Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

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

Introduction[edit]

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

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed anytime as PASSED if at least five !votes have been cast in support, and at least two-thirds of the total !votes are in favor of the proposal; or they may be closed as FAILED if at least five !votes have been cast in opposition and the proposal has failed to earn more than one-third support.

After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally.

After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable list.

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

  • 15 days ago: 00:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 00:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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


People[edit]

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

Entertainers[edit]

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

Visual artists[edit]

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

About Michelangelo[edit]

I think that he should be moved to the sculptors section, since though he was a painter as well, he said that he was more interested in sculpture than painting.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. This seems to have been overlooked but in my mind makes sense. GuzzyG (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Fan Kuan[edit]

Now that he was considered to be one of the 100 most influential persons in 1000-1999 on the world by Life in 2000, and he was a Han Chinese, Life is an American magazine, and this list made by Life has been considered too Western-centric, it is absurd that the expanded VA list, which should be less Western-centric than it lacks this Chinese painter.

Support
  1. As nom. Many Chinese painters are influenced by him, and Chinese art is listed in the expanded list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would add other Chinese artists like Zhao Mengfu or even Emperor Huizong of Song first. Gizza (t)(c) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Writers[edit]

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

Add Ian Fleming[edit]

We currently list 42 UK and Ireland Modern writers. The Times list Fleming as 14 among post-war writers. His James Bond and Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang works make him vital.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Agree. If needed, we could swap for V. S. Naipaul or John Millington Synge who have had less impact. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. James Bond (literary character) is already listed. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. As Bond is already in Johnbod (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Difficult question, but I am not convinced that the James Bond novels are vital (globally, the film adaptations are far more widely known) and thus on that point I don't think that Fleming warrants listing here. Moreover, I hardly think that the Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang children's novel would convey 'vital' status upon an author! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. If you take Bond out of the equation Fleming wouldn't get within a country mile of the list, and as others have pointed out James Bond is a cinematic creation as much as a literary one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. @TonyTheTiger:, please add your support vote first, since you are the nominator.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Add William Golding[edit]

We currently list 42 UK and Ireland Modern writers. The Times listed Golding as #3 among post-war writers in 2008. Has won the Nobel Prize in Literature and is listed on Commons among the Wikimedia's list of 10,000 essential articles for all wikipedias.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support I think Golding is a better choice than Fleming as the character James Bond is already separately listed. I think we should have no more than 40 British and Irish writers but there are others not as important. Gizza (t)(c) 05:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Golding should be there for "Lord of the Flies, Pincher Martin, and The Spire.Joe Fogey (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Not many novelists as significant as Golding regardless of country or time. Lord of the Flies was a standard UK school text for many years. I was taught it, and then I taught it in my turn. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I had to study Lord of the Flies at school. Terrible book. I was an avid reader until I studied my English GCE. It took me almost a decade before I picked up a book again to read for pleasure. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Edgar Wallace[edit]

Though few of his works are still in print in the UK, he should still be added to the list because The Economist considered him "one of the most prolific thriller writers of [the 20th] century" and he was the creator of King Kong.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove J. K. Rowling Add Harry Potter to arts[edit]

If we have decided not to have Ian Fleming, Bram Stoker or any other of the one hit cultural wonders and instead list their work then what makes Rowling special? Is it Harry Potter the franchise that is vital or are Rowling's contributions to literature which deserve to be represented? Not to mind the recentism of it all. Just like we have Pokémon and not its creator, which is similar to Harry Potter phenomenon. GuzzyG (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As the nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Harry Potter is probably just as famous for the films as for the original novels. Rowling has little or no notability outside of her role as Harry Potter author so this is an instance where the creation is probably more 'vital' than the creator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. The addition. Harry Potter is in fact a highly influential text on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support the switch. Rowling is thus far a one trick pony. Similar to the Fleming/Bond scenario. Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since J. K. Rowling is currently the most influential woman in Britain.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
According to leading magazine editors in the UK, yes (cf. [1]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - per RekishiEJ. Jusdafax 06:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Terry Pratchett[edit]

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

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

Add Alice Munro[edit]

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

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

Add Alexandre Dumas, fils[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. He was as vital as his father Alexandre Dumas.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Journalists[edit]

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

PASSED:

Added, 5-1 pbp 20:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Svetlana Alexievich[edit]

The fact that this journalist is the first one to receive Nobel Prize in literature means that she is crucial at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Svetlana Alexievich or Anna Politkovskaya are maybe more important inclusions than Anna Wintour. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree with Thi, one of the most influential journalists of modern times, only journalist to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. Prevan (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per Prevan. I'm open to a swap with Wintour. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. By that inclusion criteria, we'd be including a lot more. Journalists, by and large, simply aren't vital. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

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

Businesspeople[edit]

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


Explorers[edit]

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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

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


About Mary Wollstonecraft[edit]

Move from Writers, which contains creative writers, to Social scientists, economists and political writers, as her importance was her political and social philosophy, particularly A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, rather than her two novels, which in themselves are regarded as poor, but interesting for the political thoughts they contain. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - concur with nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support indeed Wollstonecraft is more of a philosopher and political theorist than anything else. Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Per above. GuzzyG (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Frantz Fanon[edit]

One of the most significant anti-colonial and left-wing thinkers of the 20th century. I was really surprised to not see him already listed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support.
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. He influenced post-colonial studies a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Clearly influential in multiple disciplines and on multiple continents. GuzzyG (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose

Religious figures[edit]

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

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

REMOVED:

Fifteen days have passed, with ten votes in support of removal, two votes in favour of retention. This is a clear case of consensus in favour of removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Jimmy Carter[edit]

While recognising that the United States has been the pre-eminent global power in the latter part of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st, I do wonder if twenty Vital Articles is a little excessive here, particularly when only eight Vital Article spaces are given to South America (eleven if one counts the independent Brazil list). I would argue that this selection requires a trim, and a good place to start would be with Jimmy Carter. Interesting guy, but he was a one-term President, and his impact on the world at large cannot really be compared with, say, Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital list once included every post WWII US president. Carter isn't vital and more presidents should be cut. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support agree with above. Especially now that Trump was put into the list, non-vital presidents need to be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Essentially swapping Carter for Trump; the latter being on here on account of his business career and his status as the current one. His post-presidency is sorta important but his presidency doesn't compare with most of the other political leaders on this list. Particularly good removal considering that we have FIVE other people from the period between 1945 and 1980 (Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon). pbp 03:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jimmy was always planned to be removed for whoever won the 2016 election or John Quincy Adams. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support Fairly inconsequential one-term president, much like Bush 1 and Ford, who aren't on the list. Orser67 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that Jimmy Carter caused the outbreak of Soviet-Afghan war and was also the architect of the CIA’s covert support to Islamic terrorism (cf. [2]), which is a threat to the world today means that he is vital at this level. By the way the list covers US presidents inadequately, rather than adequately since the list does not include James Monroe, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton at all, and they are all vital since Monroe was one of the architects of the Monroe Doctrine, which dominates the U.S. policy toward Latin America until now, George H. W. Bush initiated Operation Desert Storm, and Bill Clinton left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. President since World War II.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per RekishiEJ. Jusdafax 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Rekishi, who then do you propose to remove? Or do you want an increase in the people quota? If that's the case, which category do you want to be cut? FWIW, we don't have the most powerful ruler at every single time point in earlier periods of history and I think every single 20th century (which is what you seem to want) is a waste of space. Gizza (t)(c) 11:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Gizza on this. It would be impractical to regard virtually every U.S. President of the last forty years as a Vital Article. I even have misgivings about the inclusion of Obama (who did not do anything particularly influential on the world stage) and Trump (for the same reasons). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove or Add Donald Trump[edit]

