Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

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

Introduction[edit]

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

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

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

  • 15 days ago: 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 14:14, 08 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 14:14, 09 December 2015 (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.

Writers[edit]

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

Add Meera[edit]

No doubt User:DaGizza can explain her significance better than I can, but she's a highly popular mystic poet of India. Her biography gets more hits than Tukaram's or Tulsidas's and we list both of those figures as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Much more vital than the obscure and forgotten Bhavabhuti if space has to be made in the future. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Meera is indeed more vital than Tukaram whose influence and popularity is confined to western India. In addition to her well-known poetry, she became a symbol for pacifism among people like Gandhi and a women's rights icon for Indian feminists later on. In spite of this, Tulsidas is definitely more important than Meera though both writers should be here. The critical reception section in his article can explain his importance better than I can. A Renaissance Homer. He would be in the top ten of most important Indian people of all time. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:DaGizza. While we're on the subject of Indian writers, can I get your opinion on some modern English-language writers in India? I'm specifically wondering whether R. K. Narayan and Sarojini Naidu are worthwhile additions. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about English language writers from India before. R. K. Narayan is more famous of the two. Arundhati Roy is a famous modern writer but she's not vital yet. I also notice that Salman Rushdie is listed so this area isn't unrepresented at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 10:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Journalists[edit]

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

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

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.

Add Valentina Tereshkova[edit]

The fact that she is the first woman and civilian to have flown in space means that she is crucial at this level, just like Yuri Gagarin.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that she is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support At least as vital as Amelia Earhart]. Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

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

Religious figures[edit]

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

Swap: Remove John of the Cross, Add Teresa of Ávila[edit]

Both were notable Carmelite reformers and made important contributions to Spanish literature; but given the dearth of female Catholic figures (even though Catholics as a whole are well represented), the presence of another male Spanish saint in Ignatius of Loyola, and the greater overall popularity of St. Teresa (her biography gets about twice as many views and historically there was a short-lived movement to make her the patron saint of Spain), I think she's a slightly better choice for the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition St John of the Cross is one of the most important figures in Spanish literature. When this is considered together with his religious work, I think he is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. I agree that St Teresa is a figure of comparable importance. Given the under-representation of women both in this area and generally on the list, I certainly support adding her. Neljack (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support addition per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Aleister Crowley[edit]

The list certainly needs more than one occultists and Crowley is perhaps more important than Helena Blavatsky.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Very strong legacy in the occult and NRM. Gizza (t)(c) 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. He is very influential and the most likely the go-to name in the public for the occult, although that may be a downside. I'd probably rather go with Rasputin or L. Ron Hubbard though. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

Add: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf[edit]

First democratically elected female head of state in Africa, Nobel Peace Prize winner, one of the more accomplished Liberian politicians, The Economist said of her "arguably the best president the country has ever had.". Probably the biggest influence in African politics by a modern female head of state.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We have a lot of genocidal dictators on the list of modern African leaders and while mass murderers undoubtedly attract a great deal of notoriety, adding people like Sirleaf would help balance out our coverage of that continent's political history. Also we have no female African leaders apart from some royals of Ancient Egypt and Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba. Why people as obscure as Rainilaiarivony should be ahead of Sirleaf is a mystery to me. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Thutmose II, Add Puduhepa[edit]

Puduhepa was a Hittite queen and one of the most influential women of the ancient world. She was renowned for her diplomacy skills with Ramesses II of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. She played a key role in the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty which is the world's oldest known peace treaty that has survived. The Eleanor Roosevelt of her time. Puduhepa's reign marked an era of stability and peace for the Hittite and neighbouring empires. During her peak she began to influence legal matters and the religion of the Hittites as well.

Thutmose II is one of the weakest pharoahs listed. Nothing really happened during his reign. His father Thutmose I did much more for Egypt by expanding the civilization's reach into Nubia and Canaan while Thutmose II's wife Hatshepsut created many trade networks and building projects (both of them are also listed).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition; as Cobblet notes Thutmose II isn't on the list, so he can't be removed. Neljack (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Note that there are no Hittites listed which is surprising. Of the nearby ancient civilizations, the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Akkadians/Babylonians, Sumerians and Persians are definitely more vital than the Hittites and deserve more articles but the Hittites should at least have equal coverage to the likes of Dacia, Sheba and the Kingdom of Aksum. Also I support the addition more than the removal and only proposed the removal because we are approaching the quota limit. Gizza (t)(c) 02:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thutmose II isn't listed – Thutmose I and III are. Cobblet (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
My bad. I should've paid closer attention. In that case, I think Shoshenq I is the least vital of the Egyptian leaders on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Babak Khorramdin, Add Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor[edit]

There are a number of Mazdakist/neo-Zoroastrianist rebels against the Abbasid Caliphate besides Babak, the most notable of whom are Sunpadh and Al-Muqanna. None of these rebels are as vital as Mazdak himself, the Zoroastrian reformer who we don't list. Alp Arslan is another figure from this period of Persian history who's more important than Babak and isn't listed.

