Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Is Harry Potter a vital article?

Why is Harry Potter (15 years old) not subject to anti-recentism? Is it due to its popularity, sales, notability, influence on literature? Why? Seems like a very simple question that should be easy to answer. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Potter discussion

Speedy close: This is the third such thread you've started about the removal of Harry Potter. First you proposed removing Harry Potter from this list; two people said "keep" him and nobody else said rmove him (no consensus for removal). Then, you started the "Defining notability" thread yesterday which appears to be aimed more at the inclusion of Harry Potter than at any other topic. Now this thread. Please stop beating a dead whore. p b p 23:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Why do you think you can "order" a "speedy close", how amusing. 2) This is the first thread I have ever started relating specifically to the removal of this quite recent pop-culture fad from this list. I want to know the justification for its inclusion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Per your below comment (I'm responding here so as to not badger your oppose statement): "I find it deplorable that Gabe is rehashing old ground after he lost the first time." 1) "deplorable" is a bit much wouldn't you say? 2) "after he lost the first time". I assume you are referring here to yours and Carl's !votes, but I think we need more then three people and 5 days to decide this one. Why not allow more editors to comment, what's your hurry? Afterall, the whole point of your attempt to trim the bios by 200+ is that there are too many bios. I think this one might be one too many. I think its safe to assume that you and I won't agree on this, so please, lets wait until others have weigh-in before declaring a consensus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I don't think Harry Potter is rock-solid. He is very recent, and it's difficult to judge his impact. If there was a move to reduce the number of people, I don't think he is completely safe. On the other hand, he probably has a better case than a lot of others on the list. I would agree sports players and entertainers could do with a little trimming. There seem to be a lot of comedians (Martin Short? Really?)--Rsm77 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Support inclusion of Harry Potter in the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded list.

# Per reasons delineated above. We've had this discussion above in the fictional characters thread (and again in the notablility thread), I find it deplorable that Gabe is rehashing old ground after he lost the first time p b p 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) On further consideration, Harry Potter isn't a dealbreaker for me. There are loads of other articles I am more invested in keep. I am changing "Neutral"

Not a notability issue but still around and still used in educational curriculum in many places. The series is not Twilight and is more akin to the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings for its longevity. --LauraHale (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Support / weak keep, He is not my favourite and he is fairly recent but he is very popular and has a large franchise in books, movies and more. To not include him only because he was recent seems a bit of a weak argument; there are many articles that are from the same time or after Harry Potter appeared. With fiction I said before I wish we focused our attention on things that appear several times, rather than singling out things that appear once. Why is it OK to have LotR movies, and books and Middle Earth and Gandalf and Frodo Baggins, 5 articles about LotR but not a single one Potter at all. If we included Potter books and Movies and Character and Hogwarts and Dumbledore then I would agree to remove some. I have recently added to literature/books Fairy tale, Fantasy, Horror, Sci Fi, Childrens Lit, Romance, Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, quite important topics that were missing, there are more. I know we all want to make the list better but there is a lot of arguing about small niche topics about single articles, I think our attention and effort could be better spent, and we should try to find common ground. Carlwev (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of Harry Potter in the Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded list.

Per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions: "While living individuals, such as Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush, Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II, have tremendous current notability, they are avoided because their place in history is difficult to ascertain." Due to the character's extreme recency (15 years), Harry's Potter's place in history is nearly impossible to ascertain, and as such the article should be removed from this list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Harry Potter (character) as one of the most important articles on Wikipedia? Seriously? This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. I'm beginning to understand that old Bismarck quotation about laws and sausages. No, Harry Potter is too recent. Myspace used to be the biggest web site in the entire world, and now it's not even the punchline to jokes any more. Let's focus on the classics -- or, at least, that which is provably influential. Harry Potter hasn't even had enough time to be influential or notable! It's depressing that he even made it to the list, and it speaks to how oriented Wikipedia is toward faddish pop culture from the late 90s and early 2000s. The Harry Potter article itself notes that he's been getting onto "best character" polls lately, which is promising for his longevity, but he's not topping them. The character that's topping them should be on the list, if we're going solely by popularity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"This list is tailored to the English Wikipedia"

