Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Gabe's suggested amended list of "actors" to 50 (currently 75)

×

There is a consensus to delete actors one-by-one rather than en masse

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.

Actors, 50

This would trim 25 quick and easy. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As there are so many actors, it would be useful to have a list of the trimmed actors alongside for comparison.Rsm77 (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle: glad somebody did the down-and-dirty on this. Not sure I agree with a couple of the drops (Mel Gibson shouldn't stay while Morgan Freeman goes), but do with most of them pbp 00:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle:Agree with many of these choices, but the list needs some adjustment.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actor discussion

Mel Gibson is arguably the world's greatest living director and perhaps the most successful actor/director of all-time. I'm a big Morgan Freeman fan, but his accomplishments do not top Gibson's. Perhaps someone else should be removed in favour of Freeman. Any suggestions other than Gibson? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"The world's greatest living director"...not while Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee, Woody Allen, Ron Howard and Martin Scorsese are still living! He's a worse actor than Hanks or Freeman, and a worse director than all the men I just listed (and then some) pbp 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to say that there's no way that Robert De Niro should be cut from the list, with his major roles in The Godfather II, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull, Once Upon a Time in America, and Goodfellas, among others.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree Rsm77, I've added De Niro and removed Gibson. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


  • Three more points:
  1. This list was and is skewed disproportionately toward film actors, and disproportionately against actors from other media. We should probably have a couple stage actors (Kenneth Branagh, who was dropped? Patrick Stewart? Edwin Booth for chrono diversity?)
  2. Gerard Depardieu is widely considered the greatest actor of French cinema. We kept a couple other French actors, perhaps one of them should be dropped for Depardieu.
  3. Daniel Day-Lewis probably should be on the list. He has three Best Actor Oscars. The other guys? Eh, not so much! pbp 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On the three points above: 1) Edmund Kean was dropped from the list and he was a 19th century stage actor who has a case for staying. 3)I agree Daniel Day-Lewis has a good case.Rsm77 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I'll add them both now, if I can avoid an edit conflict. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, now I look again for point 1) David Garrick would probably be a more obvious choice than Kean.Rsm77 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe all the above concerns have now been addressed, except for the inclusion of Gerard Depardieu. Can anyone give some specific examples of who should be removed in his favour? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason for the inclusion of Randolph Scott.--Rsm77 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Great suggestion, I've now removed Scott and added Depardieu. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
One more change I'd like to see. I know something about Japanese cinema, and I don't think Shintaro Katsu is significant enough for this list. However, it would be a shame to replace him with an American or European actor. I have come up with some possible replacements:
  1. Takashi Shimura is certainly famous - some might argue with including another Kurosawa collaborator alongside Mifune.
  2. Chishu Ryu, a regular Ozu collaborator - but before or instead of adding him, I'd prefer to add Setsuko Hara to actresses, and certainly Yasujiro Ozu to directors!
  3. Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, known for Hard-Boiled, Chungking Express, In the Mood for Love - but not sure if he is significant enough.
  4. Jackie Chan, massively famous and influential - some might argue that with Bruce Lee already on the list, we don't need Jackie Chan as well - also maybe a question mark against his artistic credentials.
Personally my top pick from these would be Jackie Chan, followed by Takashi Shimura. Any thoughts from anyone else?--Rsm77 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I support Chan over Katsu. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we make this change then?--Rsm77 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Although he is obviously a good actor, I feel it is difficult to see who he could replace on what is now a strong list. Having said this, I would like to put in Peter Sellers to replace Redgrave. Any reactions?--Rsm77 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and I've now swapped out Redgrave for Sellers, great suggestion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I think Paul Robeson has a strong case. Who would you like him to replace?--Rsm77 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I added Robeson and dropped Marcello Mastroianni. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I was going to suggest adding him in performers anyway. Support pbp 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done pbp 16:50, 25 March 2013 (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.

Comedians to 25 (currently 41)

There is a consensus to delete comedians one-by-one rather than en masse

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.

Since we're cutting actors by a third, perhaps it's time to cut comedians to a reasonable size as well. I propose them be chopped to 25. Here is my first draft:

pbp 16:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good overall. The only removals that I disagree with are :

I suggest we instead remove:

Fine with Hill being dropped in favor of Berle, Bruce or Myers. Not fine with Whoopi being dropped or her being characterized as a "weak entry". She's hosted the Oscars four times, and is in the EGOT club. I'm a bit worried about dropping two women when this list is already mostly 20th century American white men; if I'm not mistaken, Whoopi is the only woman of color on this list. pbp 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so drop Hill, but if we want to get to 25 we will need to drop another to add back Berle. Drop Fey for Bruce? I can agree to leave Whoopi, but to include her, while excluding Richard Pryor, on the basis of gender and race diversity is shoddy logic, however; I agree that the EGOT is enough to keep her. Any thoughts on adding Mike Myers? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I think Bruce and Pryor should be in there. As it's a very American-centred list at the moment, I'd also like to see Peter Cook or Spike Milligan on the list (probably Milligan, I suppose). Goldberg should stay on the list. No particular opinion either way on Myers. Berle is fine staying off. So who else needs to make way for the previous people? Difficult for me to say, but I'd probably choose from Burnett, Crystal, David, Murphy, and Newhart.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with adding Bruce and Pryor and removing any two of the four you mentioned above except David, unless Seinfeld is first re-added (we don't need them both, but we need one or the other). I also support including Milligan in favour of Crystal or Newhart. For the sake of compromise, I'll strike my support for Berle, and my opposition to Goldberg. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess Newhart is probably out, because Carol Burnett should stay. pbp 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Agree. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  2. Agree pbp 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring ommisions (a)

  1. Milton Berle
  2. Phyllis Diller
  3. Don Rickles
  4. Gene Wilder
  5. Rodney Dangerfield
  6. Roseanne Barr
  7. Ellen Degeneres
  8. Gilda Radner
  9. Carl Reiner
  10. Joan Rivers
  11. Redd Foxx
  12. Andy Kaufman
  13. Jeff Foxworthy
  14. Mary Tyler Moore
  15. Spike Milligan
  16. Sid Caesar
  17. Lenny Bruce
  18. Moms Mabley

This list is missing way too many pillars of comedy while including some that are, ehh, not so much. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, there are glaring omissions in every single category or subcategory on this list. That's what happens when you limit a list to 10,000. It's not like high-priority articles, where there can be as many as need. pbp 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There are definitely some things that can be cut under food...Tartar sauce for example. Go ahead and propose some stuff. But I think it perfectly reasonable for 1.5% of this list to be prepared foods and drinks. People eat food every day. Some of the foods you've listed are hundreds of years old; others are eaten daily by millions upon millions of people. The food list is more globalized and less recentist than actors, comedians, or musicians. To put it in some perspective, right now we have more 20th century entertainers than food. As such, I believe the "glaring excesses" to be in entertainment personalities rather than food pbp 01:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pbp, maybe you should stick to sub-lists where you are more familiar with the material. Your removal of Pryor and Bruce, and resistance to add them back reveals that you are perhaps not the best choice for "improving" a list of Comedians. At the very least, you should not be be so demanding of other editors at sub-lists where you seem to be a bit out of your element. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see it's getting heated, so this is just my opinion. I would be fine with a reduction in the number of comedians. From the discussion above, I thought there was agreement that Crystal, Murphy, and Newhart were out, which allowed Bruce, Milligan, and Pryor in. I'm fine with Fey being taken out, which leaves room for one more person (maybe Wilder? or one of the people who've just gone out?). Of course, we can continue to discuss other changes.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Glaring omissions list appears very USA centric. The whole list is missing Spanish, Indian, French, Russian and British influenced actors. Not all of these actors and actresses crossed over to the USA cinema, especially in the early days of television and cinema.--LauraHale (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

1) This list is for Comedians, not actors, which is a separate list. 2) I agree that we could diversify the list, but you have yet to offer any specific suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:41, 19 March 2013 (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.

Host and performers

There is a consensus to delete hosts or performers one-by-one rather than en masse

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.

It currently stands at 8, with Houdini being moved from the defunct magicians category to performers. I think that three of these hosts can be dispensed with: Steve Allen, Jay Leno and David Letterman. That would leave us with Houdini, Marcel Marceau (French mime/performer), Johnny Carson (late night TV host), Dick Clark (TV show host/DJ), and Ed Sullivan (variety show host). Thoughts? pbp 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with dropping Leno and Letterman for recency cencerns, but we should leave Allen for chronological diversity, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I can acquiesce to keeping Allen, after reading his bio, but it's worth noting that his career was contemporaneous to Sullivan's pbp 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Sullivan and Allen, though contemporaries, were nothing alike in terms of style and delivery. Allen was more "modern" in his approach, while Sullivan was very much "old-school" by comparison. If you think them too similar, then perhaps swap-out Allen for Dick Cavett. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It's a start. If we drop 2 articles here, 5 articles there, pretty soon we've gotten back to 10,000 pbp 21:38, 19 March 2013 (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.
There is a consensus to delete actors one-by-one rather than en masse. None of these proposals have a consensus

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.