But I think the two most notable omissions from the history of Central Asia are Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor, the first of the Muslim invaders of India. The former's repeated plunder of India allowed him to establish Ghazni as a cultural centre that rivalled Baghdad in its wealth and glory: scholars in his court included Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. The latter laid the foundation for sustained Muslim domination of India by defeating Prithviraj Chauhan (who we added earlier) at the Second Battle of Tarain, a crucial turning-point in Islamic and Indian history. Both are considered national heroes of Pakistan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support additions. Gizza (t)(c) 09:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Robert Fisk, Add Gertrude Bell[edit]

Frequently awarded Middle East correspondent versus architect of the modern nation of Iraq – Bell's historical impact is far more significant. (Among British journalists William Howard Russell and David Frost seem more important to me than Fisk.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition. Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Removal. Robert Fisk is the most awarded foreign correspondent on earth, and has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times, hence he is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition. Unfortunately Gertrude Bell has been suffering from the attention of propagandists in the middle east who seek to inflate and invent. Her alleged "historical impact" need to be seen in that context. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal. Fisk is a major force in journalism today, a knowledgeable and readable reporter of great merit. No opinion on addition. Jusdafax 17:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov and Lavrentiy Beria[edit]

Now that someone wants to add Himmler, I suggest that these three persons be added as well, since they are all crucial victimizers of the Great Purge, only less vital than Joseph Stalin.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given. Saying that someone is crucial does not make them so. Cobblet (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Yagoda and Yezhov pbp 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Of the three, the only one with a case of being vital is Beria. Not every perpetrator of genocide is vital because as with every part of the list, we have to be selective. Gizza (t)(c) 11:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm with DaGizza. All three of these men is too excessive. pbp 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No, all of them are indeed vital. Though Yezhov was the greatest villain of these three persons in the Great Purge, Yagoda and Beria are crucial in the atrocities of Stalin as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@RekishiEJ: If you think all three of them are vital, how many people involved in genocide worldwide do you think we should have? Keep in mind the quotas we have for people and everywhere else. And why not Talaat Pasha? Gizza (t)(c) 07:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
People who are main victimizers of the Armenian Genocide, the Great Purge, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide and the Rwandan Genocide.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

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

Add Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

No doubt a vital humanitarian, princess and celebrity. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Not quite the first celebrity who donated her image and time to charitable causes (although still a pioneer in this respect), but she did it better than anyone. Cobblet (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support 100% yes, one of the most well known humanitarians whose death caused worldwide grief. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I question whether her actual impact was as great as her fame. I don't deny the significance of her work for humanitarian causes, but I think others have made a greater impact in that area without having the same fame. Neljack (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Her obvious fame and tragic death make this a plausible nomination, but in the end can not be considered vital, in my view. Jusdafax 17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd be interested in hearing which other people User:Neljack's thinking of. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel the same way about Diana that I do about JFK (who I proposed for REMOVAL from the list sometime ago; it failed). JFK and Diana are significant primarily as martyrs; their concrete political achievements aren't particularly numerous. pbp 17:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I used to agree with that; but perhaps the scandal surrounding her death distracts us from seeing Diana's true legacy. My impression is that prior to her, there were wealthy people who devoted themselves to philanthropy; there were politicians who used their power to bring about social reform; and there were celebrities like Danny Kaye who would perform for charity; but as far as I can tell Diana was the first person to demonstrate the effectiveness of simply using her image and ceremonial position (few would describe Diana as a politician) to bring visibility to social causes that needed it, and it seems to me that she brought a new dimension to the standards of social responsibility for the rich and famous. I feel like since the 90s there's been an explosion in the number of actors and athletes who have followed her lead. I'm no historian on the matter, but perhaps that's proof of her legacy, which I think is unique and deserves more credit than some of the other people in this discussion have given her. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

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

Sports figures[edit]

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

History[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Add archive and oral history[edit]

Both are fundamental terms in historiography, yet they are currently not in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose oral history – too close in scope to oral tradition which is listed. Would be OK with adding interview. Cobblet (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose oral history. --Thi (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add collective memory and periodization[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given either time. Cobblet (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I had made this proposal before (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive_43#Add_collective_memory_and_periodization), however later it failed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

History by continent and region[edit]

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

Add History of North Africa[edit]

Though having only three language editions, this article is still vital since North Africa has unique culture, and it does not consist only of Egypt.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support North Africa is a well defined region and the North African countries other than Egypt collectively deserve a history article. Gizza (t)(c) 11:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Fritzmann2002 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I was thinking about proposing History of Morocco. Africa only has 5 history of country articles compared to 14 for Europe, Morocco seems pretty significant, equally or more so compared to say History of Netherlands or Romania which we have. Thinking about these history of regions articles, we have some like Scandinavia and Middle East, but a time ago many many region articles themselves were removed; regions and history of regions needs some thought, as to which to include and which not to.  Carlwev  17:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that if a particular country or region is strategically crucial, then its history is crucial as well. Hence, history of Singapore should be added, just like history of Israel.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I oppose adding histories of any city, even those that happen to be city-states. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In general I like the idea of adding regional histories, especially in Africa where most modern national boundaries are just accidents of colonialism. I prefer History of West Africa over History of Nigeria for example, and to a lesser extent I also prefer History of North Africa over History of Morocco. (I have no problem keeping History of Egypt though.) Also I think these regional histories will be of more interest to a general audience than articles on a specific historical entity in the region. Hausa Kingdoms is another article I wouldn't mind swapping for History of West Africa; and despite having suggested adding Ajuran Sultanate in the past I now feel it would've been a better idea to add something like History of East Africa, if such an article existed. (BTW, if I had known about the Kilwa Sultanate back then, I think that too would've been preferable to Ajuran or any of the other Somali sultanates.) But they don't always exist: History of East Africa actually redirects to East Africa#History and History of Southern Africa redirects to History of Africa. Seems kinda weird to only list histories of North and West Africa. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I have proposed adding History of West Africa. pbp 02:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If we add this, do we still need North Africa during Antiquity? I'd definitely support a swap but I don't think we need both articles. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Didn't know it was listed. I would support removing that now that this proposal will succeed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Add History of West Africa[edit]