Do we really need that statement. I've seen it misinterpretated, and it flies in the face of globalization, so I think not. p b p 02:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal. - Is it really so bad that we have several Wikipedias in several different languages that cater slightly to their readership? Is it really so bad that the Russian Wikipedia need not be overly concerned with English topics, or that the Indian Wikipedia can include more Indian musicians then are allowed here? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Point me to Indian Wikipedia. No such Wikipedia exists. English is one of two official languages of India, so if by Indian Wikipedia, you actually mean English Wikipedia, then yes, English Wikipedia should be concerned with parts of the world where English is the official language. 125 million people in India speak English. Can you stop with the ignorant statements like that and work towards a more global perspective? --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  - The Tamil Wikipedia is here, and there are many other non-English Wikipedias. Look here. Also, there are about 40 million Spanish language speakers in the US, yet we also have a Spanish language Wikipedia. Why is there not a single Latin musician on the list that is not in the Latin category? E.g., Los Lobos, Bruno Mars, Selena. Also, there is no need to get belligerent and call my comments ignorant. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    - The Spanish Wikipedia has a Vital articles list, and most of them aren't Spanish or Mexican. The French Wikipedia has a Vital articles list, and most of them aren't French. Logically, most of the people on the English Wikipedia's Vital articles and Vital articles/Expanded list shouldn't be American or British p b p 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
      - Please see an appeal to inappropriate authority, or WP:OSE. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
        YOU'RE the one who brought up the Spanish language Wikipedia, and anyway, I consider it an appropriate authority, so your link's out the window either way p b p 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
        Are you suggesting that the Spanish language Wikipedia is an appropriate authority for what should be done at the English speaking Wikipedia? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
        Can you give a reason why it shouldn't? Why isn't what other Vital articles lists do relevant to this one? p b p 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
        A valid reason? The servers are in Florida? But really, they can do whatever they feel is right at the Spanish Wikipedia, and the same goes here for us English speakers. We do not take our orders from France or Spain, do we? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
        No single country should be calling the shots on this list. Not France, not Spain, not Britain, not the US p b p 02:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
        Do you think the Spanish or French speaking Wikipedia should define what's vital to the English speaking Wikipedia? If so, why? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support removal - I agree with pbp and LauraHale: vital articles must be independent of the language. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah brakes on deleting the actors

Some of them can go but I don't think all of them. I would keep half of them, Schwarzenegger, Hanks, Gibson, Connery maybe even Cruise, Hoffman, Travolta, Depp, Hackman. I think a little trimming here and there can be done but not to much. I think the wrong areas are being targeted first. If I think about what I expect to find articles of in an actual encyclopedia, I think some of the films should not be there but some of these actors maybe should. I am puzzled we have 2 scorsese and De Niro films (Raging Bull, Taxi Driver) but we don't have Scorsese himself and we nearly deleted De Niro too, seems the wrong way round. I know we want a mix but I am very surprised we have so many individual paintings, songs and films at the expense of not including a tiny bit more artists, musicians and actors themselves. We have 27 paintings, by all means have the Mona Lisa, or The Scream but do we need The Ancient of Days, we do. Poetry, we are apparently missing the 3rd best selling poet ever Kahlil Gibran, but we do include individual poems like The Second Coming (poem) and Howl and Other Poems, when I believe a proper encyclopedia would have it the other way round. In short I think we need to trim areas a little but I don't think we are hitting the worst areas first when we should be, and I think our approach on art and artists, including film music and visual art is wrong. I have quietly been adding things in arts like Science fiction, fairy tale, Children's literature, Mosaic, Blues and deleting individual works like A Coney Island of the Mind, Erehwon, Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 or fictional place like Lilliput and Blefuscu and Metropolis (comics) (which are redundant with Superman and Gulliver's Travels which they are from and which are included.) It is changes like this I would urge people to make, not so much the deleting 30 fairly notable/vital actors musicians in one go. There are some terrible articles have found their way into the 10'000 list we just have to find them. There are of course some that can go, I just deleted Martin Short and Jennifer Saunders, I believe they're not vital. The actors I don't think are the most vital but I think they should not go yet, they are definitely not the least either. Carlwev (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a consensus for bringing actors down to 50, as there had been no opposition to the last proposal, which was a week old. Perhaps as a subthread of this, you should nominate several articles, one at a time, for removal. p b p 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. - Carl is right. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I think it would be helpful if we set a working number limit for each sub-list (say, plus or minus 10 percent), and start to prioritize the existing elements of the sub-list. For example, it's a lot easier to decide whether to keep or add David Lean when comparing the impact, accomplishments and legacy of Sergei Eisenstein, John Ford, Stanley Kubrick and Stephen Spielberg. At some point, number limits necessarily impose discipline on the selection process because one subject must be deleted to add another. Avoiding sub-list limits during discussion is one reason we are now over budget 200+ articles on the list of 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to do just that lol. I have, among other places, thrown out the numbers "50 actors", "100 sports figures", "100 modern musicians", and "2000 total bios". There's either not a consensus for doing that at all, or a consensus for the particular quotas I've set. p b p 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, PBP, not only should we have a "working quota" (if not a strict number limit) for each sublist, I also think we should have individual discussion and an !vote poll for each individual list item to be added or removed. I recognize this list is much bigger than the list of 1,000, and there is no reason why we can't handle more individual discussions at the same time, say 20 to 25. Again, that's not one big discussion of 20-25 topics, but 20 to 25 discussions of individual topics. The only danger, of course, is when we are simultaneously discussing 25 items from the same sublist, then we have the potential for confused and conflicting decisions, rather than engaging in the prioritization process I think we need to engage in; i.e., if we add this, what do we delete? Probably should limit ourselves to discussing no more than 5 items at a time from a particular sublist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Film-Related Discussions Going on at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts

Bunch o’ Cuts

The consensus seems to be to propose cuts individually. I figure that since we can propose 5-7 changes at WP:VA at once, and since WP:VA/E is 10x the size, we can propose 10x the changes. Therefore, I am proposing the following people be cut

Kenneth Branagh (actor)

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.