Donald Trump is the current President of the United States and also a very wealthy businessman. But is this enough to consider his a "Vital Article"? As specified above, we already have too many U.S. Presidents listed here and the section needs a trim. While Trump's election was something of a surprise to many and his policies have shifted the U.S. in a more protectionist direction than we have seen for several decades, I really do not think he has yet established himself as a figure of such global importance and influence as the likes of John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Maybe in time he will rise to that level, but we should not pre-emptively award him 'vital article' status. He has only been in office for a few months and we should avoid recentism. I also think it noteworthy that Trump was actually added to this list in a manner that raises concerns; the archive suggests that there was no clear consensus for his inclusion in this list to start with (three comments in support; three in opposition) but that the nominator went ahead and added him regardless, which probably should not have happened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: As per the discussion below, Trump has been removed as a Vital Article because there was never consensus achieved to add him in the first place. The nature of this discussion has thus changed from should we remove him to should we add him to the Vital Article list. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Update #2: I un-removed it for reasons explained below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump SHOULD NOT be a VA
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. He hasn't done anything vital as a president yet. He is no where near enough vital as a celebrity and his business career was really weak. If we had to add another modern American businessman, I'd add Elon Musk who has actually built companies from scratch. If we had to add another celebrity who had a short political career, I'd re-add Arnold Schwarzenegger who is also the most influential figure in bodybuilding of all-time. Gizza (t)(c) 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per the below discussion. Recentist, and news cycle--top stories of any given year, for that matter--is not any indication of vitality. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Midnightblueowl. There is a need to wait to see how large his impact turns out to be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Not yet. Way too early. I don't like adding current leaders to the list. You really need more of ahistorical perspective before knowing which biographies will be vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump SHOULD be a VA
  1. Support - Meets my definition of vital. Jusdafax 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Regretful support: a) We should probably have the current President of the U.S., and b) Donald Trump had a notorious business and entertainment career prior to becoming President. This should be considered an assessment of his vitality, not of the rightness of his actions. pbp 23:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. The most powerful man on the planet should be included on the list. There may be a case for removing him at later point but's keep him for now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. If we try to be objective about this, he's reliably ranked as among the top two most powerful human beings on this planet.[3] When that changes, then perhaps removal as a "vital" article would be worth considering. Even people adamantly opposed to him rank him at or near the top, e.g. the head of CNN says, "It’s just unfortunate that the most powerful person in the world is trying to delegitimize journalism and an organization that plays such a vital role in our democracy." I would only add that, for living people who are not retired, potential impact is a special factor to consider here, whereas that is not a factor for dead people. One need not have a crystal ball to understand that the harm or good that can be done by the person in question is immense (that's what "power" means). It will very likely remain immense for years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Since he is currently regarded as the second most powerful man on earth by Forbes, and his populism and he became the president of the United States of America without any political or military experience caused a lot of discussion on many news media, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. In general, I dislike including current leaders, as you usually can't get a sense of how important a leader's impact will be until you gain some historical perspective. However, Trump may be an extraordinary case given how incredible his rise to power was. Additionally, he may have been notable enough to include in the list on his own as a businessman before ever even becoming president. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Support My encyclopedia from 70s has Gerald Ford. I don't prefer recentism, but all general encyclopedias have some topics about important current events. The situation changes if there is less US presidents on the list. --Thi (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Bringing far right esque populism to the United States successfully post WW II is almost certainly vital in world politics and as such vital to an encyclopedia and certainly on a list of 2000 people. No JFK, certainly no Trump. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So when was Trump added to the list? If he was vital before being elected POTUS, I don't see how it would be logical to remove him after his taking office without us looking like partisans or simpletons in the press. I'll note specifically that I DO NOT think 'current POTUS' is a good excuse to make any politician article vital. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    Trump was added very recently after he was elected (archive). More to the point, the proposal was 3-3 in supports and opposes but he was still added against our guidelines at the top. Gizza (t)(c) 08:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The rules are sometimes bent or ignored, but if we wish to follow them here, one could say Trump should be removed right now, as he was added without consensus/without enough votes a little while ago (after being removed some time back through consensus). It's just that no one challenged it at the time.  Carlwev  10:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Donald was added by User:Philroc on on January 9; I didn't close the discussion until January 31. pbp 14:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that there was no consensus for Trump's addition, I am removing his inclusion as a Vital Article for now. The debate can of course continue and it may turn out that there is sufficient support for his inclusion, but we should at least revert things so that he isn't listed without sufficient support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There was no consensus as of the addition on January 9, but there was as of January 31 (at least according to the closer who evaluated the consensus and said "May be re-opened if somebody wants to remove him"). Therefore, the removal today was out of process, and a revert of that removal would be apt until there is consensus to remove. I will revert the removal for that reason and because the editor who removed it (User:Midnightblueowl) is not uninvolved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not strictly true, Anythingyouwant. There never was any consensus to add Trump as a Vital Article, even on 31 January. There were three votes in support and three in opposition. No consensus. An editor went ahead and added Trump as a Vital Article anyway, but that was a totally illegitimate move on their behalf; it's just that nobody bothered to stop them at that time. For that reason I regard my removal of Trump as a perfectly legitimate act of reverting a non-legitimate edit. I would appreciate it if Anythingyouwant or another editor who is not so involved as I would go ahead and remove Trump from the list of vital articles. On a procedural level, he should never have been added there in the first place. I don't think that there is any dispute about that here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that addition on January 9 was mistaken, but inclusion after the close on January 31 was okay (or at least was not so mistaken). Polls and voting at Wikipedia are closed based upon strength of reasoning rather than numbers of votes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, that's not how it works here at the VA selection (see the Introduction section above); here it is based on the number of votes. I really think you should undo your recent revert, Anythingyouwant. Of course, the debate as to whether Trump should be a VA will continue, and a consensus may emerge in favour of its addition, but at least it will be done in a procedurally correct manner. At present, Trump's inclusion as a VA is fundamentally illegitimate and requires correction (asap?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if User talk:Purplebackpack89 wants to say here that the January 31 survey should have been closed as "FAIL" then I would be glad to revert myself at the Trump talk page. But I do not believe that it was closed as FAIL. Moreover, looking at the instructions atop this talk page, it says that strict numerical voting "may" override Wikipedia's normal voting rules.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • My close of the discussion of January 31 seems to be called into question. Let me explain why I closed it the way I did. I concluded that if there was objection to the addition of Trump, either a) he would have been (BOLDly?) removed from the VA list, b) additional discussion would have occurred in the "2016 United States presidential election" thread, or c) a new thread would've been started to remove him. None of those things happened in a period of over three weeks. pbp 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I do not think that those issues override the fact that there was never any consensus to add the Trump article as a VA in the first place. It is likely that nobody removed Trump from the VA list presumably because nobody had noticed that he had been added; not many editors actually follow what is going on here. From a procedural perspective, the Trump article has to be delisted because it was never legitimately listed, as has been pointed out not just by myself but also Carlwev and Gizza (judging by their comments above). For this reason I respectfully request that Trump be de-listed at the present time. The debate as to whether the Trump article should be a VA or not will of course continue and it is quite possible that a clear majority will support its inclusion as a VA - and that will be a legitimate decision which I and hopefully everyone else will happily abide by. Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance that we do things by the book, otherwise we just encourage people to run around ignoring the rules and regulations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @Midnightblueowl: Most of the time, BOLD adds are reverted within a few hours, so it was somewhat surprising that Donald wasn't removed for a period of three weeks. pbp 21:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that this list is mainly based on pioneers and power and not popular status or being well known (ala James Dean being removed even though he is probably one of the most well known actors), which is also why we do not have any recent actors or pop singers, (except Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Anthony Hopkins, U2 and Cher which all should go imo). Recentism to me describes pop culture figures, which politics must certainly not fall under. Donald Trump is increasingly cited with bringing a whole new style of far right politics to the arguably only super power and with world trade deals at stake and with immigration bans trying to be forced in it is inarguable that he does not have worldwide impact. If an encyclopedia was made today it is not at all likely that it would not have Trump and i do not see harm in having him listed and if he turns out to be uneventful he can always be removed again, unfortunately due to the unique manner of his win it is clear that he will be studied heavily for bringing populism to the only superpower in the 21st century. I do not think even Obama reached such international prominence so quickly and was mainly a domestic president. GuzzyG (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Add James Monroe[edit]

He was the last president who was a Founding Father of the United States and the last president from the Virginian dynasty and the Republican Generation. What's more, in 1823, he announced the United States' opposition to any European intervention in the recently independent countries of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine, which became a landmark in American foreign policy.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. I'm not convinced that the fact that Monroe was the last 'Founding Father' President accords him 'Vital' status. Is there any real significance to being the last of a lineage? The Monroe Doctrine has certainly been an important facet in the history of the Americas but its significance extends well beyond Monroe himself; I would support any call for the Monroe Doctrine itself to become a 'Vital Article' but I do not think that Monroe himself fits the bill. (I would perhaps reconsider if the proposal was to add Monroe while removing another President, like Obama or LBJ). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Monroe was also notable for participating in the Virginia Convention that ratified the Constitution, and for presiding over a huge economic expansion, but he does not seem as vital as other Virginians of that era like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I feel like we're re-fighting old battles at this point. Lemme say this: if we're going to add another American political leader, Monroe wouldn't be my first add. He didn't make the Atlantic Monthly top 100. He's . I'd add JQA before I'd add Monroe. I'd add John C. Calhoun before I'd add Monroe. I'd probably put Bill Clinton back on before I'd add Monroe. There are a number of women and pre-Independence leaders I'd also consider. pbp 22:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Add John Quincy Adams[edit]

He was regarded one of the best diplomats and secretaries of the State in US history, and was the man who chiefly drafted the Monroe Doctrine, which was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Secretary of State, president, anti-slavery advocate. pbp 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine itself would be a good option for a 'Vital Article', however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. The Monroe Doctrine only became noteworthy in the international arena several decades afterwards. At the time of Quincy Adams, it was just empty bravado, the US had no means to actually enforce it or scare away the European powers. The US was not back then the world power it would eventually become. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. His father happened to live in a much more consequential generation, and so was much more consequential than the son. Fate is fickle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