Modern, 80


My suggestions are nearly all for removals, except that I've proposed the addition of Wilson Pickett and Willie Nelson to round out soul and country music, and I've added the Beach Boys and removed Brian Wilson. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground should definitely stay. I think Jacques Brel should be in there as well for his influence. For something like this, I really think we shouldn't be thinking so much about sales. So people like Mariah Carey, Shania Twain, Billy Joel would be more obvious picks for me, as they're in no danger of entering the musical canon, and haven't had a huge enough impact to justify their inclusion for other reasons.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and I've swapped in "TVU" and Brel, and removed Carey and Joel. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not very happy with Shania Twain being on the list when Muddy Waters, the Ramones, The Clash, the Sex Pistols, Simon and Garfunkel, Van Morrison, The Doors, Sly and the Family Stone, Public Enemy, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Billie Holiday aren't. I'm not saying they should all be on the list, just that the list could do with some work.--Rsm77 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Give me a half-an hour or so and I'll see what I can do to address your above concerns. Thanks for your valued input. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
FYI, Armstrong and Ellington are in "19th to early 20th centuries". Perhaps dividing pre- and post-WWII isn't the best of ideas, and we should combine those two, then split them some other way, with ~100 total between the two (i.e. rock, jazz, soul, etc) pbp 03:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Rsm77, I've now amended the list to include your suggestions, except for Holliday, Armstrong, and Ellington, for the reasons pbp gave above. Any further thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hate to throw a wrench in all this, but I'm not sure I approve of these additions, S&G nonwithstanding...we will end up cutting a net of just 6, when 15-20 net would be more what we need. I still think breaking it down by genre is necessary so we can get a better feel on what we have pbp 05:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Who says this list needs to be at 75? Just your personal opinion again? Then please at least propose 12 additional removals, or else they will all stay, right? Is that better then a modest trim with a significant improvement in content? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Who says this list needs to be at 87? Just your personal opinion again? I will propose trims once I've finished my bracket and sorted the bios by genre. Right now, we have some genres with a lotta people, when 5-6 should be sufficient pbp 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
FTR, I had the list down to 80 articles, but Rsm77 requested 7 additions, which, in the spirit of compromise, I honoured. I think compromise is a necessary component of consensus. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
To be honest here, I was mainly throwing in suggestions of people who were more qualified than Shania Twain. I would be fine with this section going down to 75, and I think it might be an idea to mix it in with the earlier section (featuring Louis Armstrong and others, sorry for my mistake there). This will mean removing some people. I am happy to withdraw my suggestions of The Clash, the Ramones, Van Morrison, and more reluctantly, Sly and the Family Stone (not much funk on the list). The Sex Pistols should certainly be on the list in my opinion. Muddy Waters, Public Enemy, and S&G should certainly be in the discussion even if they don't make the cut, as should Little Richard (sorry to add one more).

People who should be off the list:

  1. Johnny Hallyday (big sales in France and Canada alone, little significant influence)
  2. Cliff Richard (I don't think he is really significant)

Tougher decisions:

  1. Do we need AC/DC and Black Sabbath? One could go.
  2. Could we cut one of Baez, Cohen, and Mitchell?
  3. Clapton, Harrison (he was out at one stage), S&G?
  4. Cline or Parton? (I could see Parton going)
  5. Dion, Iglesias, Mouskori, Pugacheva (personally I'd be happy with all of them going, but that's probably my bias - for one, sales should not be such a factor - for two, they have not had a significant enough impact on popular music as a whole - for three, I think it's fair to say that popular music has been driven by English-language singers (largely the US and UK) so if the list is English language dominated that's fair enough)
  6. I suppose BB King is representing blues - I'd prefer to include Muddy Waters.
  7. Wilson Pickett (I don't think he is up there with the other soul musicians)

Discuss.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I left Johnny Hallyday (the British Elvis Presley) and Cliff Richard, assuming that any deletions of non-Americans would be met with resistance (Brel comes to mind). AC/DC is hard rock, and Black Sabbath is heavy metal, two different genres. Also, Sabbath is arguably the most influencial metal band ever. As far as cutting Baez, Cohen, or Mitchell, I vote for Mitchell. Per BB King versus Muddy Waters; King is Mississippi blues, Waters was Chicago blues, also, I think including two bluesmen is not at all excessive (we have Parker, Coltrane, and Davis). I stand by Pickett as every bit as important as Cooke or Redding. Dion is already removed, and Iglesias is one of the top three most popular singers who ever lived. As far as Mouskori and Pugacheva, again, I only retained them under the assumption that any and all non-American deletions would be met with resistance, I couldn't care less if they are both removed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually I really am beginning to think we should mix in with 19th to early 20th century for a total of 100, and divide them into genres, at least in the discussion stage. If the genres are difficult to define we can always abandon them later.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
No thanks. Genre warring is one of the more useless discussions that I have ever had on Wikipedia. The "modern" distinction is fine, you don't need to reinvent the wheel here, and to be frank, you are starting to "task" people while doing little to none of the actual "work" yourself. Anyway, this list is currently at an unknown total, so one could argue that to argue over every little addition or removal is a futile waste of time and effort. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is the point where I bow out of the discussion.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Aw...it was just getting good...