Support as nom p b p 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. - Branagh is one of the great UK actors of the past 25 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose deleting Branagh. One of the two or three most influential British actors and filmmakers since he produced and starred in Henry V. His successful adaptation of Shakespeare into popular movie productions earns serious consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose El Matador (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Cut Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Travolta, Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, Randolph Scott, Christopher Lee, and several others before Branagh. Some of the actresses deserve serious consideration for being cut, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 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.

Ralph Richardson (actor)

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.

Support as nom p b p 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support cutting Richardson. I've always had a soft spot for Sir Ralph because of his role in one of my favorite movies, but the biggest movies in which he appeared were supporting roles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak Support - Tough call, quite important and well known, but I'm not sure if he quite cuts it. It's getting tough, not the worst inclusion - but not the best either. Carlwev (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Harold Arlen (musician)

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.

Support as nom p b p 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Units of measurement

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.

We have metre gram and second, do we need all of these below and what would an encyclopedia gain from having them as separate articles, how much information could you really put into them that isn't repeated or a long chart of things that are that many units long. Millimetre I could understand. Should we delete some or all of the articles below? be specific with your replies, I don't need to put 8 separate threads for this or do I? - Carlwev (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we need all these?

Millimetre - I could live with millimetre but perhaps the others can go.
Micrometre
Nanometre
Femtometre
Nanosecond
Microsecond
Millisecond
Microgram

could we replace with?

Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't wavelength more a concept more than a unit of measurement? Wavelength's frequencies are measured in hertz, which we have already. Perhaps wavelength belongs in physics. As for pint, that would make three U.S. customary measurements against only one SI measurement. I'm not sure whether or not quart should be on there, perhaps we should have a smaller unit of measurement like teaspoon. We might want to also consider a second SI unit like cubic centimetre. I'd keep Micrometre/Micron and Nanosecond; I think we can replace most of the rest with Metric prefix.

A problem to think about here is that all the seconds prefixes, nanosecond millisecond microsecond etc have articles and are all on our list, but for volume, millilitre is very widely used more than microsecond I would think. But millilitre does not have an article, it redirects to litre. Carlwev (talk) 11:24, 15 April 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.

Remove Tina Fey (comedian)

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.

As with Letterman, it's been bandied about about axing her, I'm just makin' it official.

Support: as nom p b p 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Remember to sign your !votes pbp, otherwise, they won't count. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong support, Been brought up several times before, Fairly recent, OK comedian/writer but not the most huge, influential or vital; probably many many others on an equal footing with Fey, she doesn't stand out as a vital article. Carlwev (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I have a difficult time understanding why Fey was included in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

A couple of adds

Jay-Z

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.

Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose He was on here earlier and was deleted. Carlwev (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: too recent, not the most representative of rappers p b p 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - He and Eminem should be included, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Got 99 articles but this ain't one. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Recent or not, the most influential musician/songwriter of the past 15 years. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 09:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is he? "If" we have a recent (15 years) hip-hop artist I think it should Eminem, and I'm not totally sure about him. Eminem has sold more than double Jay-Z I believe. I don't think he is "that" influential I don't think he belongs within "vital" musicians. It looks like Jay-Z is a better businessman and is richer than many other musicians, but he is not among the most vital businessmen on the planet either. Carlwev (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What do album sales have to do with influence? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 10:53, 28 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.

Too many add/drops at once

This is all too much too quickly. Can we please slow down the pace? Maybe we should limit this to 10 "active" proposals at a time. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I think we can have more than 10 adds-drops because of the scale of the project. There are 10x as many articles in this one, ergo, we can have 10x as many adds or drops. This is still way slower than the huge lists. p b p 01:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