FWIW, @Midnightblueowl: the 12 and 20 number you cite is for post-1815 only. USA has six pre-1815, Russia has some pre-1815 as well. pbp 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but it is in the post-1815 era section where I believe that the U.S. has received a disproportionate amount of space in the 'Vital Articles' section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cambalachero: Seems like your oppose could also be used as justification to vote against Monroe (above) in addition to voting against JQA. pbp 02:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. The Monroe Doctrine outlived Adams and did become influential for international relations; but as said, that happened later, with other people in charge of the US. The Monroe Doctrine specifically in the times of Adams was not much noteworthy beyond the US. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • This is interesting. You voted against Adams, I voted for him, and neither of us voted either way Monroe. I guess I consider Adams to be more influential than Monroe. In part, this is because I consider the Monroe Doctrine to be more Adams' hand than Monroe's (and, other than the Doctrine, I don't see a lot to hang Monroe's notability on). The rest of it is Adams' role in the antislavery movement. pbp 02:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Add George H. W. Bush[edit]

The fact that America intervened in the Gulf War during his presidency, and coalition victory in that war enhanced American prestige abroad means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. George H. W. Bush might have involved his country in a war but then again, so have a great many U.S. Presidents, and Bush was only a one-term President, governing his country for a mere four years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. An inconsequential president. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Not one of the most important post-1900 presidents. pbp 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. --Thi (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Bill Clinton[edit]

The fact that he presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. If we have George W. Bush, we should probably have Bill too. pbp 19:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. Bill Clinton is perhaps an option for inclusion, but I would only support him if another article was proposed for removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Trivial reason. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Betty Logan (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. --Thi (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. And George W. should be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • RekishiEJ, are you trying to nominate all US presidents or what? Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to nominate all US presidents, since US didn't become a world power until the end of WWI, and not all US presidents are vital in America and the world. Besides, there are some non-Americans more vital (e.g. Fan Kuan) than some American presidents currently not included in the expanded VA list (e.g. William Henry Harrison) to be added, and the list can contain at most 10,000 articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Bill Clinton as 'vital' as George W. Bush? Both served two-term limits but Bush's War on Terror, with its concomitant invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, has surely been substantially more influential on the global stage than anything attempted by Clinton (or Obama, for that matter). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    But, on the other hand, Bill Clinton tends to be ranked substantially higher in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Bush hasn't been ranked in the top 75% in rankings conducted since he left office; while Clinton has always been ranked in the top 60%. Clinton was more influential on the home front than Bush, and Clinton has had a more significant post-presidency than Bush. Bush being on the list is, if anything, a testament to his ineptitude. IMO, we should either have both Clinton AND Bush, or neither of them. As for Obama, he's still the first African-American President (and, I might add, the only African-American among vital American political leaders), and the first to try and enact a universal health care mandate. pbp 14:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Tony Blair[edit]

He made the Labour Party win several general elections during his leadership of the party and was partly responsible for the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq War, meaning that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose: We already have seven UK political figures/leaders in this section, so we need to be cautious about adding more. While Blair is no doubt the most influential British leader post-Thatcher, he was probably not as influential in the grand scheme of things as Winston Churchill or Benjamin Disraeli. Moreover, if we add him, then we will probably be pushed toward adding similar-level British leaders like Harold Wilson and then the section will simply get too long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose He is—to my knowledge—the only Labour PM to successfully win a second consecutive term (and then won a third). The problem here though is that Britain was an empire and prime ministers of the past have effected global change so on a comparative basis all modern British politicians are large inconsequential compared to their predecessors. Thatcher is the exception I think, given her role in bringing around the end of the cold war. Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose His tenure as PM simply isn't notable enough to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Evo Morales to "South America"[edit]

Evo Morales has been the President of Bolivia since 2006 and shows no sign of disappearing any time soon. After Hugo Chávez he has probably been the most important leftist leader in Latin America in recent years, and he was a key figure in the establishment of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas. His significance has been boosted for being widely regarded as the first 'indigenous' president in a country where the majority of the population are indigenous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Cambalachero (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Very influential in Latin America. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't like adding current leaders unless they are a particularly special case. This person is not. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Changed my mind, Rreagan is right, we should avoid current leaders. Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Sam Nujoma to "Southern and Central Africa"[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

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

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

I would suggest Kenneth Kaunda, the founding president of Zambia, who played a key role in supporting the anti-apartheid struggle and as a mediator in southern African conflicts (such as in Rhodesia and Angola). He was probably the most influential southern African leader in international diplomacy during his 27 year tenure. Neljack (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Jomo Kenyatta to "Eastern Africa"[edit]

At present we have only six political figures in the "Eastern Africa" section of "Modern" vital article biographies, which is less than we have for many other regions of the globe. I was surprised that Jomo Kenyatta, the prominent Kenyan independence leader and first President, was not among them. He ruled as President from 1963 to 1978 and has come to be regarded as the "Father of Kenya". We have no other Kenyans in this section (and three Ethiopians!) so I would argue that Kenyatta is the best option for an addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Kenya deserves a leader on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 09:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support A very surprising omission. Neljack (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. pbp 01:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add François Duvalier[edit]

Notorious black-nationalist Caribbean autocrat. pbp 22:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 22:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. I was thinking of suggesting Duvalier myself. Good call, pbp. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support We need more political people from underrepresented regions (Especially when we have the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Cher or U2) GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Paul Kagame[edit]

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Kenneth Kaunda[edit]

Since he was the founding president of Zambia, and he was a key person in the anti-apartheid movement, he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support; he governed Zambia for about three decades and left a significant imprint both on the country and southern Africa more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Just how many U.S. leaders do we want, exactly?[edit]

With the recently-closed removal of Jimmy Carter, we now have 24 American leaders (6 from before ~1815, and 18 since 1815). The above comments suggest that some editors want significantly more than this, and others want significantly fewer. I personally want roughly the same number as now, but not the exact same people. Thoughts? pbp 19:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

10-15
15-20
  1. Keeping the six pre-1815 figures and trimming the eighteen post-1815 figures down to about eleven or twelve. Much more sensible option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. The United States only really became a global player in the 20th century and a superpower post-WW2. I think the number of pre-WW1 presidents overstates the significance of the US prior to the 20th century. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
20-30 (roughly the same number as we have now)
  1. pbp 19:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
30-40
More than 40
Discuss

I'm not sure that "Just how many U.S. leaders do we want" is perhaps quite the right question here, pbp. Most of the debate thus far has revolved purely around the number of post-1815 figures, not those before that date. I would propose that the question be reformulated to more specifically refer to these more recent individuals, which I think will allow the debate to have greater precision and avoid confusion. For instance, I think that the number of pre-1815 figures is just fine, while the number of post-1815 figures is disproportionately lengthy; for this reason I want to see a reduction in the number of VAs, but only from the post-1815 section. At present, the nature of the question and the way that the voting categories has been structured does not really allow for any expression of this nuance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I've added subsections to deal with your specific question, but I would still suggest you calculate about how many total articles pre- AND post-1815 you'd prefer. FWIW, for post-1815, we have about one leader for every 10-12 years, but this varies, with only one (Sitting Bull) between 1865-1898, but eight since 1945 and ten since 1933. If you start pre-1815 leaders with the start of the French and Indian War (by which time Franklin was a major figure at home and abroad), that comes to one every ten years. pbp 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I find it interesting that out of 18 listed presidents we have all of the top 15 presidents by aggregate rank at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Additionally we include Barack Obama (#17), Richard Nixon (#33) and George W. Bush (#35). I'd look at cutting those last three. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I could certainly get behind cutting Bush 43. I'd leave Obama because of the historicity as the first Black president. I also have a lot of trouble with JFK being on there because he was a more symbolic figure than one heavily influential in policy. pbp 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I would cut Obama; being the first black President does carry some significance, but in itself it is not enough to accord 'Vital' status. We do not, as a general rule, add the 'first woman' or 'first ethnic minority' leader of other countries so I do not think that we should give an exception to the U.S. I'd probably also support cutting Nixon, and possibly JFK. I agree with pbp that Kennedy's influence was more symbolic than actual, and he was President for little more than two years; indeed, he's probably better known for getting assassinated than anything else. I also have some reservations about John Marshall, James Polk, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Marshall was never President. Polk is often regarded as a 'successful' President but he was only in that position for four years. Eleanor Roosevelt appears to be in the list largely to ensure that at least one woman is represented. That's an admirable aim, but should good intentions be allowed to influence a more objective consideration of who is really 'vital'? I don't think so. It may be that she could be retained but moved to another section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I would also raise a note of caution about feeling that we have to stick closely to the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Those rankings tend to be based on how 'successful' or 'good at their job' they were. It does not measure influence, on either a national or international level. Someone like George W. Bush is not readily listed as one of the United States' greatest Presidents, but I would argue that he was considerably more influential than his father, Clinton, Obama, or (thus far) Trump through his spearheading of the War on Terror and the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that we should follow the historical rankings exactly. As far as I'm aware, that article has played no role in the development of the vital list, so I thought it was interesting that the vital list has apparently independently converged on a set of presidents that is pretty close to the ones with the highest historical rankings. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
When I look at a President who wasn't highly ranked but was influential, 'tis Nixon, not Bush I look to. Also, in regard to the "first ethnic minority" argument...most countries would never elect a leader of an ethnic minority, which is why we don't have very many. pbp 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

How many pre-1815 leaders do we want?[edit]

How many post-1815 leaders do we want?[edit]

Currently 18 following removal of Carter (and Trump not being added).