Purplebackpack's Counter-Proposal

Here is my counter proposal, which encompasses the entire sections of "Popular music" (both pre- and post- WWII), "Middle Eastern and Indian classical music". I add a few that were proposed additions above, plus John Philip Sousa and John Williams (you like people who sell a lot of records; I think there's something like a billion DVDs with a Williams soundtrack; also he has 48 Oscar nominations and five wins). Note that there are still over two dozen rockers, which is still way too much IMO.

pbp 03:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of pbp's proposal

  • Further observations. Pbp, your choice to break the artists down into sub-categories has exposed some issues with our list. 1) there is only one artist representing the blues, one artist representing funk, and one artist representing Reggae. 2) Your jazz list has three horn players and several piano players, but no guitar players or drummers. Where are Charles Mingus, Jaco Pastorius, Wes Montgomery and Buddy Rich? Elvin Jones anyone? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
        • So? We'd have room for more of those guys if you weren't insisting on having dozens of rockers on this list! As for funk and reggae, I doubt they really deserve more than a single musician. As for why no jazz guitarists or drummers, remember that horns (and winds, remember, Benny Goodman was a clarinetist) and piano players carry the melody and lead the bands. Aslo, Montgomery, Rich and Elvin aren't anywhere near the caliber needed to be on this list, sorry. Also, note that Blues and Soul are covered by the same WikiProject, so it makes sense that they be in one grouping pbp 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
1) is contradicted by WP:GLOBALIZE, and since English-speaking countries are 80-90% of the world population, it seems fair to have 15% of popular singers be from non-English speaking countries. 2) This is a finite list; there have to be glaring omissions, and 29 rockers is too many as it is, 3) When you only have a finite list of categories, there are some stretches that have to be made, 4) note that Rsm proposed dropping Iglesias above, 6) no, it isn't. Jazz is much more encompassing than blues. 8) One funkster is more than enough. This list isn't long enough to have multiple funksters. In general, you need to remember that this list has purposes other than to turn out articles about recent American pop icons. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to put my foot down here; we should not devote more than 1% of this list to popular musicians, and I will oppose any proposal that leaves the number of pop/librettests/non-Western musicians at a number greater than 100 pbp 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
1) Yet again, WP:GLOBALIZE does not pertain to WP:VA, it pertains to article space. Per "English-speaking countries are 80-90% of the world population", perhaps, but has 10-15% of "popular music" really come from non-English speaking countries? 2) "29 rockers is too many", is an opinion that runs afoul of WP:OR. 3) It was better/simpler as "modern", you've convoluted the discussion with genres now, which will be a continuing issue of contention, but you would already know that if you edited music articles. 4) You and Rsm agree 100% with each other, at all times, so it matters very little to me that you cite him as an "expert" on latin music, he is not. 5) "Jazz is much more encompassing than blues". Huh? What are you talking about? Do you have a source or is this more WP:OR? No offense, but you really don't seem to know enough about music in general to be leading this discussion. 8) Funk is worthy of two or three entries if Tyagaraja and Muthuswami Dikshitar are included. Again, you should stick to topics in which you are educated; you seem to be a bad choice for popular music, which you seem to disdain. Also, please stop with the petty jabs, you're not ever gonna find a girlfriend if you keep acting like a type-A control freak with no sense of humour or taste for popular music. I'll bet Harry Potter is your favourite book series ever, and 30 Rock is your favourite TV show, yet somehow you continuously demean people who enjoy popular music. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't know how to respond to this. I'll make the following points:
  1. I see no evidence that globalize doesn't apply to project-space
  2. It's also OR to say that X, Y, and Z musicians belong is also OR/personal opinion. This whole list is personal opinion, so just delete the whole schbang?
  3. You're darn right that my personal feeling is that 40-50 modern musicians would be sufficient, and five rockers would be more than enough. Would you rather I'd proposed that?
  4. The "You're not ever gonna find a girlfriend if you keep acting like a type-A control freak" comment is a pretty clear personal attack, and as such, it can and should be stricken by whatever editor so chooses, and you, Gabe, should be blocked for two weeks for saying so pbp 00:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Globalize is important. I do not see vital as being equated with well known or popular, but in understanding the wider music industry. It might be better to a degree to step back, look at each name and explain what the historical influence a person or group has had on say the musical genre, etc. (Best example I can think of: Law of robotics in Science fiction comes not from Isaac Asimov, but from Eando Binder. Law of Robotics extends beyond fiction, but was reshaped and discussed by a number of novelists and was used to inform thinking by engineers and cybernetics people in terms of ethical considerations.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Point of information: according to List of languages by total number of speakers, English speakers are well under 20%, and native English speakers less that half of that. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Laura and pbp, no offense, but you do not seem to understand what Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is attempting to do. 1) the templates relate to articles, i.e. "The examples and perspective in this article". 2) You keep using this project page (is it a guideline, policy or essay?) as a reason to remove American content, however; what the page actually says is: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented. Thus, the first question is 'What haven't we covered yet?', rather than 'how should we change the existing coverage?'" You are misrepresenting what the page actually says, and you keep using it as a reason for removal of American topics, something the page expressly discourages. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing?