This seems the quinessential example of where a history of region would be more useful than a history of a particular country. There's been history made in West Africa for millenia, but the present country boundaries date from the 1950s and 60s. Also a good way to cover the African end of the slave trade. pbp 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support In response to pbp's last comment though, Slavery in Africa is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

West Africa is well defined nowadays because of the United Nations geoscheme but is still somewhat arbitrary. There are shared ethnic groups between Nigeria and Cameroon and between Niger and Chad for example. Ultimately, all borders are arbitrary but some make more practical sense than others in classifying and dividing parts of the world. West Africa has many small countries outside of Nigeria that deserve a level of coverage more than History of Africa which I why I support this. Some parts of Africa are even hazier, like Central Africa. I would not support adding History of Central Africa but Democratic Republic of the Congo instead. FYI, there are many history of countries outside of Africa listed where the current boundaries are very modern compared to the overall history of the area. Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

History by country[edit]

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

Add history of Pakistan and history of Bangladesh[edit]

We have history of the Republic of India, but not these two articles in the list, which correspond to histories of another two strategically vital countries, which is quite strange. These two articles also have much more language editions than the article about modern India.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Add history of Syria[edit]

We have history of Iraq, but not history of Syria in the list, which is quite strange.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Prehistory and ancient history[edit]

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

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Add Muslim conquests[edit]

No doubt it's vital, since it substantially changed Near East, Middle East and North Africa. For instance, Egypt was both Arabized and Islamized due to Muslim conquest of Egypt.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support You could argue that if Mongol invasions and conquests is redundant to Mongol Empire, Muslim conquests could be redundant to the early Islamic empires and Islamic Golden Age. However, an overview article is probably useful in this case. Still very relevant in 2015 compared to the Mongol conquests, which although having a stronger impact at the time, lost most of its significance within a few hundred years. Gizza (t)(c) 11:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Early modern history[edit]

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

Modern history[edit]

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

Add Détente[edit]

A highly notable period during the Cold War. Though several peace treaties were ratified in the world, the proxy wars in Asia did not stop.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see what this meaningfully adds to our coverage of the Cold War. Cobblet (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Though West-Soviet trade became common during this period, and the Soviet-USA hotline was established, the proxy wars in Asia didn't go detente as well, and both the Soviet Union and USA still possessed nuclear missiles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't Cold War#Confrontation through détente (1962–79) already cover all this? Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical cities[edit]

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

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

Geography[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Physical geography[edit]

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

Parks and preserves[edit]

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

Countries[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Add Western Sahara[edit]

I believe an article on the disputed region is more important to have than a partially recognized state that controls the region. Western Sahara also gets twice as many page views.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. The addition. The fact that Western Sahara is the most populous territory on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories means that it's crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal. Partially recognized sovereign states are no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Strong support, mentioned before here but never really been opened. Western Sahara appears to be the name of the region regardless of who controls or claims it. Western Sahara appears in more languages too, and it's what it's named as in all Atlases and maps that name it anything, from what I've seen. It's consistent too as China and Taiwan have two opposing governments which claim the whole of China, but we want to include articles about the places/regions, not parties who claim said regions. We do it with Taiwan, so we should here too. (Although it's a little confusing as some terms are used interchangeable sometimes.)  Carlwev  11:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize that it's the same region? Western Sahara refers to the region regardless of who owns, rules or claims it. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic refers to one party or government that claims and currently controls a fraction of the land and population of Western Sahara since the 1970s. It's like listing separately both Taiwan the land and the Republic of China, the government of Taiwan; which don't even have separate articles on Wikipedia. The Taiwan case has much more population and a longer history too, but we don't list that or any other similar case twice. This proposal is still going to go forward in its current tally count anyway, I just wanted to point out.  Carlwev  12:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

But SADR presently only rules a small portion of Western Sahara, though it claims sovereignity over the entire Western Sahara, which means they are not the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regions and country subdivisions[edit]

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


Swap: Remove Punjab, Pakistan, add Punjab (region)[edit]

Since Punjab redirects to Punjab (region), meaning the toponym Punjab usually refers to the region including Punjab, Pakistan and Punjab, India, history of Punjab not only encompasses history of the region which is now the Pakistani province of Punjab, and though the number of geographical articles in the list still does not exceed the quota there are many articles corresponding to vital cities not included in the list which are more vital than the article about the province, I think that the swap should be made.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 15:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Tentative support I've thought about the Punjab situation for a long time. Punjab, Pakistan by itself is a very large region by area, history and population and arguably deserve its own place here but it is more important to learn about the Punjab region as a whole. Punjab, India is now only only about one-third of the original Indian Punjab which also includes Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. None of these articles are listed so Punjab region will capture all of them so to speak. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Add Chaoshan[edit]

