis Braille and Rudolf Diesel, you won't like these next ones but i would think if we got rid of some modern sports people these would not hurt Milo of Croton and Pierre de Coubertin. What do you think of Gizza's suggestion of possibly adding two or one more hip-hop? wait a couple of years? Make Tupac less lonely, ha! I am thinking of nominating Itzhak Perlman and Steve Martin for removal, what do you think? There's also Julian Huxley GuzzyG (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I mentioned Koch in the discussion on the Chandrasekhar-Raman swap and I agree we really need to look at biologists like him and Huxley. Braille is a better choice than Diesel. Leakey seems the best among the choices you gave; I think Georges Cuvier and Flinders Petrie also have a shot. Can't take Milo when we don't have Theseus, Hipparchus or Polybius. (When you warned me I thought you were going to say Gaius Appuleius Diocles.) De Coubertin is interesting but would lose to Henry Dunant. I'm all for adding more hip hop artists but the only one I listen to is Nujabes so don't ask me who to pick. I agree Perlman and Martin can go. Just realized Hugo Grotius is listed so we have a second jurist. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Koch's a must, in my opinion, we really do need to look at biologists. Both are good but out of those two Cuvier seems to be the better shot. Haha, i knew you would think that, there's not much evidence for him but if those times had as much documentation us now he most likely would be a shoe-in, same with a gladiator, just no documentation so it's impossible to judge their impact. Forgot about the Red Cross, i'd say for hip-hop based on significantly changing the industry i would go with Run–D.M.C. and Eminem but you could say the latter is too recent so i am not sure. Yeah, Hugo is really vital, not surprised, ha. Found some more potentially vital people like Igor Sikorsky, Cornelis Drebbel, Mel Blanc, Eadweard Muybridge and Nicéphore Niépce. Also before we add more hip-hop shouldn't we have a punk representative like Sex Pistols? it's been around longer.GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Before adding punk rockers (the Ramones have been suggested before) I'd like to see The Velvet Underground added back since they were basically the creators of alternative rock. Of the other people you mentioned I think Sikorsky's the only one who has a shot. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that (Velvet), especially if we list Nirvana. Really i would have thought for sure Muybridge and Blanc left a pretty big impact. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither of them stand out strongly when compared to their peers who also aren't on the list, e.g. Étienne-Jules Marey and Auguste and Louis Lumière for Muybridge and all the other people associated with Warner Bros. Cartoons for Blanc. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unfortunately Bennelong isn't vital. It would be good to represent Aboriginal Australian culture a bit better on the list but I don't think adding people is the answer. There are other aspects that are more well-known within Australia and around the world. At the moment, Aboriginal Australians itself, Aboriginal Australian mythology and boomerang are listed. Dreamtime for all purposes is just a synonym for Aboriginal Australian mythology. The only article I can think of with some chance is didgeridoo.
Madhubala and Nargis are both great choices. Along with Meena Kumari, they represent the Golden Age of Indian cinema in the 50s and 60s. Alternatively, if we want to have to have two from different eras, we could pick someone like Hema Malini, Mumtaz or Madhuri Dixit but I lean towards two of the first three.
Regarding hip-hop, Eminem used to be on the list but was removed two years ago here. Coincidentally, the most people that have been listed on VA is 2260. See here. That was when the entire list was very much over the limit because anyone could anything they wanted to the list without discussion. It is interesting to note how the list has progressed. Gizza (t)(c) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not that knowledgeable on Indian Cinema but if you want to pick 1-2 representatives i will trust your judgment and support, as one of the biggest film industries it does need at-least 1-2 actresses. True no Indigenous Australian has really reached worldwide prominence, David Unaipon is probably the closest, it's a shame, the topics you mentioned are good representations though. I actually think Eminem should be on here aswell as Run–D.M.C. for a group, but Eminem is probably too recent. Other then way too many recent comedians/actors/authors/american athletes i do not think that list was that bad, it had a good variety. Thanks for linking me that diff, appreciate it, very interesting to compare it to today. GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Tweaking the science quotas[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

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