True, PBP, but there's no reason why there can't be 15 to 30 list items under discussion on the talk page at the same time. Once critical mass of 5 or more !votes is reached to add or delete, I think we can act on the particular item given the size of this list. If someone really strongly objects to the outcome of a particular item, we can continue the discussion and seek input from others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Who are you agreeing with DL1? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
We're never going to get 5 votes all in concert. We barely have 5 people editing, and certainly not 5 people agreeing. I think 3-0 and 10 days is probably enough consensus, 3-1 and 14 days probably is too (that's 75% majority and a week longer than an AfD). p b p 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't you see the real problem with what you just wrote? It's that so few editors are part of the conversation at all. I have tried to be, but my views are obviously too far from mainstream for the rest of (the very small number of) you to even bother responding. There are massive biases in the list (recent, American, etc), and it's inevitable that some editors are unlikely to see that. If you continue down the path you're on, this will become a pointless exercise, continually being challenged as others discover it. Can you do something NOW about the disastrous fact that so few are contributing? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Two quick things: 1) I agree with you that the massive American/recentist bias needs to be rectified by dropping a large number of recent actors, musicians, and sportspeople, 2) I've tried to get more people to contribute. GabeMc, DL and I have posted notices to a bunch of WikiProjects, some of which are fairly active. No dice p b p 01:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So stop. Wait until some others become interested. There is no deadline. If you rush now it's guaranteed to create anguish later. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully with HiLo48. A major reason I am reluctant to participate in massive add and drop list discussion is my concern that this is a waste of editing time. This has been rushed into by very few people, and this will very likely have repercussions later. We need to have a discussion about a number of things first, as I see it, and it should be in one central place, not scattered around in several spots. Jus da fax 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Songs vs. Genres, geographies, instruments

There are 75 individual works of music on this list, many of which are in a genre already on this list and composed or sung by a person in the biography section of this list. Meanwhile, there are comparatively few genres, and virtually nothing of music by geographical region (i.e. Sub-Saharan African music traditions). Also, we don't have all the instruments of the orchestra, and not that many instruments from non-Western tradition. I personally believe that it'd be the better part of valor to cut the works to 30 (at least 12 of which would be pre-1900 to quell recency), and use some of that space to cut the bloat, but the rest to add genres, geographies or instruments p b p 02:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. - Both Dirtlawyer and Jusdafax want us to slow down. I agree with them. You are moving way too fast on all of this, and you seem almost frantic about it, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer also wanted some general principles laid down. Can't a guy do that? But, yes, I do want this to get done before people lose interest. It's been literally years since people were this engaged, it could be years before this happens again. And if each period of engagement results in only a small portion of this being fixed, it could take decades to fix p b p 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Way too much drama. I have said before and I say now that the squabbling, haste, and sheer volume of change is off-putting to most people. Then there are the now-open agenda-pushers pursuing their anti-American or recentism slants. The small number of overall participants is going to lead to charges that decisions reached in the past weeks are hardly a consensus. The charges and counter-charges currently active on ANI also do not inspire confidence in the active change-seekers. A period of reflection and measured discussion would be for the best, in my view. Thank you. Jus da fax 01:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A very good recommendation. There is no deadline. Sadly there's only a handful of editors active on this article. One or two have strong opinions that differ from another one or two with strong opinions. Allow time for more to discover it. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New approach to getting more people here

I've decided to tag the talk pages some of the less controversial articles that are here but not at WP:VA with Template:Vital article, the lv. 4 version. I think it will help get the word out about the project. I urge other editors to do same p b p 16:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Swap thread

Coen Brothers out, Cecil B. DeMille in (director)

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.

}

Kinda unfathomable that we have a list of 40-50 motion picture personalities and it doesn't have Cecil B. DeMille p b p 17:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Support as nom: p b p 17:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Good swap. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

"Be Without You" out "Futurism" in

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.

From Arts I recommend removing "Be Without You" (a Mary J Blige song?) from the music section, and replacing it with "Futurism" an art movement, in the visual art section. Can't believe I have to even ask to swap this really. Carlwev (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: p b p 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Per Carl's logic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - a minor song from a too recent mid-tier performer vs. a major international 20th century artistic/cultural movement. No contest.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

H. L. Hunt out Rothschild family in, (Businesspeople)

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.

H.L. Hunt was rich and had some impact. Rothschild family, well, more rich, more impact, more time (spanning 200 years), more people. Just seams like a more vital biography.

Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support swapping Hunt for the Rothschilds. Hunt looks smaller in hindsight, Rothschilds continue to loom large. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: p b p 14:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Per Carl's logic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

PSR B1257+12 B (Exoplanet) out, Forensic science in

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.

In Physical sciences I propose removing the extrasolar planet PSR B1257+12 B from astronomy, and adding forensic science to branches of science. (If added, it may be better to transfer Forensics to Law and Crime, but this is about keeping numbers the same). Another thread I will politely ask for others opinions, although I cannot imagine anyone opposing this one at all. Forensic science is so obviously a vital article in my eyes and should be in, I would imagine it has just been forgotten about rather than deliberately left out, we just have to make room for it by removing an article that is not so vital. Carlwev (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support swapping extrasolar planet for forensic science. Not sure how the extrasolar planet made the list in the first place -- perhaps because it was in the news when the original list was being compiled. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: p b p 14:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Per Carl's logic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:01, 11 May 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.