10 or fewer
11-15
  1. Support (although no more than 12). This would be a sensible number, one that reflects that the U.S. has been a major player on the world stage since at least the Second World War but does not give it a number of 'Vital Articles' out of all proportion with the world's other nations and regions. It would make the number of U.S. figures comparable to that of the other major superpower of the 20th century, Russia/USSR, which currently has 12 'Vital Articles' in the 'Modern' era section. It is perhaps also fair when compared to that of other major global players like India, China, and the United Kingdom, all of which have 7 'Vital Articles'. It would also be a fair number when compared with the number of Vital Articles for Latin America and the Caribbean (currently at 11 South American figures, and 8 Central American, Mexican, or Caribbean figures). Anything more than this and we end up pushing a blatantly U.S.-centric view of the world, which is already a serious enough problem here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Per my comment below. GuzzyG (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
16-20
  1. pbp 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
21-25
25-30
30 or more
Discussion

@Midnightblueowl:: If you'd cut six, which six? Also, what would your balance be between, say, 1815-1900 and since 1900? pbp 18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made reference to the six in the above sub-section (Obama, Nixon, JFK, Polk, Marshall, and Eleanor Roosevelt would be my votes, although those aren't hard-and-fast and I'd be happy to discuss this further). I do not necessarily think that we have to get a completely equal balance between the two time periods (I think that it would make more sense to refer to the period 1815–1945 and then 1945-present), because the U.S. has only reached its apogee of international influence in the post-WW2 period. However, I think that it would make sense to try and trim equally, removing both some 19th and 20th century figures from the list. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd say move Eleanor and Sitting Bull to Rebels, Revolutionaries and activists. Remove Nixon, Obama, Marshall and JFK. That should do the trick, now having that pass is a different story altogether and i hope that pop culture like film and music has a adequate look over too. GuzzyG (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Midnightblueowl:@GuzzyG: If you're concerned about an American bias of this list, it's worth noting that the bias toward people from the U.S. is more egregious in other areas (entertainers, writers, sportspeople) than it is in politicians. The preponderance of writers, entertainers and sportspeople on this list are IMO less influential than any of the American politicians currently on the chopping block. If you want to cull American figures, why not identify a dozen or so in those areas worthy of the axe? pbp 14:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would love to, Ursula K. Le Guin, Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins, Cher, U2, Aerosmith, Jim Brown and heaps of others are clearly not vital at this level i think (and i used to be hugely tolerant on here and want more diversity in occupations/fields covered) but people are generally more nostalgic towards pop culture figures then politicians and it's not worth it if it leads to nowhere, i just tried to test the water with nominating Fausto Coppi and i'll see from there. I do not think we should have more American politicians then Roman emperors considering Rome was around longer and more historically notable for an encyclopedia. America could go away in 200 years and 500 years after that only 8-13 American leaders will be known and it will probably only be presidents, fate is fickle. Films, music, books and other arts tend to live longer then governments so a natural bias will persist towards that, past sporting figures will be largely forgotten and new ones will come along so i think other then Association Football we should have no more of 5 sportsman per sport for the major ones (Cricket, Baseball, Tennis, Boxing, Basketball) and 1-3 for the others, American Football should have 2 max as only one country plays it. Now that we have basically hit 2000 it's time to chop it down to essential vital people. Especially if we are missing the inventor of photography or pioneers in fields like aeronautics etc. GuzzyG (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove Eduard Bernstein[edit]

Germany, like the United States, currently has a list of 'Modern'-era Vital Articles that is disproportionately large in consideration of its importance in the world. 11 Vital Articles for 'Modern' Germany is ludicrous when compared with the 6 accorded to France or the 7 accorded to the United Kingdom (which, via the British Empire, was a far more significant international player than Germany throughout the first half of the modern period). A number of individuals should be trimmed here, and perhaps the most obvious is Eduard Bernstein, a politician who had some influence as a theorist but who was never leader of his country. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that he founded social democracy, which has been the dominant ideology in Finland and Scandinavia means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In that case might it be better if he were moved to "Social scientists, economists and political writers", along with other leftist thinkers like Karl Marx? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I'd support a move to "Social scientists, economists and political writers", he does not beling in politicians and thinkers are more important then politicians in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove John F. Kennedy[edit]

In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove JFK. He was President for only a little under three years and in terms of his international influence he pales in comparison with other 'Vital Article'-listed Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. He's just not in the same league. I appreciate that he has something of an iconic status, but much of that stems from his assassination and should not automatically accord 'vital' status to him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Didn't really DO anything. pbp 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I am forced to agree. He is iconic in many ways but his presidency is not one of the more important ones in U.S. history. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. The Cuban Missile Crisis is listed on its own too. Gizza (t)(c) 08:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support One term presidents and ones which are too recent (Barack) and continuation presidencies should be going too if Kennedy goes. GuzzyG (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since he continues to rank highly in historians' polls of U.S. presidents and with the general public, he is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Read Cuban Missle Crisis and tell me he's not vital. Jusdafax 06:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Eleanor Roosevelt[edit]

In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove Eleanor Roosevelt. She was First Lady but was never President. Certainly an interesting and noteworthy person, but a 'vital article' who ranks alongside Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan? Clearly not. One argument will be that it is important to have a woman in a list that is otherwise entirely male. I can certainly appreciate that view but I am not sure that our own political desires and impulses should dictate a decision that is supposed to be based on determining those who were truly the most influential on a national and international scale. Certainly, we have not added female political leaders to other regional sections purely as a counterpart to the large number of men, so why should the U.S. section be a special case? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm sure there is a desire to have more females listed, but the wife of a president just isn't important enough to be listed. Yes I know she did other things in her life besides just being the first lady, but they just aren't important enough things to make her a vital article. (Almost) all 44 U.S. presidents are more vital than she is, and we don't list anywhere near all of them. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Long comment below. pbp 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per Pbp. Probably the most significant female politician in American history. Prevan (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Pbp here. Gizza (t)(c) 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Since she was called the "First Lady of the Word" by Harry S. Truman, pressed the United States to join and support the United Nations and became its first delegate, and Gallup's List of People that Americans Most Widely Admired in the 20th Century includes her, she is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Actually, we have added female leaders from other countries as a counterpart to lots of men. Eleanor Roosevelt clearly was one of the more significant female political forces in American history. She was the most well-known and admired woman in America for the last three decades of her life. She was the person most responsible for the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She presaged people like Hillary Clinton being active in the public sphere. I also think the argument is strong that Eleanor is one of the 20 most important political forces in American history regardless of sex. pbp 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"we have added female leaders from other countries as a counterpart to lots of men" - which articles are you referring to? Most of the female leaders that I can see listed as Vital Articles—the Empress Dowager Cixi, Elizabeth II, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi, Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—really are giants in the political environments of their nations and regions. Their womanhood is incidental to their inclusion. I really do not think that the same can be said for Eleanor Roosevelt, who is a peripheral figure when listed alongside Lincoln, Reagan and co. She may well have been "one of the more significant female political forces in American history", but that does not mean that she was one of the more significant political forces in American history, period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Setting aside the fact that Reagan does not belong in the same sentence as Lincoln...
Eleanor Roosevelt is, regardless of gender, one of the 20-25 most important political figures in American history. Through her role with the UN, she had a greater impact on world affairs than most presidents did. IMO, the only way you can justify her removal is if both a) you don't care about having any American women on the list, and b) you don't feel like you need all 20 of the 20 most significant figures. pbp 00:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe she is "one of the 20-25 most important political figures in American history", but here we really need to be picking the 11 or 12 most important figures in modern American political history, and I do not think that she ranks that highly. Moreover, you suggest that I "don't care about having any American women on the list", which I feel is a bit of a mischaracterisation of what I have said. I think that it would be great to have lots of American women in that list, because that would mean that we live in a world with greater equality of the genders. The reality is that we don't. For socio-cultural reasons, men (and almost exclusively rich white men) have hogged the top jobs in the U.S. for centuries. That means that only men have really had the opportunity to make that significant impact in the political sphere that would accord them space as a 'Vital Article'. Wikipedia is here to reflect this (unfortunate) reality, and my concern is that according a woman 'Vital Article' status simply because we wish to see more women listed in this category would be bordering on WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to be President to be influential in American politics. You've bandied about the removal of John Marshall several times and Henry Clay at least once. There were periods of time when those men were more significant than the people who were President at the time. pbp 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment She's notable for her UN work which means she should be moved to the activists section, she never held elected office so how is she notable as a politician, same case with Sitting Bull who should be moved to Rebels, revolutionaries and activists, as he was never a politician and was a resistance leader, his article does not even call him a politician. GuzzyG (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove Barack Obama[edit]