An interesting and vital topic, since Chaoshan's traditionally most popular topolect, Teochew dialect best retains both phonology and lexicon of Old Chinese and Teochew people in the Southeast Asia are more economically powered than other Chinese people. Also there are some people studying Teochew culture.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Shantou's on the list and this is enough. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Also redundant to Guangdong. Adding regions of regions should be avoided with only a few exceptions (there is Sakha Republic and there might be a few listed islands that fit this). Otherwise we will be adding Maine, Aceh, Awadh, Yorkshire and countless other articles. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

The fact that Shantou is indeed vital that does not mean Chaoshan should not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Shantou and Chaoshan when Xiamen, Ningbo, Wenzhou, Kaohsiung and Quanzhou are all not listed? Please try harder. The fact that you put no critical thought whatsoever into your proposals does not mean the rest of us have to do the same. Cobblet (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, Teochew dialect is probably more vital than Chaoshan but the most vital Chinese dialects missing are Xiang Chinese and Jin Chinese. Gizza (t)(c) 08:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove West Bengal[edit]

This article is less vital than Bengal, which is larger but currently not on the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just like South Korea is more vital than Korea (see Level 3), West Bengal is more vital than Bengal. Bengal is now just a linguistic region where people speak the Bengali language. But Bengali language is already listed making it redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 04:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

This situation is different to Punjab. In the case of Punjab though, I think ideally both Punjab (Pakistan) and Punjab region should be included. Pakistani Punjab is a significant and large province and the region as a whole is significant. None of the modern Indian states of Punjab are vital as they have been divided into smaller entities. Adding Pakistani Punjab and Punjab region is easier than adding Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and the nowadays smaller Punjab (India). This contrasts with Bengal where it is only divided into one Indian state and the nation of Bangladesh. Gizza (t)(c) 04:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Near East and Far East[edit]

These are vital terms, however they currently are not included.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both terms are deprecated. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This page is for vital articles, not vital terms. A list of 10,000 vital terms in a dictionary or glossary would look very different to this list. Gizza (t)(c) 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

No, they aren't. For example, Ancient Near East and Russian Far East are frequently heard.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Both articles say they're deprecated (in favour of Middle East and East Asia, both terms that are listed), and this accords with my experience as a native English speaker. The fact that certain variants are used in specialized circles does not contradict this fact about the parent terms. Cobblet (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cities[edit]

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

Add Sochi[edit]

The facts that this city is one of the few sub-tropical cities in Russia, it is Russia's largest resort city and that it hosted the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games in 2014, as well as the Russian Formula 1 Grand Prix from 2014 until at least 2020 mean that it is absolutely vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Removed recently. If anything more on Russian geography should be added it should be the republics. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. The fact that it hosted the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games in 2014 means that it is vital at this level. By the way, in my opinion, cities which once hosted Summer or Winter Olympic Games, or World Games are no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Why? Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Since by hosting this kind of world sports games, a city becomes better-known outside local residents, or even foreigners. For instance, I didn't know that Sochi exists before it hosted 2014 Olympic Winter Games.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, name recognition alone is not sufficient for vitality. And if you hadn't even heard of Sochi I'll bet you haven't heard of most of the ski resorts that have hosted Winter Olympics in the past – there are much better-known resort destinations not on the list. So what if, say, Phuket or Cancun haven't hosted an Olympics? They receive a lot more international visitors and are much more important to the economies of their respective countries than Sochi is to Russia. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Arts[edit]

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

Architecture[edit]

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

Add Guggenheim Museum Bilbao[edit]

The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a tremendous example of modern, contemporary art/architecture. From the article: "The museum was the building most frequently named as one of the most important works completed since 1980 in the 2010 World Architecture Survey among architecture experts." Also ranked one of the 12 Wonders of Spain.

Support
  1. As nominator.--DJB3.14 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support As contemporary works of art and architecture go this is probably one of the most significant and recognizable. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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.


Add Sub-Saharan African music traditions, Arabic music and Music of China[edit]

Probably the best articles to cover music in each of these areas. (North African music groups better with other Arab music traditions than with the music of Sub-Saharan Africa.) Most other significant world music traditions have some form of coverage already: we have Indian classical music and several Indian musicians; Latin music was proposed in the previous nomination and is also already represented by several performers and styles; and Southeast Asian music is represented by gamelan, by far its most important subgenre.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Conga[edit]

Bongos and claves are just as important percussion instruments in Cuban music and I don't see how any of these are particularly vital. If we need another drum-related topic I'd suggest drum kit; and other types of percussion could use some attention, such as gong, tambourine, thumb piano, rattle (percussion instrument), clapper (musical instrument) (claves are a type of clapper) or the recently removed slit drum which is not really a "drum" at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support drum kit sounds like a good idea. Central to both jazz and rock music. Gizza (t)(c) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Guantanamera, Add Bachata (music)[edit]