It appears that GabeMc is trying to stack this discussion in favor of too many recent American musicians by notifying a number of WikiProjects: Rock, Blues and Soul, Hip-hop, etc. He has failed to notify other interested WikiProjects, such as those associated with classical and musical theater, and projects associated with something other than recent music pbp 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Very selective choices pbp. I was in the process of notifying all the projects, which I have now done. I think you only beat me to two of them. Where your post there was not neutrally worded, as were mine. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your post isn't neutral in that it assume that at least one article in each genre should be kept or added. It's also grammatically incorrect, doesn't mention that the discussion is specifically about musicians, and links to VA rather than VA/E. Mine is a significant improvement over yours pbp 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you are really scraping the barrel now; resorting to critiquing the grammar of my talk page posts, that's too funny. "Mine is a significant improvement over yours", how very mature. Is there a discussion thread of which I am unaware in which there is a clear consensus that no musicians from particular genres (read genres pbp doesn't like) will be included as vital articles? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Had you bothered to look at the pages you posted to, you'd have noticed that there are many of those pages where there are no musicians from that genre or region currently on this list, your proposed list, or the sensible proposed list (for example, you posted to the Pakistani and New Zealand music pages, there aren't any Pakistanis or New Zealanders on the list). Also, I'm not sure notifying only Music projects was the right call, what's going to happen is that they'll demand that this already-bloated-and-not-globalized list become even more bloated and even less globalized, and that'll crowd out more important stuff like food, geography and history. Also, it's definitely canvassing that you posted to projects associated only with Mariah Carey and The Clash; that'd be like if I posted to Talk:Marvin Hamlisch. If you put a (poorly but) neutral-worded statement on a biased set of pages, its still canvassing, and you shouldn't have done that pbp 23:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Pbp, you simply do not know enough about popular music, or music in general, to be so controlling of this discussion, that's why we need others to join in, that's why I posted to the other music projects. Also, why no Pakistani or New Zealand artists, I thought your goal was globalisation? You removed AC/DC, the only Australian act on the list. Editors at Carey and the Clash should know that someone (you) with absolutely zero interest in, and near zero knowledge of, popular music is deciding which articles are vital and which are non-vital. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I know an awful lot about music, Buster, just because I don't cow-tow to your sensibilities is irrelevant. I hosted a radio show at my university for 3 1/2 years, and I played hours upon hours of popular music. I have neither "near zero knowledge" nor "absolutely zero interest", and regardless, neither interest nor knowledge is a prerequisite for participating in any subsection. The "people only editing what they know and are interested in" that you're calling for leads to people just adding and adding more articles in areas they're interested in (like, judging from your edit history, you pretty well are in recent rockers) got us to 300-some-odd articles over the 10,000 threshold, continuing that practice would just make it worse. Again, you are clearly demonstrating that you have no comprehension whatsoever of Wikipedia policies, particularly canvassing. You either need to notify the projects or the talk pages of the other hundred-plus musicians and composers on this list, or you need to blank the notices you posted at Carey and Clash. Otherwise, it's purely and simply canvassing. Sure, others need to participate, but those "others" need to also come from non-music fields, not just from music pbp 00:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for withdrawing your comments at individual entries pbp 00:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Glaring ommisions

China
  1. Carsick Cars
  2. Eason Chan
  3. Jacky Cheung
  4. Hanggai
  5. Soler
India
  1. Nitin Sawhney
  2. Ustad Vilayat Khan
  3. Hariprasad Chaurasia
  4. Lata Mangeshkar
  5. Mohammed Rafi
Indonesia
  1. SambaSunda
  2. Sabah Habas Mustapha
  3. Chrisye
  4. Krakatau (band)
  5. The Lani Singers
Brazil
  1. Marisa Monte
  2. Michel Telo
  3. Renato Russo
  4. Caetano Veloso
  5. Elis Regina
Pakistan
  1. Atif Aslam
  2. Rahat Fateh Ali Khan
  3. Ali Zafar
  4. Shafqat Amanat Ali
  5. Hadiqa Kiyani

From 5 of the 6 most populous countries on Earth (excluding the US). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's get rid of some lesser-known American rockers or bluesters or jazzsters or whatnot, and replace them with 1-2 guys from each country. But I stand by my belief that 100 modern+lyricists+eastern traditions is the number. More than 100 modern musicians is too much when you only have 10,000 articles pbp 00:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm absolutely willing to work with you to reduce the "rock" sub-list to its essential parts, but if you want to remove some entries from your proposal, I'd start with Joni Mitchell and Simon & Garfunkel (add John Denver over Mitchell). Also, if you moved Elton John and the Beach Boys to pop, and Bob Marley to reggae, then the "rock" sub-list, won't appear larger than it actually is. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, you're more than welcome to do the following to the proposal:
  1. Drop Joni Mitchell
  2. Add John Denver, a second bluester, and some of those international people
  3. Move any number of articles from one section to another (note the first section is "general" pop music)
Dropping S&G I'm not so sure about, I think they're the best example of folk/rock after Bob Dylan, and I believe they're still the best-selling duo ever. I think with your additions we'll be >100, so we may need to find more to cut pbp 01:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, the best-selling duo of all-time is not Simon & Garfunkel, it's Hall & Oates. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc's counter-counter-proposal