In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove Obama. He was not a particularly significant figure on the global stage, nor did he bring about any substantial domestic reform (however much he may have tried to do so). He was certainly no more notable than fellow two-term Democrat Bill Clinton, whose nomination for inclusion has not gained much support; if we don't include Clinton, then we probably should not include Obama either. There will likely be those who argue that his status as the first black President means that he is 'Vital' but personally I find that argument a bit weak. Perhaps the comparison is a little shaky, but Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic President in a country with a long history of anti-Catholic sentiment but that hasn't saved him from looming removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Not only recent but there is also no immediate historical indicator of his notability (unlike GWB) other them him being the first black president. Now i have to ask myself is being the first of your race, gender, sexuality and religion enough to make you vital enough in an encyclopedia of 2000 people 500 years from now, i just cannot come to think it can. We should wait and see where history takes us so we can better judge his legacy. GuzzyG (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree with the recentism argument against including this article as his presidency was not particularly notable. He continued a lot of the policies of his predecessors. I also disagree with the argument that he should be included because he is black, just like I dont' like the argument that we should include Eleanor Roosevelt because she is a woman. This isn't an affirmative action list. People on this list should be seen as vital not because of the color of their skin or their genitals, but because of what they actually did. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Pure recentism. Plantdrew (talk)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since he is the first African-American to become the president of US, and he was partially responsible for the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Using "recentism" as an excuse to not term this article vital is strained, in my view. Jusdafax 06:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Richard Nixon[edit]

In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove Nixon. He only served five years rather than two full terms, and is primarily remembered for his impeachment following the Watergate Scandal rather than for anything that he actually achieved as President, either on the domestic or international stage. He just is not one of the towering figures of modern American political history like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. He's a step or two below them, and that means that his article does not need to be listed as 'Vital'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree that he isn't on the same level politically as the other presidents listed. About the only thing he is remembered for is resigning from office over Watergate. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Watergate, the normalization of the PRC-US relations and the establishment of EPA and OSHA mean that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • @Midnightblueowl: Whether or not an American president served two terms is not particularly relevant. Grover Cleveland and James Monroe served two terms each. Two uneventful terms each. By contrast, Abraham Lincoln died only a month into his second term, and James K. Polk got more done in one term than many Presidents did in two. FDR would make this list on the merits of his first Hundred Days alone. Or look at it internationally: Pope Benedict XVI served eight years (of ignominy) in the papacy, and he will probably never be added to this list. And in defense of Nixon: I think he had both more important "wrongs" AND more important "rights" than somebody like George W. Bush did. Watergate and Vietnam combined to create a climate of cynicism that has defined American politics to this day. But, on the positive side, Nixon opened China and created the EPA. I'm not wholly prepared to vote "oppose" yet, but I'm leaning that way. I might even go so far as to say I'd put him at the same level of influence as Reagan. pbp 13:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Point taken about the number of terms that a President has held. I would disagree on the argument that he was as influential as Reagan, at least on the international scene, but happy to hear what others think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove George W. Bush[edit]

Donald Trump and Bill Clinton aren't on the list right now and Barack Obama and Richard Nixon are being considered for removal. It seems disingenuous that we've removed or are considering removal of those four men while giving W a free pass. He's consistently below Clinton, Obama and Nixon in presidential rankings, and also has the recency problem all but Nixon do. pbp 17:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support George W. Bush is certainly less notable than Bill Clinton and probably even Trump at this point in his Presidency. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Pure recentism. Plantdrew (talk)
  4. Weak support - His place a the forefront of the War on Terror is significant, but realistically I do not think that he is quite at the FDR or Lincoln level. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think ranking as a bad president is relevant. Vital does not equal great or competent. GWB's actions in the War on Terror make him the most influential president in the last 25 years. Everything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and others parts of the Middle East, the people that have died on both sides, ISIL, the European migrant crisis etc. can be traced back to his invasions soon after 9/11. Even Brexit and Trump. Gizza (t)(c) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Since he initiated the "War on Terror", greatly increasing the deficit of the US federal government, and he and Tony Blair initiated the Iraq War, which is responsible for the spread of Daesh, he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose If anyone is interested in my reasoning, in can be found in the archives/history. I discussed this the last time it was proposed, and my views have not changed. For reasons of which others may or may not be aware, I will make no further comment about this, nor will I respond to ANY questions, so please don't ask. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'm sitting on the fence at the moment. I really believe that we need to cut the number of modern U.S. Presidents down, but Bush did launch the War on Terror with its invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These actions have had a considerable influence on the international scene. For this reason I do believe that he was more significant than his father, Clinton, Obama, or (thus far) Trump. But does this make him 'Vital' in the same league as Reagan, Lincoln, and FDR? I'm not sure. I'll think it over for a few days, and look forward to seeing what other editors have to say on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Joe's comment from when he last discussed this was,
    Bias, liberal or conservative, doesn't belong in Wikipedia and that's what appears to be at play here.
    Any claim of bias against me as nominator can easily be refuted by my above support of the removal of Jimmy Carter and of JFK. pbp 22:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

After 30 days, no consensus for add and removal fails pbp 21:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Add George S. Patton, Remove Georgy Zhukov[edit]

One of the most influential American military leaders of the 20th Century, not certain who he could replace but I would propose Zhukov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeathking (talkcontribs)

Support
  1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeathking (talkcontribs)
  2. The addition. The facts that he was one of the best generals in WWII, many of his aggressive strategy got adopted by the U.S. Army in its training programmes following his death and many military officers claim inspiration from his legacy mean that he is vital at this level. However, Zhukov should not be removed since the USSR played a vital role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in the war and Zhukov was one of the greatest generals in it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC) clarified the support vote 06:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Absolutely not. Zhukov was the most important Soviet general of World War II and arguably the greatest of any country. No commander played a more vital role in the Allied victory. Who knows whether the Soviets would have managed to turn the tide on the Eastern Front without him? Patton, while brilliant (and flawed), was a second-rank commander and therefore never exercised the same level of influence. Additionally, we already have three American WWII generals (Eisenhower, MacArthur and Marshall), while Zhukov is the only Soviet on the list. Neljack (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Neljack. The Eastern Front was the most important threatre of WWII by a mile. Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. "One of the most influential American military leaders of the 20th Century" certainly, but equally certainly not more important than Zhukov. Johnbod (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose the removal--Thi (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

If we were going to add another American military leader, I don't think Patton would be my choice. We already have Ike, Mac and Marshall from WWII, while we don't have John Pershing. pbp 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Add George S. Patton[edit]

I think Patton is an important enough military leader to add to the list. After the recent failed add/remove, I'd like to see how a clean add fares. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support an nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • A lot of the removals we're discussing in political leaders above are of people at least as significant as Patton. And with Ike, George and Doug already on the list, we have fairly good representation of American WWII figures. pbp 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Add Alfred Kinsey[edit]

An atheist entomologist and sexologist who not only made significant contribution to the foundation of sexology but also affected social and cultural values in and outside the US.

Support
  1. As nom. From the sentence in the article "The Kinsey Reports, which led to a storm of controversy, are regarded by many as a precursor to the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s." I clearly know that this man is vital at this level. The fact that this list does not include him strongly surprises me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. As per nom. Kinsey was perhaps the leading figure in sexology. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Prevan (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I wanted to add him years ago but never got around to nominating him. clearly influential. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Sports figures[edit]

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

Add Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

One of two greatest football players of our times, unrivalled (some could say both with Messi) of last decade. Since Lionel Messi is here, Portugese also should be on the list. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. The fact that he is the best Portuguese soccer player ever means that he is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Over the last few years he's well and truly escaped from Messi's shadow. He's won three of the last four Ballons d'Or, and four in total. Neljack (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

There is currently a 'Ronaldo' on the list, but the link goes to a disambiguation page for the name. There are two footballers of international reknown who go by that name, the aforementioned Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, and Ronaldo da Lima of Brazil who was widely seen as the world's best player between around 1997 and 2003. Both would have a good case for inclusion on this list although C.Ronaldo is still playing and winning trophies and awards so more immediately relevant and notable than older Ronaldo who has retired. Both persons have 'B-Class' articles as the ambiguous link suggests, so it's unclear which one is being referenced. Could this be looked at? Crowsus (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure when it says Ronaldo, it refers to the Brazilian. Portugese is called Cristiano, or Cristiano Ronaldo, rather than only Ronaldo. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Add Jonah Lomu[edit]

From the article itself: He has been described as the first true global superstar of rugby union and as having a huge impact on the game. He is a must. Not everyone knew the game, but everyone knew Lomu. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support I think that's a fair call. He certainly was the most famous superstar the sport has ever produced. Neljack (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Per Pumpernikiel90 and Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support If American football has three then a sport like rugby should have three. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Fausto Coppi[edit]

There's 11 other people who won the Tour De France twice, yes he won the Giro d'Italia five times but that does not make him a vital biography for an encyclopedia with only 2000 of them. The only two cyclists notable in my mind are Eddy Merckx and Lance Armstrong (maybe Indurain). To put some of this fluff into perspective we are missing - George Cayley one of the first major pioneers of aeronautics and Nicéphore Niépce widely ragarded as the inventor of photography. GuzzyG (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove Jean-Claude Killy[edit]

We have three skiers on the list and when up against Stenmark he has the weakest case. Skiing is a relatively niche sport yet on here has as much representation as Ice Hockey and American Football, more then Chess, Figure Skating, Swimming and Speed Skating and nearly on the level of Boxing. While we are cutting down on american presidents we can cut skiers down to two which is perfect representation for it. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Add History of Syria[edit]