As suggested above, it may be better to replace that song with a music genre from South America. I first thought about Tango music, but Tango is already included, and may be redundant.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cambalachero (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support add although I think both Cha-cha-cha (music) and Merengue music are as important if not more so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cha-cha-cha is also not a bad idea. Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. This is a tremendously important song culturally to Latino Americans.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think we have enough Latin music genres as it is, considering that our coverage of African or East Asian genres is practically nonexistent. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Why is the term Salsa music vital as opposed to Salsa (dance). Similarly, I think Cha-cha-cha (dance), Merengue (dance) and Bachata (dance) are culturally important sort of in that order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Hotel California[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom, considered by Rolling Stone as one of the greatest songs of all time, very defining and well known in classic rock. CatcherStorm talk 19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Performing arts[edit]

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

Visual arts[edit]

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


Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Philosophy and religion[edit]

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

Philosophy[edit]

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

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Add separation of church and state[edit]

No doubt it is vital, however it is not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant with secularism. Cobblet (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 04:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Specific religions[edit]

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

Esoterics, magic and mysticism[edit]

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

Mythology[edit]

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

Everyday life[edit]

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

Clothing and fashion[edit]

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

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.

Add Smoking (cooking)[edit]

Both a traditional and modern technique.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Aeonx (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Like pickling, a major food preservation technique used worldwide. Much more vital than casserole or entrée. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I prefer adding frying first. Individual frying techniques themselves such as sautéing, deep frying and stir frying are very notable. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I too, think frying looks quite vital.  Carlwev  14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Frying[edit]

Per above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add pan frying, stir frying and deep frying[edit]

Of all frying techniques, these three are the most frequently used.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Why not just add frying, as in the previous proposal? Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Turkish cuisine and Korean cuisine[edit]

The former is vital since nowadays a lot of people travel to Turkey to enjoy authentic Turkish cuisine and its sweets, Turkish delights are quite famous. The latter is vital because South Korea tirelessly promotes it to non-Koreans, and it is gaining popularity in Taiwan.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Korean cuisine. Definitely not the next Asian cuisine I'd add – I'd say Thai, Vietnamese and even some regional Chinese cuisines like Cantonese are more important. Would prefer Middle Eastern cuisine over Turkish cuisine – it makes little sense to single out Turkish food when it's so similar to the cuisines of its neighbours. Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add food processing, food additives and food safety[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Add fried chicken[edit]

It is as vital as French fries, since both of them frequently appear in fast food.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose That's simply not true. I don't see why fried chicken is any more vital than fried fish or roast chicken. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Add housewife[edit]

No doubt it's crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Housekeeping I could support; but adding this makes about as much sense as adding breadwinner. We already have wife and husband to cover traditional gender roles in the family. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

We have Domestic worker, similar role, but obviously not exactly the same thing.  Carlwev  16:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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 Walmart[edit]

Largest company in the world, world's largest private employer. Revenue (~US$500 bil) and equity exceeds that of most countries.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This was removed a year ago. I didn't participate in that discussion, but FWIW I'd agree with User:Malerisch that I'd prefer listing Walmart over Sam Walton. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Berkshire Hathaway[edit]

Largest conglomerate in the world with significant influence and history.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Doesn't really have a corner on any one industry, nor is it particularly old. pbp 01:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Warren Buffett's already listed. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose very redundant to Warren Buffett. Gizza (t)(c) 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Samsung[edit]

Largest technology company in the world.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add BP[edit]

Most significant Oil and Gas company in the world.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Where you get the "most significant"? We already have bigger oil companies on the list. pbp 01:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I stand by my opinion that Standard Oil is the only oil company of major historical significance. Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Culture[edit]

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

Education[edit]

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

Ethnology[edit]

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

Add Quechua people[edit]

There are no South American ethnic groups listed. Every other continent has at least two groups represented. The Quechua are among the most well-known in South America.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This has been hinted upon a few times in the past (I could find the archives if you want) but I honestly think the ethnology section needs to become bigger. These articles are precisely the type of article you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree: but it would be nice if we could establish some sort of criteria for what might constitute a vital ethnic group instead of taking the shotgun approach to this section as we previously have. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2015 (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.


Swap: Remove Assamese language, Add Pala Empire[edit]

Alternative to above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support The Pala Empire constitutes the high point of Buddhist influence in India and can be considered a golden age in Bengal's history. Cobblet (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Law[edit]

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

Add SWAT[edit]

Now that a lot of law enforcement agencies in the world have SWAT teams, e.g. LAPD, and a SWAT team is useful in riot control and violent confrontations with gunmen, this article is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Not vital at all. So many legal topics are more important than SWAT. We've already talked about much better suggestions if you go through the archives. Gizza (t)(c) 01:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Mass media[edit]

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

Museums[edit]

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

Politics and government[edit]

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

Add referendum[edit]

No doubt it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support even though this is framed as a straight add instead of a swap, there are less vital articles in the politics section so I'll support this. I also believe that the current quota of 900 articles is not enough for social sciences. Gizza (t)(c) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add geopolitics and geostrategy[edit]