Joshua Bell out, Aaron Copland in

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.

We had been talking above about trimming some classical composers and performers, but it fell to the wayside during the Harry Potter/mass tagging funk. While Joshua Bell is certainly a gifted musician, he's not in a league with the type of people on here if we're going to trim it to a sensible size of 15-20 articles. Meanwhile, this list doesn't have arguably the greatest American classical/folk/avant garde composer ever.

Support as nom p b p 17:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak support not overly keen on either, out of the 2 Copland seems a lot more vital. Carlwev (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}
Support - Krakatoa Katie 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Support - Joshua Bell, too recent, not a deserving talent (marketed well I'll concede, but he ain't a Heifetz, Menuhin or Joachim). Aaron Copland deserving, accomplished, and more important in the arc of 20th century classical music.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II out, Rodgers and Hammerstein in

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.

Support. Swap individual bios for article regarding creative partnership for which they are most commonly remembered. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support p b p 04:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Weak support - Carlwev (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC) - I am not too fussed on this but I will support my fellow users to get this done and to get the numbers down
Strong oppose this is my first comment here, so I guess it's good I saved it for something I feel is important. There are five librettists listed; to remove Hammerstein is to remove one of the most important, if not the most important, librettists in Broadway history and arguably the most important of the five here. Show Boat changed musical theatre, and Hammerstein wrote it with Jerome Kern, not Rodgers; he worked with many other composers and also wrote books for classical pieces. Doing what's suggested here is the equivalent of removing Steve Jobs and leaving Apple Inc. instead, or removing John Lennon and Paul McCartney and replacing them with The Beatles. I see George Harrison didn't make the cut, but Oscar Hammerstein certainly should. Krakatoa Katie 01:28, 13 April 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.

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.

Awkward swaps

Many of these swap proposals are getting everyone agreeing on the same thing with flying colors which is great and I think we should keep doing it. But some are awkward. I think Kahlil Gibran should be added. But if I don't want to vote for Harry Potter's removal what do I do? By the way I think Gibran is more vital than Potter. Same as I proposed removing Moms Mabley to add Amelia Earhart. Gabe Added Mabley and won't vote for her removal. But what if he (hypothetically) thought Earhart belongs, he would still vote against her to keep Mabley. I would urge users to comment, probably in the discussion part, if they agree with the add but not the removal, or vice versa. Because for example if I had pitched Earhart up against H. L. Hunt for example, Gabe and others may have agreed and the outcome of what gets added and removed will be very different. So if I didn't want to vote against Potter but 5 star constellations had been removed earlier today we could still add Gibran. Or if Gabe thought Earhart belonged in, but wanted to keep Mabley as well, and 5 songs were deleted earlier today we could add. Its all about reducing the numbers across the whole board, and agreeing on articles on their own. If you agree with one side of a swap only imagine them as two separate threads one for add one for delete, and vote accordingly. We could still get a better consensus over the whole project this way. Do I kind of make sense? Carlwev (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you make sense, but multiple !voting options generally confuse the matter, and make the determination of consensus more difficult. If one swap fails, then try another. For example, if you proposed to swap out Tina Fey for Amelia Earhart, I predict that you would see a clear consensus develop for adding Earhart. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Core Contest (reposted notice)

Casliber will soon be running the next in a series of Wikipedia:The Core Contest. The event runs from April 15 to May 13 2013. Editors will be selecting a core or vital article for improvement over the course of the contest period. Needless to say it would be greatly appreciated if the list were stable during the contest period. -- Dianna (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reposted the preceding notice from the main talk page of WikiProject Vital Articles. I propose that we recognize a 30-day moratorium on any changes to any Vital Article list from April 13 to May 13, 2013 in order to not undermine the Core Contest article improvement effort. Discussions may continue during that 30-day period, but no changes should be implemented. I would be grateful if all of the present Vital Article discussion participants would acknowledge this notice and signify their support of the 30-day moratorium on changes during the article improvement effort. Thanks.

Support a 30-day moratorium on topic additions and deletions from Vital Article lists from April 13 to May 13, 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support I was already thinking the same. I would suggest the period of time that it remains unchanged begin several days before April 15. There is the possibility that users may pick one of the articles in the list and start researching it and writing new content in their sand box before the official start date. Only for us then to remove their chosen article the day before contest officially begins. As we are under 1000 (984 I think), we could potentially add an article without removing one, not saying we should though. But it is the removing of articles that could potentially mess people up more that adding them. Carlwev (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Carl, while we are apparently 10 or 12 articles under our limit for the list of 1,000, we are 300+ over our limit for the list of 10,000. Can we get an accurate current count for the list of 1,000? The article improvement contest starts on April 15; perhaps we could start the moratorium on April 8 instead of April 13 to provide participants with the prep time you suggest. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. - This list isn't going anywhere; it will be here when the contest is over, so lets not make things difficult for other editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support - I suggest the change moratorium begin as soon as possible. I suggest making it April 5 at the latest. And seeing consensus for a moratorium here, I suggest new proposals halt now. Jus da fax 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No on the last part. Proposals can continue and people can talk about them, consensus can even be reached, but we can't enact them until May 13. I'm getting a bit of a feeling that some want to use this Core Contest as an excuse to take a month-long break from talking about this list. That's a dreadful idea. Also, I believe April 5 is way too soon...should be more like April 12 p b p 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Few things:

I don't see this page explicitly mentioned in the Core Contest. VA, yes. This, no
Generally, discussions have been running at least 10-14 days. Therefore, any changes between now and the drop-dead date proposed above will be the result of discussions that either are occurring now (00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)) or will be started very soon.
The price of one month of stability will be a few weeks of relative instability following the contest close p b p 00:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: per the reasons I've outlined in my comments above p b p 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose It's exactly the right time to speed things up. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I haven't read through all the rules of this contest, but a participating user should not be penalized or disqualified if their chosen article they chose to improve gets removed from the vital 1000 halfway through the time period, anyone can look at the page history and see an article was listed a few days ago, it would be harsh to "disqualify" someone for that. Also these contests are half the reason the list is here. It is supposed to be a list of articles we think an encyclopedia should have high quality articles for. So the reason we want vital articles in and not so vital out is that users will hopefully try to better the articles that we decide are vital. So by that logic we should add the articles we have voted as important and maybe remove ones we have voted as not, before this contest begins, as they may then get improved by users taking part which is what we want at the end of the day. Carlwev (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My two cents

We're progressing with such a slow tempo that I don't think we'll ever be able to cut this list to 10K entries, and then choose the correct 10K candidates out of 4M+ articles. I think we need to put a bigger effort into perfecting the VA-3 list since it's a much easier list to compile. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, I was under the impression that VA (3) was complete. Part of the problem is that a few editors think we should take a pause until, like, mid-May, which I frankly find ridiculous. I think it's time to speed things up. p b p 23:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we need to speed things up. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world do we need to speed things up? Is there some deadline of May 1, 2013 of which I am unaware? With all due respect, PBP, the discussions above are chaotic and disorganized, many lack any depth, participation for many is limited to 3 or 4 editors, and changes undertaken on such basis are subject to challenge and reversion again in the short term. Such disorganization and resulting contentious behavior discourages new participants from joining the discussions, and make everyone involved look foolish by association.

By attempting to accelerate changes, you are forcing others to simply oppose every proposed change until an acceptable discussion process is implemented and we gain greater participation. Frankly, the popular music list is a complete mess, as one particularly egregious example, largely because of previous unilateral additions and those undertaken with minimal discussion. This compulsion for willy-nilly changes must stop. I thought everyone was in agreement on this point, but apparently not. During the past two weeks, numerous people have now commented that we need to slow down and engage in more considered discussion, and that all unilateral changes need to stop.

Furthermore, the 30-day moratorium needs to be implemented before the April 15 start date for the article improvement effort; that's just common sense and a basic courtesy to those editors who will be participating. I believe that add/drop discussions can continue during the moratorium, but, by definition, no changes should be implemented during the moratorium. It appears that a majority already understands the necessity for a moratorium (see discussion and !poll above). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We intend on cutting 300+ articles. If we don't speed up, the trimming will continue for months, which I don't think is favorable for anyone. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

MIJ, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't take 3 to 4 months to do so, if that's what is required for careful consideration. Frankly, deleting 80 to 90 topics per month for the next four months, with proper discussion and due consideration of each individual topic, strikes me as fairly ambitious but do-able, provided everyone agrees to proceed in an organized manner. It's also important for everyone to recognize that there are no more "free" additions when we have exceeded the list limit by over 300 articles; every proposed addition should be paired with a lower priority topic for deletion. In particular, proposing additions to the popular music list is illogical and inconsistent, given its current state of flux and over-representation of its topics within the larger list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Need to hat or archive dead-end discussions

Does someone who is familiar with the dead-end discussions above (apparently two-thirds of the page) have time to hat those discussion threads or manually archive them? Probably should hat those that actually came to consensus, too, with a hat note describing the consensus reached. To the extent we are attracting new discussion participants, I'm sure many of them are put off by the chaotic state of this talk page, including several wall-of-text threads that hit dead ends and never reached a conclusion. I'm familiar with the discussion, and it took me over an hour to figure out where we are. Most new participants aren't going to have that kind of patience. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have archived a number of discussions. Purple Backpack 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bored now