Here is my counter-counter proposal. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of GabeMc's counter-counter-Proposal

  • By and large, I can get behind this. But one question: are we moving Williams to avant-garde, then? Sure, he's modern, but he sure ain't rock or pop or blues pbp 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Support pbp 04:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think we could put Williams in with the
  • The compromise goal was to come in at or under 100 articles. That constraint means that inevitably, some rather notable bands/acts will not be included. FWIW, my ideal list would be around 125, and there would be room for Maiden. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • We already have Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, and Elvis, so Richard would seem to be a bit excessive unless we remove a 1950s rocker. Who do you suggest Little Richard should replace? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Joni Mitchell > John Denver

Joni Mitchell's songs and alternative tunings have been profoundly more influential than John Denver's pop hits. It was a mistake to replace Mitchell with Bob Denver. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. Joni did plenty of pop herself, and Denver also used alternate tunings to influential affect. If consensus builds around including Mitchell over Denver then we'll swap them. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
King Crimson or The Kinks > The Doors or AC-DC

The Kinks are important for power chords and BritPop (catchy songs and British themes). For their sexual adventurism (David Watts) and power chords, they are more important than the wonderful AC-DC.

King Crimson belongs for its contributions to heavy metal, symphonic (progressive) rock, instrumental, and music-theoretical and Gamelan influences.

The Talking Heads or The Pixies are worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If pbp would allow us to exceed 100, then I would certainly add all four bands you've mentioned. However; since we have a working consensus to limit this list to 100, in order to include the four bands you mentioned above you will need to make a case for just as many removals as additions. AC/DC isn't included because they were more important then the Kinks, but because the entire English speaking continent of Australia is not represented without AC/DC, while British rock on the other hand, is already about 1/2 the list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wilson Pickett?

What is Wilson Pickett doing on this list when there's no Jackie Wilson in it? MadeinJapan (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • That is not what I'm trying to say. I'm actually fine with Pickett being on this list. But since you already have him in the top 12 of the greatest blues and soul artists, you have absolutely no reason to omit Wilson, since he can be considered a greater vocalist/artist. Also, consider adding T-Bone Walker. Drop The Velvet Underground, add Van Halen. I like the rest of the list. MadeinJapan (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, but since pbp has stated that he will strongly oppose any inclusions that push the popular music list over 100, in order to add Jackie Wilson, we will need to remove someone else, lest the list exceed 100. Same with T-Bone Walker. As I said above to another editor, my ideal list would be around 125, not 100, and almost all of these above suggestions would be included, if we could exceed 100, but again, pbp has vehemently insisted that the list of popular music should not exceed 100. If push comes to shove, we could swap out Pickett for Jackie Wilson, which I would disagree with, but I will of course honour consensus, should one develop in that regard. FWIW, if I had my way, I would drop TVU for VH, or include them both, but I don't see consensus for that at this time. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the list should be kept under 100. I've never heard a sound argument for it. Adding Jackie, T-Bone Walker, and VH without removing Pickett and VU seems like a good idea to me. MadeinJapan (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you MiJ, but working on Wikipedia means compromising with others, so I am doing my very best to do that. If you have an issue with the 100 article limit, I suggest you take it up with User:Purplebackpack89‎, as I've already done my best to lobby for more room. Thanks for your input. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This list is supposed to have 10,000 articles. Of those, 80% of them should be something that aren't bios; that leaves 2,000 (That's 20%; the 1,000 list is only 13.5%). I don't see why more that 5% of the bios should be pop musicians from the last 100-200 years. That still means there's almost as many recent musicians as there are religious leaders from everywhere and all of human history; there are more recent musicians than inventors and explorers combined. Pop musicians are fairly recent, and not all that globalized, with blues and soul being inherently non-globalized (I'm of the opinion that 12 is too many, considering that blues isn't that old, and is almost exclusively from one region of one country in the world). Adding more musicians crowds out other topics, other topics that are less recent and better globalized. Also, I am perfectly fine with there being "glaring omissions" in musicians. There are "glaring omissions" everywhere else. In any other category, I could easily give you several names or topics not on this list that are as important, or almost as important. Why should musicians be any different? pbp 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 150 years isn't particularly old in comparison to all of recorded history, which is several thousand years old, and to trace it back to pre-Civil War, you have to through Afro-American spiritual or other types of roots music. As for the laundry list of things, sure blues music is more important than most of the things you listed, but a particular blues musician may not be, especially when you already have several others. I don't understand why you're not a fan of food and drink articles, since everybody eats daily, food and drink articles are probably significant enough to justify having 1.5% of the list. And what is it with you arbitrary hating on colors? First you say color isn't 1000 material, then you say that specific colors don't belong. Most people perceive there to be more than three colors. You don't here somebody say, "I'm going to paint my house cyan-magenta", they just say, "blue". Furthermore, I seem to recall taking no opinion on the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or Kermit; HP and the plumber were the only ones I specifically favored keeping. But if you think those things don't belong on the list, go right ahead and start a discussion about them! pbp 03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 150 years is kinda long in terms of "popular music" though, is it not, and is that not what we are discussing here? Also, I never said that color wasn't 1,000 material, I said it was misplaced in the sub-lists, and it belonged with the scientific topics, most likely under light or optics. You keep saying that all people eat, but don't you think that most people also like music? Did ancient people sit around a campfire and listen to unpopular music? Also, is an encyclopedia analogous to a history book IYO, because you keep going to the strawman of "all of recorded history", but the two, while quite similar, are not at all synonymous. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "All of recorded history" is not a strawman, and yes, an encyclopedia should be a book that covers topics dealing with it, and our list should be too. As for, "don't you think that most people also like music?", there are way more articles on music and musicians than there are on food and chefs (actually, there are zero articles on chefs), and in any proposal I would advance, there would continue to be way more articles on music/musicians than on food/chefs. But, until we get Musicians down to 150-160 bios (that's counting classical musicians and performers), and probably drop some specific works of music too (I think there's over 100), music is bloated and will need trimming. pbp 04:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pbp, my point about the difference between an encyclopedia and a history book is that no serious history book would even include an entry on Harry Potter. In that way, an encyclopedia is not the same thing as a history book. Can you at least agree to that? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