Since the terms appear quite frequently in news media, and they are useful, hence they should be added to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Appear with less frequency and are less useful than the, which isn't listed. But seriously, I wouldn't regard any of the subfields of human geography as vital. In particular geopolitics is nowadays frequently just used as a synonym for international relations in general. Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose As Cobblet says, something that appears frequently in news media is not vital. But these terms don't even appear frequently anymore nor are they useful at all. What benefits do these terms have when learning about politics and international relations? Gizza (t)(c) 04:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Coup d'état[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Psychology[edit]

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

Society[edit]

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

Sociology[edit]

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

War and military[edit]

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

Add marines and amphibious warfare[edit]

In my opinion, these two articles are as vital as army and land warfare at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose amphibious which is one of many types of hybrid warfare not vital themselves. Let's stick to the basic types only. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add ground warfare[edit]

It is weird not to included this article while naval warfare is included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not included!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Airborne forces and paratrooper[edit]

Two article which are no doubt vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add special forces and special operations[edit]

These two article are no doubt vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Really? Nowadays special forces are more important than before. So are special operations.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Combat actions: Hand-to-hand combat, Close quarters combat, Fire and Movement, Patrolling, Ambush, Blitzkrieg, and Charge (warfare)[edit]

Request to add combat actions to War and military section. These are all important aspect of warfare and conflict.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Aeonx (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. All.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bulk addition proposals need really good rationales IMO. A better explanation of why all seven of these articles are vital is needed. Gizza (t)(c) 09:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

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.

Add animal cognition[edit]

An interesting and vital topic, yet currently it does not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Redundant to ethology and intelligence. Gizza (t)(c) 07:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd support swapping this in for intelligence, which is basically an umbrella article for human intelligence, animal cognition and artificial intelligence and the second one of these is the only topic we don't list separately. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Animal coloration[edit]

A topic no less vital than animal cognition.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support See comments below. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Redundant to ethology, ecology and colour. There are too many aspects of animals and animal behaviour to add all of them. E.g. animal communication, animal physiology, animal culture and animal locomotion. I'm willing to change my mind on these if you give a stronger rationale. OTOH, I'm more likely to support an article like sexual dimorphism, a more focused topic which many people including biologists such as Darwin have been curious about over the years. Gizza (t)(c) 08:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Gizza, I'd say animal communication and culture are indeed redundant with ethology, but for most animals colouration is first and foremost an inherited trait, not a behavioural one (except for chameleons, octopuses, etc.) There's no coverage of animal colouration in the articles on ethology, ecology or colour. Mimicry and aposematism are subtopics of animal colouration that have attracted just as much scientific interest as sexual dimorphism (which itself could be considered a subtopic of sex) and the study of bioluminescence ultimately led to the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (which has been nominated here before). But like you said, we don't have room to add all these subtopics: hence my suggestion to add the overview article. BTW, animal locomotion is listed and animal physiology redirects to physiology. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cobblet. The more I thought about it, the more I realised this topic could very be vital but my oppose was strongly influenced by the ridiculous rationale. Being "no less vital than animal cognition" doesn't mean anything since animal cognition isn't listed. It's even worse than the "no less vital than (something listed)" which Rekishi generally uses. Gizza (t)(c) 12:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Organisms[edit]

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

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Cestoda[edit]

The tapeworm (which redirects), common parasite, can infect humans, in fact, the article states that all vertebrates can be infected by at least one species of cestoda, and over 1000 species have been described to date. Article present in about 57 languages if I count correct.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support At least it's more vital than botfly. Cobblet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

Remove Apterygota[edit]

This subclass used to contain all the wingless insects, but nowadays it just contains Thysanura (which includes the silverfish and is listed), Archaeognatha and the extinct Monura; Collembola (listed), Protura and Diplura have been moved elsewhere and are sometimes elevated into their own classes. Apterygota no longer looks like a vital taxon to me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Frankly I'm not even sure we even need Pterygota, the subclass containing the winged insects. None of the intermediate taxa that go between the class Insecta and orders like Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera look particularly vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Health, medicine and disease[edit]

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

Remove Medical procedure[edit]

It's just a list of anything a medical professional might do in the course of interacting with a patient. Types of medical procedures like diagnosis, therapy, surgery, etc. are vital; the umbrella article is redundant with medicine.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support agree with nom. Just a list, redundant to medicine and the main procedures already listed. Doesn't add anything.  Carlwev  10:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add occupational medicine and sports medicine[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose occupational medicine. Much more vital than the medical specialty is occupational safety and health. Cobblet (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Physical sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Measurement[edit]

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

Astronomy[edit]

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

Chemistry[edit]

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

Add thermochemistry and green chemistry[edit]

Both are as vital as photochemistry and environmental chemistry, however currently they are not listed.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Photochemistry is already listed; green chemistry is just a buzzword. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 14:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Sorry, I proposed the wrong one. I wanted to propose thermochemistry, but nominated the wrong article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd still oppose that; it's redundant with heat and enthalpy. Cobblet (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Add chemical structure[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We need more specific topics of particular interest, not more loosely defined umbrella articles. Chemical bond covers the physical basis of molecular structure; spectroscopy and crystallography cover how one figures it out. If you want to add something in this area, I believe I've nominated X-ray crystallography more than once before and I'd also consider NMR spectroscopy vital. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 07:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add chlorofluorocarbon[edit]