These discussions and votes are getting nowhere. There are lots of articles, especially biographies that are not vital. Some users seem to be disagreeing with otherwise consensus just for the hell of it or to be awkward. Every person can be described as "One of the most influential ???? from ???? of the last ???? years" like Shania Twain is "one of the most influential female country singers from Canada of the last 20 years" I can't delete Helen Caldicott she's the only activist from Oceania, give me a break Oceania has like 35 million people, and does the fact she is from Australia and a woman automatically raise her vitalness up from what it would be if she were American, and maybe a male as well. Vietnam has over 90 million people, over 3 times Australias 25 million, but were are our Vietnamese activists for example. Or is she important because she is the only activist from the Anti-nuclear movement. If that movement was so important we need someone to represent it, why do we not have the movement itself as a vital article, because we don't. Should we not delete Caldicott and replace her with the Anti-nuclear movement, common sense surely or am I going mad? How can we include people like Caldicott but not Kim Jong-il he has effected the world more in the last 20 years than most journalists or activists and was in media attention more than most of them too. Do we need 34 journalists, really that's more than explorers (31) Many journalists are people that been US news anchors for a few years, but we don't have many other big nations news readers like Mexico Brazil Russia China Japan Indonesia. I don't think news anchors are vital at all. I would think to delete the whole Journalist section like we did criminals. Then put a couple in writers and a couple in Hosts. Or not, but we can't have 34 journalists can we. Many users myself included have been adding and deleting articles here and there for ages, some sensible changes some not, but now we cannot without discussion, and I am being reverted. Someone added Moms Mabley without dicussion, she only appears in English and Spanish Wikipedias so it doesn't look like she is world famous, if we have 25-40 comedians she is not in the most vital 40 comedians ever. She was probably added because she is a woman and she is black which immediately makes her more important than if she were not. She had been on the list about 3 days I deleted her without discussion but a different user reverted me as my deletion was not "discussed" even though her addition was only 3 days earlier and not discussed. I always try to be sensible, My favorite musicians Radiohead, R.E.M. Chili Peppers are influential and the last 2 have been going for over 30 years but I am not trying to add them because it would not be universally agreed. (I have added some musicians but only as they appear to have sold 100s of millions records, but none to me) I have made many sensible additions like Hospital, Ambulance, Torture Organ (anatomy), Bank, Inflation, Restaurant, Insurance, Kidney, Organised crime, theft, hunting, robot, robotics, tattoo, violence, pain, prostitution, masturbation, friendship, public transport, Veterinary medicine, driving, allergy, menstrual cycle, menopause, perfume, cosmetics, plumbing, waterwell, morse code, multilingualism, profanity, accent, speech, credit card, loan, seafood, vegetarianism, fasting, espionage, carnivore, herbivore, bird of prey, patent, passport, fur, bladder, personal name, family name, pancreas, taste, smell, hearing, sight, children's lit, stomach, condom, science fiction, computor virus, blues music, rock and roll, and more and made sensible deletions like 60+ makes and models of car, 12 programming languages, and 5 serial killers, fictional characters, and more but not quite as many as my deletions as additions. With a list this big some important topics will be missed so I added them, like robotics. The introduction basically welcomes you to add important topics, and remove things of which there too many listed and are not so important. Every thing in the list is only there because "one" user added it, there was probably no discussion to add most of them. I have been adding very sensible topics for the last year and removing less important ones. I believe a few of my changes may have been odd, but a vast majority of them very sensible. I am guilty of adding more than I have deleted, same as most, but it's not my fault robotics etc was forgotten, I am now trying to delete more than I am adding to get down from this 300 or more excess, many of my changes have already been suggested by other users, some not. I am making changes I believe are no brainers that almost everyone will agree with, but now I am getting reverted because I haven't discussed it enough. This will take years that way there are only 3-6 people talking and we can't agree on anything, and it takes 3 weeks to get 3 replies if that sometimes. Maybe deleting 30 actors in one go should be discussed a bit. I am not running along adding my favorite bands like some, But why can I not add the anti nuclear movement and remove one anti nuclear activist that I've never previously heard of, and doesn't seem very important reading the article, to compensate numbers, for example, is this not common sense? she is only there because "one" user added her, before, is this not how the whole list was built in the first place. [[1]] this is an incomplete list of some of my changes, if any cares. Some of them are very vital. Some of them were in the 1000 but not the 10'000. A few are not as vital but I believed to be more vital than existing articles. I am not adding my favorite bands I am trying to make very sensible obvious changes, I have been doing so for nearly a year, but now I am getting reverted. I am only engaging in the bios comments as everyone else is at the moment, and I thought my input would be appreciated and help move things on. I have enjoyed bettering this list over the last year, but I don't know why I am bothering any more. I might carry on, or I might just go back to editing articles again, I haven't been doing that as much since I've been looking at this vital list.Carlwev (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl, please start individual discussion threads regarding the topics you mentioned above (I will support several of the deletions mentioned). Realistically, the emphasis is going to be on deletions until we the numbers under control again.