While you've been talking about how many Blues and Funk musicians there should be, among other things, I've added Blues and Funk music themselves to Arts > music. I don't know if anyone noticed they weren't there. Another case of concentrating on biographies and not including their trade/field itself first. I am hoping no one minds? Carlwev (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To blues, of course not. That was a perfectly acceptable add pbp 04:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice catch Carl. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a hard job and I give kudos to those doing it - I think a few major people are missing like Oscar Peterson and Guy Lombardo.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Moxy! Since we have a "working" consensus to limit this portion of the list to 100, some major artists are noticeably absent. If we add Peterson and/or Lombardo, we would need to remove one or two entries to make room for them. Who do you suggest we remove in favour of Peterson and/or Lombardo? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Run–D.M.C.

Run–D.M.C. needs to be on this list. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree TK, and I would also add the Sugarhill Gang, but as I said above, there is a working consensus to limit this sub-list to 100 entries. Are you suggesting that someone should be removed in order to add Run–D.M.C.? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Remove The Velvet Underground. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 21:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I had removed them in my first draft, but at least two editors disagreed with their removal, so I added them back. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, there shouldn't be less than 3 hip hop artists on this list. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Talk to User:Purplebackpack89, he's the one forcing this list to stay at or below 100 entries. I've never heard anyone else say that it should be limited to 100, he's the only one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I've given you very good reasons several times as to why it should be limited to 100, and other editors have agreed with my globalization and recency arguments. Yet you've chosen to ignore them. Also, if we cut something, it needs to be blues and soul. Relative to Latin, world music, country, and folk, blues and soul are overrepresented. pbp 23:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Who else said 100 was the max? Please provide diffs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion: remove one artist from folk. Add Run–D.M.C.. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Folk's already pretty poorly represented...I could pull the "glaring" omissions number and point out that Pete Seeger, Judy Collins and Peter, Paul and Mary aren't on the list... pbp 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how any of the names that you listed are greater than Run-DMC. By the way, another glaring omission in the folk department is The Weavers. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If we are talking about glaring omissions in folk, then what about: the Carter Family, Charlie Poole, Doc Watson, the Byrds, Emmylou Harris, James Taylor, John Prine, the Kingston Trio, or Phil Ochs? There are many, many more ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (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.

Classical musicians and performers

Since we’re chopping a number of recent musicians, we should probably cut a few from the classical area as well. There are 35 classical composers and four avant-garde composers. That sounds about right, although they may not be the right ones…we should probably add Aaron Copland and Metastasio (who we’re about to drop from modern); some of the drops I’d suggest would be Alexander Borodin, Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Alexander Scriabin or Erik Satie.