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Swapped for ozone depletion a while back. We have no room to list chemicals that are being phased out of use. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Earth science[edit]

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

Add ocean acidification[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Effects of global warming should be covered by the parent article. We have no room to list subtopics. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose acid rain is the more well-known environmental problem and that's not listed because it is covered by air pollution. This is covered by water pollution. Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. Acid rain is already listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Physics[edit]

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

Technology[edit]

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

Agriculture[edit]

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

Remove agricultural policy[edit]

Though no unimportant, this article still should be removed since it is no more vital than, say foreign policy or military policy, and to list all fields of public policy is unrealistic, because there are much more vital articles not included in subpages of WP:VA/E, such as Yuri Andropov, modernization theory. paratrooper and G Men.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If I had to pick one specific aspect of government policy to add to the list it would be economic policy; it certainly wouldn't be this. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 07:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

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.

Add smartphone[edit]

Now that a lot of people use it, and this term has been mentioned many times by news media, it should be crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Add computer file[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. While a bit of that is covered in File system, it's Computer files which are the fundamental topic in data storage - all the rest (including the file system, disk drives, and whatnot), is just there to hold the file. Rwessel (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. Can support this as a swap with file system too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Add wiki[edit]

As Wikipedia implements wiki, and wiki is now becoming more and more popular, it should be listed here.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_27#Remove_wiki. Already removed 6-0. No wiki other than Wikipedia itself is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add microblogging[edit]

Now that a lot of people use microblogging services like Twitter, maybe more often than blogging services like Blogspot, microblogging should be included in the list as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support An important trend in contemporary society. pbp 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by blog and text messaging. I don't see it as being any more vital than podcast or e-book or file sharing or cloud computing. Cobblet (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I don't think blog is vital either. Not the most important type of article. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add metadata[edit]

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale. Cobblet (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

Infrastructure[edit]

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

Machinery and tools[edit]

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

Media and communication[edit]

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

Medical technology[edit]

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

Military technology[edit]

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

Navigation and timekeeping[edit]

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

Optical technology[edit]

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

Space[edit]

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

Textiles[edit]

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

Transportation[edit]

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

Mathematics[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Algebra[edit]

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

Add Cauchy–Schwarz inequality[edit]

This inequality is useful, since according to the lede of the article, it is considered one of the most important inequalities in all of mathematics.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Useful indeed, and I think it's better than the previous suggestion, but still not vital. Frankly, if this is the single most important math topic we've failed to list, we should consider trimming the math section. We don't go anywhere near this kind of detail in any other field of study. Yes, math is important, but so are many other things, as RekishiEJ is undoubtedly well aware. Cobblet (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Maybe limit of a sequence and limit of a function (the latter proposed for addition by me) should be removed, since though both are crucial in math analysis, the article limit (mathematics) summarizes both, and it is in the Level 4 list as well. However, there should still be more inequalities be added since they are crucial in math, just read the articles and you'll know that. By the way, the math sublist should go more detailed than the physical science sublist, since math is crucial as many disciplines rely on it, especially physics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC) fixed a bit 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I studied linear algebra in university – my education is not limited to reading Wikipedia articles. I'd actually be more inclined to remove Limit (mathematics) as that's essentially just a fleshed-out disambiguation page. I agree math is the basis for the physical sciences and having slightly more math topics is not a bad idea; but I find it hard to believe this is among the five most important unlisted math concepts (we're at 295/300 for this section). I'm sure you and I could come up with plenty of unlisted topics in analysis and linear algebra that are just as important (if not more so; e.g. how about continuous function?) as the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and I don't see why Cauchy-Schwarz should receive preferential treatment over the others. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Limit (mathematics) is currently listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Bernoulli's inequality[edit]

Though it is rated only Mid-importance by the Math WikiProject, the article is still vital since it is often used as the crucial step in the proof of other inequalities.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Random inequalities are not vital. Worse than Cauchy-Schwarz. Gizza (t)(c) 13:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Calculus and analysis[edit]

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

Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Geometry[edit]

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

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

Add mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean[edit]

They are as vital as arithmetic mean.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support mean. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support mean. Gizza (t)(c) 08:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support mean.  Carlwev  09:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose geometric and harmonic means. Coverage of them in mean ought to be sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Other[edit]

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


General discussions[edit]

Propose to alter the quota[edit]