It is absurd not to include this article but history of Iraq in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We can only list 10,000 topics and some areas needs to be cut. @RekishiEJ:, you have been nominating dozens of articles, many of them dubious and opposing the removals of dozens more over the past year or so. Do you realize that only 10,000 topics could be listed and many areas simply needs to be ignored? Can you propose some removals instead so we can get below quota in those areas and add topics that really need to be added. Prevan (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. I know that the current number of articles in the history sub-page exceeded the quota, however there are still vital articles missing there, and history of Syria is one of them. The quota of some sub-pages should be lowered to a certain extent, but I'm still uncertain what is the extent.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I had nominated it for addition, however later it failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_47#Add_history_of_Syria).--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Have to agree with Prevan. To be honest, the history of Syria is one of RekishiEJ's better proposals because this won't look completely out of place here. But your extreme inclusionist stance (over the years suggesting adding hundreds if not thousands of articles and only supported removing a handful in that time) is beyond ridiculous Rekishi. Pretty much half of every archive from the mid 30s to the present just contains your failed proposals (some of which you repeat after a few months and get the same result).
Two great long-term contributors have left the vital articles project because of it too. You really need to get your head around the fact that this list can't have everything that you like. The whole point of the list is to only keep the most important. That's where its value comes from, so we focus on improving these articles. Gizza (t)(c) 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Gizza, we are at the stage where a hard look at what is on here is needed and to get rid of the fluff and to oppose nearly all removals while nominating everything to add is demotivating. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for causing two great long-term contributors to leave the VA project, but the reason why I nominated many articles for addition but only support a few proposals for removal of some particular articles was because the expanded list still contains less than 10,000 articles. some vital articles still not included in the list, and some proposals to remove some particular articles, in my opinion, should fail since they are all indeed vital at this level. I knew that if all of my proposals passed and the quotas of geography, philosophy and religion, everyday life, biology and health sciences and physical sciences sub-pages were met then the list may contain more than ten thousand articles, however this can be avoided if the quotas of some sub-pages gets lowered. You may wonder why I didn't propose to lower the quota was because I was still uncertain of the extent. Hope that they can return to the VA project.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Prehistory and ancient history[edit]

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

PASSED:

Removed, 5-1 pbp 19:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Syrian Wars[edit]

Something that is hardly discussed in history. Primarily known because it was discussed briefly in the Bible in Maccabees (not listed, better claim). Article makes no claim of any special notability of these wars or its impact, even less so its vitality. Wars were unfortunately common in that era.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Cambalachero (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that this series of wars caused the deterioration of Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Empire and the conquest of them by Rome and Parthis guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Remove Cimmerians[edit]

Article claims no importance on why they should be considered a "vital" subject. One of dozens of ancient civilizations and groups of that time period, most of whom are not listed.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Had never heard of them before. Took a look at the article and they don't appear to be a particularly notable civilization to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support a fringe historical peoples. Surely redundant to Thrace and the Scythians. Gizza (t)(c) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Early modern history[edit]

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

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

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.

No consensus after 5 months Gizza (t)(c) 08:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Ani[edit]

The fact that prior to its sack by Mongols it stood on various trade routes and its many religious buildings, palaces, and fortifications were amongst the most technically and artistically advanced structures in the world means that it's vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - A major city for a long time. The ruins still standing attest to its glory. Per nomination, a vital article. Jusdafax 17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Opose Given Carthage, Rome, Constantinople, any Chinese cities and Athens etc are not on the list (these may not be the "ancient" links). It was only a capital for around a century. The whole list is rather odd. Johnbod (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Add Carthage[edit]

Why this isn't listed is beyond me. One of the most prominent ancient cities.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Sounds like a vital topic you'd be likely to find in a 10,000 entry paper encyclopedia. pbp 19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  07:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This crossed my mind before, I supposed we didn't list it as Ancient Carthage is listed.  Carlwev  07:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We have Phoenicians too, the people of Carthage but 3 articles on the topic is still fair. Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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


Geography[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Physical geography[edit]

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

Parks and preserves[edit]

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

Countries[edit]

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

Regions and country subdivisions[edit]

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

Add Mid-Atlantic states[edit]

The Mid-Atlantic is the only unrepresented region of the US in this section. I see no region why it should not be included alongside New England, as both have distinct cultural heritages. If the Mid-Atlantic is not relevant enough to be included, perhaps the Northeastern United States should replace New England?

Support
  1. Support As nom. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Since this region has been called "the typically American" one by Frederick Jackson Turner, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. New England should be removed instead. Prevan (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. We have New York (State) tho. pbp 19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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.

Cultural venues[edit]

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

Literature[edit]

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

Music[edit]

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

Performing arts[edit]

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

Visual arts[edit]

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

Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Add X-Men[edit]

A very important superhero team from Marvel Comics, and one of the core franchises during the Modern Age of Comic Books (specially during the 1990s). Their popularity expanded way beyond the comic book niche, and have several animated series, live-action TV series, videogames, and of course the whole X-Men film series. In fact, I suspect that for modern audiences they are way more popular than Wonder Woman, who is already listed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nominator Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Per my comments below. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I could see replacing Wonder Woman with these guys. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Off topic but......I've thought about this area before. I do think the X-Men are more notable than Wonder Woman and Conan the Barbarian. I have also wondered if Stan Lee, or Marvel Comics would be worth thinking about. One may think Marvel Comics would look out of place, but on the other hand we include a list of newspapers and magazines (see here) including things like, Punch (magazine), Playboy, Scientific American, Le Monde, and Mad (magazine). The magazine Mad even started as a comic, and even though it's officially a magazine, it's still semi comic book style. Some of the magazines are way older, but some are roughly the same age as Marvel. Also although the magazines are not "fiction" but comic books are, they are listed in Mass Media, which includes TV shows, most of which are fiction. I think Marvel and DC are more notable than Mad and maybe some other mags, and worth considering as swapping. And maybe better than more Marvel characters. I don't know. Also I think we have 3 DC characters, and one Marvel at present, if anyone thinks that's relevant?  Carlwev  11:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Marvel and DC Comics may be listed at Mass media, in a new "Comics" section, and Stan Lee would be at "Cartoonists, comics artists, and illustrators" (which already has Jack Kirby), but those would be other nominations, which should be handled independently. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jclemens: "These GUYS"...that's one of the problems I have with removing Wonder Woman. pbp 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not ask for a swap, Wonder Woman should stay as well (this page is not a popularity contest). PBP, have in mind that despite the "Men" in the name, the X-Men is a group with several women as well (Phoenix, Storm, Kitty Pryde, Emma Frost, Psyloche, Rogue, etc.) Cambalachero (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Trying to get more females into the biographies is one aim; but is trying to get more females into fictional characters meet a similar aim in this case? Although clearly a female, is Wonder Woman a character that males or females are interested in reading/watching, being an action character from a superhero comic wearing revealing clothing? Very extreme example but, would one argue that Playboy is a magazine that represents women because it has lots of pictures of women?  Carlwev  19:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
PBP, I am from the Western U.S. where 'guys' is a gender-neutral plural. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This proposal is about the X-Men, NOT about Wonder Woman. Carl, please stop derailing the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
PASSED:

Removed, 6-2 pbp 23:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Conan the Barbarian[edit]

I look at the other two dozen-ish fictional characters and he doesn't seem to be in a league with them. Isn't as prolific or long-lasting as most of the others. pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support. Conan does not pack the punch of other characters who are not included but should be, e.g. Atticus Finch, Prince Hamlet, Jane Eyre, Holden Caulfield, Don Quixote, Nancy Drew, Frankenstein’s Monster, Captain Ahab, The Invisible Man, Scarlett O’Hara, and Jay Gatsby.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. While Conan might be less vital than others on the list, losing him would leave us without any representation from Swords & Sorcery genre--I don't think King Arthur or Merlin count. I get where everyone's coming from, but I'm against. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Opppse per Jclemens, who makes a good case. Jusdafax 07:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

A few points on Jclemens' argument.