However, the area that is bloated is classical performers. There are 31; I think that that can be cut to 15-20. Here are my 15, as a starting point:

  1. Marian Anderson
  2. Vladimir Ashkenazy
  3. Andrea Bocelli
  4. Maria Callas
  5. Van Cliburn
  6. Glenn Gould
  7. Lang Lang
  8. Jenny Lind
  9. Yo-Yo Ma
  10. Luciano Pavarotti
  11. Itzhak Perlman
  12. Arthur Rubinstein
  13. Beverly Sills
  14. Frederica von Stade
  15. Li Yundi

Feel free to add up to five more. Thoughts? pbp 02:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

1) This the third or fourth time you've flipped-flopped on something; you gotta stop doing that! 2) Excuse me? I know a thing or two about classical music. I know you seem to think I know nothing about any kind of music, but I actually know a great deal about it pbp 04:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:GabeMc has changed his opinion from Support to Oppose to Neutral to Oppose in the last three-and-one-half days, during which time the proposal has not been altered. His last edit summary, "this list should not be gutted by pbp" seems to indicate that his support or opposition to this proposal seems to be more determined by feelings to me at the particular time rather than the proposal's merits pbp 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I meant I think you are the wrong person for this particular task based on your lack of knowledge about the topic, your hostile attitude toward all who disagree with you, and your complete unwillingness to compromise. Also, I think your sudden concern about the list being "over the limit" is irrational and misplaced (no one cares but you, and you didn't until I mentioned it here), and your goal to arrive at 10,000 is not properly motivated. You dislike bios, you dislike me, you think I love bios, so you want to cut bios. That's not the right motivation. Come on, you think 6 blues articles is too many, but there is always room for the great and influential boy wizard, Harry Potter. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You are being completely arbitrary here; you just upped your oppose some more because I said something you didn't like. We've been over this about knowledge; I was a campus DJ for three years, and anyway there's WP:ANYONE. And will you stop it with Harry Potter already? It would have been kept with or without my support pbp 04:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you name a better candidate that was conceived of since 1989? I stand by that comment 100%, and you dislike it and others of my comments neither gives you the right to continually lambaste me, nor denies me the right to participate in subsequent discussion pbp 13:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you are misusing influential. Has there been a string of copy-cat Potters? Not that I am aware of. Popular and influential are not synonymous. What about Homer Simpson, Jack Sparrow, Stewie Griffin, Austin Powers, Tyler Durden, or Cosmo Kramer? Too silly when compared to the deep story-lines of magic stones, spell-casting and flying carpets? FWIW, many years ago I worked as a reading tutor, and our prime directive was to get kids to read, no matter what they wanted to read (almost). So, if Potter has influenced kids to read, then that's a great thing, but its not the same as influencing popular culture. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals, period, and quit the bickering with each other, which drives editors away from this page when we are trying to encourage participation. And Gabe, for the record, I am in favor of Harry Potter being on this list and I am offended by your use the article as a football. Jusdafax 04:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have admired these lists and the overall concept of them since I first became seriously active in the last decade, and while this project has been fairly inactive for a couple years, it has good value as a guide for the present. I have been very cautious in approaching change here; I do remember asking for the inclusion on the 1000 list of Haydn, the father of symphonic form, at one point. As for the overall concept of the lists, they are not supposed to be, and cannot be, perfect or completely definitive. Dirtlawyer1 and I have argued for a more contemplative pace of change here, and for more voices to be included. We need to tone down the rhetoric; let's speak quietly, as if we were in a library, which in a sense we are. Comparing Potter to music acts is apples and oranges, so let's not go there. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in massive revisions to these lists. Let's take a step back and respect the work put into these lists as a legacy, not something to rush to alter. Thanks. Jusdafax 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) I agree with your above comment: "My advice: drop the mass deletion proposals". Great suggestion! 2) I also agree that pbp and I should "tone down the rhetoric". 3) Per: "comparing Potter to music acts is apples and oranges", right, in a perfectly logical situation I would agree, but here at Wikipedia Vital Articles, they are both currently competing for space on the same list, "People". Including Potter means we exclude King Crimson. So even if they are apples and oranges, if there is a set-limit to how many apples and how many oranges you can have combined, then apples are indeed concerned by too many oranges and vice versa, not? Also, while pbp is insisting that the list return to 10,000 and that most of those cuts will come from bios, I am not aware of any discussion thread/s where this was determined to be a clear consensus beyond what pbp has unilaterally decided. Were you ever invited to discuss or !vote to cut 250 articles from bios? I wasn't, and I'll bet Dirtlawyer and Carl weren't either. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • See above discussion "The bio count...is too damn high!", started 19 days ago, RfCed shortly thereafter, and currently with 2 for, only you against pbp 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 2 !votes for, and 1 !vote against is not a clear consensus, that's a straight-up vote. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please just relax and be patient, there is no hurry. The list has been over the limit for some time now, and there is no reason why this process should be rushed through by you, or anybody. Lets wait for input to come in from more editors before making choices based on two editors. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For an example of apples to apples (sort of). - Harry Potter is currently on this list, but Kahlil Gibran is not. Under the current system of pre-set limits, one would need to argue for the removal of another person in order to include Gilbran, when clearly, if there is room on this list for Potter, then there should be room for Gilbran, the third best-selling poet of all time, behind Shakespeare and Lao-Tzu, not? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_5&oldid=1137397583"