The quota of people should be raised to 2010-2020, that of history should be 685, that of arts to 660, that of society and social sciences to 920, that of biology and health sciences be reduced to 1450, since it is quite unlikely in the near future that there would be 1500 articles in the sublist of biology and health sciences. What do you think?.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose raising the People quota – there are easily 10-20 people on the list who I'm sure you could get consensus to remove if that's the amount of space you want to free up. Also oppose lowering the Biology quota to 1450 – I can live with a cut to 1475 but more would be unwise when there are so many potential additions that haven't been discussed. For instance: animal cognition, animal coloration, antibody, bipedalism, blood transfusion, brainstem, carnivorous plant, cell cycle, cerebellum, cerebral cortex, cerebrum, circadian rhythm, eugenics, female reproductive system, food web, larynx, male reproductive system, nocturnality, pituitary gland, tendon, therapy, thermoregulation, tongue. And that list doesn't include anything related to biochemistry or molecular biology. I would however support placing a quota of 900 on the organisms, or even a little lower – 900's where we're at right now and I don't think that section should get any bigger. (If anything we should have fewer articles on organisms than on society/social sciences, not more.) Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Then let's raise the quota of society and social sciences to 920 and lower that of biology and health sciences to 1480 first!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The only parts of the proposal which I can support right now is an increase of society to 920 and biology to 1480. Arts needs some interal adjustments IMO but it is difficult to know what the right overall number is. People shouldn't go higher. And we should wait for a while before increasing history again (there are some weak articles listed in history despite the big omissions that pop out of nowhere). Gizza (t)(c) 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I support raising society to 920 and dropping biology to 1480. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC) This proposal has sat around for a while. I will change the quotas at the end of the week if there's no further feedback to the proposal. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
support Society could do with some more GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Intelligence officers and spies on the list[edit]

This list is currently somewhat narrow in its scope. Not only because it still does not list some vital historical events, but also because it still lacks many important persons. It even does not have any spies or intelligence officers (Vladimir Putin is the only former intelligence officer currently listed). This is ridiculous, since spies and intelligence officers have played an important role in history of warfare (e.g. Mata Hari and Richard Sorge). So I propose that at least Mata Hari, Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yuri Andropov, Richard Sorge, Mikhail Mukasei, Kim Philby, Melita Norwood, Rudolf Abel, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger and George H. W. Bush be included. If adding all figures I proposed would exceed the quota then let's remove some entertainment figures and groups.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoover's about the only one of those I'd feel comfortable supporting. pbp 02:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Really? Kissinger is as vital as Hoover, since many world leaders have sought his advice, and he is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
He's also a) not really an intelligence officer/spy, b) has already been removed from the list, and c) is by no means the next American or European political or military figure I would add to this list. pbp 23:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
If Putin counts then so does Cardinal Richelieu; you also didn't mention the contributions of Sun Tzu and Chanakya to the history of espionage. I wouldn't support adding any of the figures you mentioned – in each case I'm pretty sure you could find other people not listed who have clearly made a bigger impact on history. For instance, adding Kissinger or Bush Sr. doesn't make sense when we don't have John Quincy Adams, who not only served a term as president but is also often considered to be America's greatest diplomat of all time. Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The only one i'd support is J. Edgar Hoover, we don't really have law enforcement and barely have law represented, let alone spies. Cobblet why don't you propose a swap with Jimmy Carter with Adams? I still for the life of me don't understand how he is on the list. Also while we're here what do you think of these Edward Flatau, Jean-Martin Charcot, Oliver Sacks, William Tyndale and Montgolfier brothers? GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The Montgolfier brothers have come across my mind before. Gizza (t)(c) 03:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm waiting to see if Hillary gets elected. Charcot's a good choice (Flatau's pretty obscure though) but if people like Cuvier and Virchow aren't gonna make it I'm not sure he will either. And I would prefer adding scientists before science writers and communicators – we already have Carl Sagan and David Attenborough has been proposed before and did not pass. Tyndale is at least a better choice than Charles Spurgeon but in my view the real problem in our coverage of religious figures has been the general exclusion of women, which I've been gradually trying to fix starting with Mary Magdalene. (At this point, besides Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena and Olga of Kiev would be my other suggestions.) We've discussed the general lack of aeronautical pioneers before and the Montgolfiers are another good example of that. Again this is why I'm not keen on adding writers and popularizers of science – too many scientists and inventors who have made fundamental contributions are still missing. (BTW, I've come around on Valentina Tereshkova.) Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I Would support a Hilary swap with Jimmy if she gets in. Yeah, i'm confused by some of the people not on the list and who didn't make it (Virchow, Cuvier, Princess Diana & David Attenborough). I am certain however that a aeronautical figure probably should be added, glad to see you come around on Valentina but i doubt she will get in (there's not many eyes on this side of Wiki unfortunately...) I really wish there was a 10, 000 people list, ah well maybe in a couple years. I will try and think of more people in the meantime. GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then after making this list containing exactly 10,000 articles, let's make Level 5 list containing 100,000 articles!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@GuzzyG and RekishiEJ: have a look at Template:Core topics. It's on the bottom of vital lists. It contains links to all core topic and vital articles lists, including user generated ones. You can make your own lists on your own user page. Some of those lists had a goal of containing the 100,000 most important articles in the encyclopedia. However, it seems that those big lists have failed to be fully created. I personally think it's impossible for a single human to compile a list of 100,000 vital articles. It would be very, very hard for a group of people like all of us to make one of that size. And it's hard for just one of us to make a high quality 10,000 list. Nobody has the knowledge, understanding and expertise in absolutely everything in the world, universe and beyond to do that IMO. Not to mention the persistence and time. Having said that, there's no harm in trying and proving me wrong. :) Gizza (t)(c) 11:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It might be more realistic to make only a vital biography list of say 5,000 people. I've pondered over the idea of having two different vital lists for biographies and non-biographies. Other people have said that while doing apple and orange comparisons between the people and other sections, it appears that individual people are much less vital than the more abstract and collective topics in the other sections. Gizza (t)(c) 11:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)