  1. I'm not sure that sword-and-sorcery is a big enough genre to merit a fictional character
  2. I'm ESPECIALLY not sure that sword-and-sorcery deserves an entry if you exclude Arthurian legend (from which it derives)
  3. I'm not sure Conan the Barbarian is the best representative of the sword-and-sorcery genre, which I would classify to include LOTR and Harry Potter, among other things (mind you, I also put Arthurian legend in the genre).
  4. I dissent from Jclemens voting to keep Conan while suggesting removal of Wonder Woman above

pbp 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Moved, 6-0 pbp 18:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Aladdin and Hua Mulan from "Characters from literature and drama" subsection of FCs to new "Characters from Eastern folklore" subsection of FCs[edit]

We have "Characters from Western folklore"; shouldn't we also have "Characters from Eastern folklore?" pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support No reason to not so subcategorize. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

Add King Kong[edit]

The fact that it is one of the best-known movie icons and it appears in many texts means that it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Swap Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 21:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We do list King Kong (1933 film), people may think only one is needed, perhaps a swap, but people may like it the way it is? For comparison... we list Godzilla the character but not the movie (although it used to be the other way). We list Count Dracula the character, but not the novel or author (The novel may perhaps be worthy, but count Dracula does cover it though). We list Frankenstein novel and author but not character.  Carlwev  18:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I would support the swap. King Kong is iconic and there is much more to it than just the original classic film. I have my doubts that the King Kong film—classic though it is—ranks among the 30 or so most important films ever made. Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

PASSED:

Added, 5-0 --Thi (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Is–ought problem[edit]

Hume's law is basic concept in ethics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Prevan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

Add Chinese philosophy[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add African philosophy[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Continental philosophy[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Add New Age; remove Wicca[edit]

At present we have three articles in the "New Religious Movements" section: New religious movements, Modern Paganism, and Wicca. Wicca is a form of modern Paganism, so there is some duplication there. Conversely, New Age is a significant phenomenon on its own. Moreover it is probably larger and more widespread than Wicca. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support addition oppose removal. I think Wicca is vital enough to retain. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support both parts. I thought Wicca was vital enough too but its overlap with modern paganism, witchcraft and NRM (not to mention bigger NRMs are absent from the list) make it reasonable to remove it. Gizza (t)(c) 08:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Falun Gong[edit]

At present, this section contains only articles on Western NRMs; Falun Gong, which is Chinese in origin, is probably one of the world's largest such movements. In terms of its adherents, it is far larger than, for instance, Wicca, which is already listed in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Falun Gong was removed around three years ago (see archive). Along with it, Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement were removed. The main reason was that there are other NRMs out there like Caodaism, Rastafarianism, Tenrikyo and Yiguandao. And there are others like Christian Science and Ahmadiyya. Having said that, Falun Gong is terms of number of adherents and as you say, more widespread. I think I'll support this as well as Ahmadiyya. Gizza (t)(c) 08:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Move Spiritualism and Haitian Vodou to "Other religions", and Gnosticism to "Abrahamic religions"[edit]

This section feels like a catch-all that has been created to dump a range of 'vital articles' which would otherwise be better placed elsewhere. This is, for example, not the sort of categorisation that one finds in the academic study of religion. Spiritualism and Haitian Vodou would be far better placed in "Other religions", Gnosticism belongs in the "Main branches" section of "Abrahamic religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Move Mysticism, Magic (paranormal), Witchcraft, Divination, and Astrology to "Beliefs" in "Religion and spirituality" section[edit]

As highlighted above, "Esoterics [is that even a word?], magic and mysticism" does not make any sense as a section. It looks like it was created by editors with little or no familiarity with the academic study of religion. Most of its contents would be better placed if moved elsewhere. Mysticism, Magic (paranormal), Witchcraft, Divination and Astrology would be far better placed alongside other 'religious' topics like animism, curse, eschatology, and spirituality in the "Beliefs" sub-section of the "Religion and spirituality" section. There is no obvious reason why they have been divided off into their own section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Move Qi to "Common concepts" sub-section of "Eastern religions"[edit]

Qi makes little sense where it is, placed alongside articles on Western esotericism, Freemasonry, and Rosicrucianism. Although it has filtered into some Western thinking, particularly within the New Age milieu, it remains a fundamentally East Asian concept. It belongs alongside other such concepts like Yin and Yang in the "Common concepts" sub-section of "Eastern religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Propose renaming "Esoterics, magic and mysticism" to "Western esotericism"[edit]

If all of the articles on East Asian religious concepts like Qi and broader, pan-cultural ideas about astrology and divination are moved to more appropriate sections, that leaves us with only three articles in this section: Western esotericism, Freemasonry, and Rosicrucianism. I think that all are appropriate as vital articles, but would better be labelled under the heading of "Western esotericism". This is certainly a better term than "Esoterics", which frankly I have never even heard of; I'm not sure that it is even a word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

Clothing and fashion[edit]

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

Color[edit]

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

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

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

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Household items[edit]

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

Sexuality[edit]

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

Sports and recreation[edit]

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

Stages of life[edit]

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

Society and social sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anthropology[edit]

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

Business and economics[edit]

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

Add Debit card[edit]

A plastic payment card that can be used instead of cash when making purchases. It is similar to a credit card, but unlike a credit card, the money comes directly from the user's bank account when performing a transaction. Daylen (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2. Support  Carlwev  06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - I'd call it a vital article. Jusdafax 17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. pbp 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • What about removing credit card and replacing it with Payment card? It would cover both the credit and debit cards. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Mobile payment[edit]

Payment services operated under financial regulation and performed from or via a mobile device. Instead of paying with cash, cheque (or check), or credit cards, a consumer can use a mobile phone to pay for a wide range of services and digital or hard goods. Daylen (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2. It is now quite popular in the Mainland China.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose we don't have more basic articles related to payments. Gizza (t)(c) 08:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - this feels a little too minor to warrant 'Vital Article' status at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's vital since a lot of Chinese people use it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite follow your logic here, RekishiEJ... A lot of people use a toothbrush but that does not make it a vital article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Automated teller machine[edit]

An electronic telecommunications device that enables the customers of a financial institution to perform financial transactions, particularly cash withdrawal, without the need for a human cashier, clerk or bank teller. Currently, about 3 million ATM's are installed worldwide.[1] Daylen (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2. Support  Carlwev  06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. pbp 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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 École Normale Supérieure[edit]

It is more vital than Pierre and Marie Curie University in my opinion. The fact that there are 11 Fields Medalist among its alumni, more than any other university of the world, and 13 Nobel Prize laureates, makes it vital. It is also the spiritual birthplace of lots of philosophers and sociologists, including Jean Paul-Sartre, Henri Bergson, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, Emile Durkheim and Jacques Derrida.

Support
  1. As nom. Gazaret 21:00 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Can't agree with the nominator more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazaret (talkcontribs) 21:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethnology[edit]

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

Add Germanic peoples[edit]

Arguably the most significant ethnic group of Europeans of the last several hundred years, certainly as important as Slavs, which is included in the list. Germanic peoples include Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Franks, Germans, Goths, Normans, Swedes, Vandals, and Vikings, as well as many others.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  06:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax 17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I can't see how this is any more vital than Italic peoples/Latin peoples which includes the French, Italians, Romanians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Catalans, Venetians, and so on, or the Turkic peoples which include the Turks, Huns, Bulgars, Uzbeks, Tatars and many other historic and modern ethnicities. All of the ten examples given already have a vital article in the list either in history or for the modern Germanic groups, their nations. Germanic languages is already included. Celts is on the vital list but their subgroups like the Gauls, Picts, Bretons, Gaels, etc. are not so I think it is reasonable to have it. And to be frank, I'm not a fan of some of the pan-language ethnicities listed like Slavs and Austronesians. I think Arabs are an exception because the Arab countries have political links too and formed the Arab League. Gizza (t)(c) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: while I think that Germanic languages is clearly and rightfully a Vital Article, I am really not so convinced about "Germanic peoples" (the same goes for "Slavic peoples"). As Gizza notes, there is a sense of cultural and political unity among Arabs; the same really cannot be said for the speakers of Germanic languages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

After the Sioux were added, North America now has six ethnic groups listed while Africa with a much bigger population only has four. I think we're better off adding articles like pygmy peoples or another famous minority like Zulu people. Gizza (t)(c) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

No consensus for any proposal - all open for over 5 months Gizza (t)(c) 20:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Hebrew alphabet[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom  Carlwev  13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Likely the oldest continually used alphabet in existence. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I would also support a swap with the Phoenician alphabet, on the grounds that the Hebrew alphabet is still in usage. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose While I see the argument of it being the oldest alphabet in continuous use, I feel that the Phoenician alphabet is sufficiently representative of Semitic alphabets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Prevan (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Prevan, are you for or against this proposal?--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Presidentman, who is currently using the Phoenecian alphabet? I note that semitic alphabet redirects to History of the alphabet, which I don't see listed anywhere either. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Phrase[edit]

Support
  1. Support As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Basic grammatical concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support. Clause should also be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Clause[edit]

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Just like "Phrase", "Clause" should be included. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Another basic grammatical concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Aramaic alphabet[edit]

Since virtually all modern Middle Eastern writing systems and numerous non-Chinese writing systems in Central and East Asia can be traced back to it, this alphabet is vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Would prefer this to be added instead of Hebrew alphabet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Would rather have the Hebrew Alphabet, which is still in use. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Law[edit]

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


Mass media[edit]

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

Add Baidu[edit]

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

Support
  1. Support Daylen (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. @Daylen:, please add your support vote here, since it is you that nominated this proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC) altered the template 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Daylen (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Re-add Twitter[edit]

Now that due to Donald John Trump's heavy use of it Twitter becomes more profitable, and it is called the "SMS of the Internet", it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Stupid reason for proposing to add Twitter. That aside, Twitter isn't the clear number two in the social media space after Facebook anymore. See List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users. WhatsApp and Instagram have surpassed Twitter and Snapchat has recently become more popular too (the sources in the list are slightly old). Gizza (t)(c) 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Not reason enough to mark something out as 'Vital', IMO. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Twitter used to be included in the expanded list, however it was replaced by text messaging later (cf. /Archive_42#Swap:_Remove_Twitter.2C_Add_Text_messaging).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Museums[edit]

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

Politics and government[edit]

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

Psychology[edit]

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

Society[edit]

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

Sociology[edit]

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

Add Identity (social science)[edit]

No doubt it's crucial.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It is a topic that has become much more important in recent years and will likely only continue to. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

War and military[edit]

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

Add militia[edit]

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Biology and health sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

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

Biological processes and physiology[edit]

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

Botany[edit]

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

Cell biology[edit]

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

Ecology[edit]

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

Zoology[edit]

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

Organisms[edit]

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


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.


Add field research[edit]

Now that anthropology, archaeology, biology, earth science, economics, public health, management and sociology frequently use this research method, it is vital.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Measurement[edit]

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

Astronomy[edit]

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


Chemistry[edit]

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

Add phase diagram[edit]

A key concept in physical chemistry.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree, it's a pretty important concept in chemistry and materials science. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
OpposeReally don't see why this needs to be added to astronomy. I might be convinced this belongs elsewhere, but certainly not here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Headbomb, I think this was meant to go in the Chemistry section immediately below. RekishiEJ, is that the case? Huntster (t @ c) 20:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry for misplacing the nomination.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I've struck my oppose vote. I have no opinion on whether or not this should be added to the chemistry a section, but I'm sure if you put a note at WP:CHEMISTRY, they'd appreciate it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add concentration[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Colligative properties[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose again there are more basic articles about solutions that should be added before this. Gizza (t)(c) 08:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Earth science[edit]

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

Add Figure of the Earth[edit]

Though in most computations in physics the figure of the Earth can be approximated as a sphere, for the military accurate understanding of it is absolutely necessary in order to provide geographical and gravitational data for the inertial guidance systems of ballistic missiles.

Support
  1. As nom. No doubt a crucial and interesting topic in earth science.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Estuary[edit]

I'm proposing to add estuary to the 'Geomorphology - fluvial or coastal/oceanic landforms' sections given the tremendous importance estuaries play in primary productivity, human habitation, navigation, settlement location, biodiversity, ecology etc. The term estuary may also be more encompassing than other coastal or oceanic terms in the geomorphology section and no doubt play a pivotal role in human and non-human life.

Support
  1. Support As nominee per above. I suggest placing the article in the fluvial section rather than the oceanic/coastal section for a few reasons. First, the oceanic/coastal section is already overrepresented. Second, it implies the general direction (flow) of estuaries starting in rivers and going towards the ocean. Third, in general, most large estuaries defined by large rivers are more freshwater in observed salinity than the adjacent marine environment given outward flow of river plumes out into the ocean --Curoi (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

It's already included here Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Water_.2830_articles.29 under river features, it could go in river or sea features, but probably looks better in river like you said. Estuary's talk page is marked with the VA header too...Did you miss it because of the following?..It is odd, that "Fluvial landforms" are listed separately in a slightly different area and has 9 entries like meander, rapid, waterfall etc, perhaps we should merge the two lists together somehow; delta is in one place and Alluvial fan in another, they are similar enough to be together surely, why does there need to be two lists for this? we should discus this at least.  Carlwev  12:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carlwev and RekishiEJ: I think the lists need to be changed around for a lot of things actually. Here's my take: some of the fluvial landforms under the 'Land' heading can stay as they are referring to actual landforms or sediment accumulation that may be created by water but don't require water to currently be there to define it such as 'alluvial fan' and 'canyon'. Others, however, like 'waterfall', 'rapid', and 'meander' require the presence of water, at least most of the time, to actually be those things so they should be shifted to 'Hydrology' under the 'Water' subheading. Still others are not entirely or at all fluvial such as 'cliff' and 'beach'. I think 'cliff' and 'beach' should be strictly under 'Earth'-'Landforms'. Some other ones to consider for further discussion are 'fjord' and 'oasis' being 'land' features (seems like they are more water features. Can you have a dry fjord? Would the current oasis vegetation exist without the presence of 'water'?). 'Bays' and 'Lagoons' are bodies of water, not land features and should be moved. --Curoi (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Moraine[edit]

If estuary is already on the list and we consider moving 'fjord' to the 'Water section', I think it makes sense to have another 'glacial landform' feature that is fairly ubiquitous at higher latitudes.

Support
  1. Support As nominee. Moraines are everywhere. Curoi (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Physics[edit]

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

Add sonic boom[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Kind of interesting. We list speed of sound, doesn't mention sonic boom but could. We also list Doppler effect which is related, but strangely also doesn't mention sonic boom. Would sonic boom be better than, Supersonic speed, Supersonic transport, Supersonic aircraft, or in particular Shock wave? all of which are not listed  Carlwev  09:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Technology[edit]

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

Agriculture[edit]

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

Biotechnology[edit]

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

Computing and information technology[edit]

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

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

Add Fuel[edit]

I presumed this article was already in, but it's not. The concept of fuel is surely vital. The usage, acquisition, trade and waste of different fuels all have an enormous impact on most if not all societies of the world for most of history. We list several types of fuel, the fossil fuels, wood, and more, but there are many other sources of fuel and the general concept of what fuel is, what can be used, how it works is of interest to industry, engineering, transport and also physics, chemistry and biology too. The "Core topics" project of only 150 articles lists fuel.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. I didn't know that this article is not included in the list until the nominator mentioned it above!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Common sense. Prevan (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I will probably wait until this thread ends but I am also thinking about suggesting it in the 1000 list, I think it's that important, and seeing as core topics includes it in a 150 list, what are peoples view on that too. Also Biofuel is not listed and is also on my mind for suggesting, interested on thoughts about that also.  Carlwev  11:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Biofuel[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. I didn't know that this article is not included in the list until Carlwev mentioned it above!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

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.


Add Jet Propulsion Laboratory[edit]

The engineering brains of America's space program, contributor to unmanned missions galore. At least as influential as several of the universities listed. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Suppport as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: if NASA is already listed, then I do not really see the need for JLP too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

The JPL is part of NASA which is already listed. It has been noted before (I can try to find it in the archives) that space agencies are the only government agencies currently listed as vital. Obviously NASA and the Soviet Space Program have global importance but I'm not as convinced the JPL should be in before the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and other famous agencies from around the world. Gizza (t)(c) 09:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Part of my impetus for suggesting it was the Kennedy Space Center being listed, as a launch site. I don't propose that it be eliminated, even though it also under the auspices of NASA, but rather believe JPL deserves its own, separate mention. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Add continuous function & multivalued function[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. The former is vital in calculus, the latter plays an increasingly important role in physics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.

No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 06:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Add approximation[edit]

No doubt it's vital in mathematics and natural science.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The page is a disambiguation page anyway. Gizza (t)(c) 06:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Replace Four-color theorem with Formal language[edit]

Surprising to see the four-color theorem on the vital list, as while interesting, it is definitely not "vital". It has not unlocked proofs to many other mathematical problems nor gave much new insight, when compared to other important conjectures and theorems, such as the P versus NP problem (which has huge ramifications to computational complexity theory if proven). There are also little practical applications of the theorem. Formal language theory, on the other hand, was not only vital in setting the foundations of mathematics and formalizing logic, but remains an important theory in theoretical computer science, computational proofs (which cracked the then-conjecture now known as the four color theorem in the first place), among other things. Esquivalience (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Geometry[edit]

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


Probability and statistics[edit]

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


Add estimation[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Other[edit]

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

General discussions[edit]

Combine political leaders, military leaders and activists[edit]

The line between political leaders and military leaders is blurred (George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, Charles de Gaulle, the 1st Duke of Wellington, the Khans, Julius Caesar). The line between political leaders and activists is blurred. When you look at leaders of rebellion, even the line between military leaders and revolutionaries is blurred. We have no activists or military leaders category at VA (lv 3) and I don't think we need one here either. I also believe combining these three categories would be a better gauge of systemic biases. Right now, politicians gets a lot of scrutiny in comparison to military leaders and activists. The quota for the combined category would be equal to the sum of the quotas of its parts. pbp 06:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 06:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support adding rebels and revolutionaries (Patrice Lumumba, Nestor Makhno etc.) to politicians and military leaders. Keep the different categories for political and military persons. I prefer keeping social activists as Henry Dunant, Helen Keller and Betty Friedan in Activists. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Global proposals[edit]

Reallocate 20 articles from Astronomy (215->195) to Space (36->56)[edit]

I think there's a disproportionate imbalance here. Astronomy has 209 articles, including celestial bodies that I would say no one needs to know or care about. Space--manned, unmanned, whatnot--only has 36 articles (although its allocation isn't apparently specifically set, as a subset of the technology list). The off-the-top of my head list of things missing includes JPL, anything that's landed on Mars, Mir, any of the comet missions, and far more. Since Astronomy is only at 209, that would bring it to 14 over, which could be haggled over separately, once the reallocation is made. (But just with a cursory glance, I believe we could easily lose 14 from 'constellations' and be no appreciably less vital...) Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Opposed
Discussion