Please be patient with the discussions; a majority of participants have expressed a desire for considered discussion and !votes to determine consensus. We are also archiving walls of text, such as your message immediately above, because they discourage new participants. Participation and process are both important for other editors to view these VA lists as legitimate exercises, not merely the slam-bam opinions of two or three editors.

I also note that there are a number of individual topic specific threads above in which you have not participated. If you wish to expedite the process, your participation will help. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest on the "one of the most _______ of the last 20 years" oppose votes, you come up with a logical argument why that shouldn't matter. I did that on Monday, then undid that because I was worried that when I've done stuff like that in the past, it's led to a wave of irrational oppose votes. I may repost it after you've expressed opposition. You might even want to mention your concerns about it on the user's talk page. And I echo DL's comment that you should start some more discussions p b p 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out something else bugging me. We all have opinions and we will never all agree all the time. There are a few topics users can't agree on, there are some topics we have agreed on. But there are about 23 threads I counted where everyone agrees on a deletion/addition except the same one particular user every time. Either their opinion just happens to be the opposite of everyone else's coincidentally every time, or they are being awkward for the hell of it, or because they can't get their own way. But because of our friendly policies of equality the opinion has to be counted same as everyone elses. Can you guess who it is. I expect users to disagree with me and each other at times and they do and I still respect them for it, but one person disagrees with nearly everyone nearly all the time. I am also genuinely amazed that some people are voting against the inclusion of things like Camouflage but they are voting for the inclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn or Kenneth Branagh, I believe I am mad and have a completely different view of what vital important topics an encyclopedia should have. Carlwev (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl, I'm ready to move on any topic that's been open for 21+ days and has a 4-1 vote or better in favor. If it's a split vote, I think we need greater participation than five editors. Nevertheless, you need to be patient. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

4-1 is 80% consensus. Heck, I'd do it in 14 days! p b p 17:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

With a 4-1 !vote and good reasoning, I could live with 14 days of open discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding and Removing process idea

The list is not perfect as we know, not only are there some articles that need to go, there are also some articles that should be added. We cannot keep adding though. But if users believe an article should be added, if we wait until we have deleted 300+ articles we would have forgotten about it by then. And the day we get to 9,999 articles there could be a huge surge of proposals for the one space we have and anyone voting will have lots to choose from, it will be a mess. I would suggest we can still vote to add articles, and add them. But that we have a rule. We have to delete 2 articles from anywhere to add 1 article anywhere. Or maybe even, we have to delete 3 articles to add another one article. This doesn't mean we have to add one every time, only that we cannot add an article until we delete 2 or 3 others. Basically we should not have a complete blanket ban against adding, we should just make sure we are definately removing MANY more than we are adding. There are already some proposals for adds they are completely redundant if we cannot actually add them anyway, and some users are abstaining from voting or opposing on decent articles only because we are over. Do users think this is an OK idea in general? Carlwev (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we have to consider having different consensuses for adding than for deleting, i.e. 67-80% consensus is good enough for deletion or swapping, but near-unanimity would be necessary for adding p b p 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose setting a higher threshold for adding then for deleting or swapping. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing I have with this list is, "if" we are going to say "no adds or removals without voting" what we have to remember is in the past many users, myself included have come along and added and deleted at will, with no voting at all, only their own single belief a particular article should be included. What I mean is just because an article is already in the list doesn't automatically give it more right than an other article that is not. When proposing deletions one could imagine an article in the list already as having one vote for its inclusion (from the user who added it in the first place). I would say imagine an existing article to have one vote for itself and then something with over 50% of votes may be implemented, but obviously the much higher the better, and still no adds without removals if it is close to 50/50 leave it longer, (and if an article was added very recently by a user taking part in voting they shouldn't be counted twice.) Following consensus is one thing but we have to remember all existing articles were not necessarily added with any consensus to start with just users like one of us passing by and adding what they felt was important on that day. I would also say if it is close to 50/50, it would be worth looking through the talk page history to see if an article has been proposed before and see if other users not present now had cast votes for or against an article, we can get others opinions from the past as well as the present, can we not? Carlwev (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we cannot count !votes from past discussions, nor should we canvass them for support. If the users are no longer active on Wikipedia, or even just no longer active at WP:VA, then their previous opinions on content are largely irrelevant now, unless of course, they restate them during an active discussion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for making adding more restrictive than deleting is that, by its nature, adding is easier than deleting. That's how we got 300 articles over the limit p b p 01:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, but still, why a double standard? I think we should require at least 5 !votes, and 70% support after 14 days for both removal and add proposals to be implemented, but I'm flexible on the specifics regarding this point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite Lead?

If it is decided there is no changing the lists now without voting we should rewrite the lead at the top of the page, as it invites users to be bold and add any highly notably topics. Users that have not read through this talk page may do just that, just start adding stuff with no discussion, which we are not doing now, right? Should we not rewrite the lead saying we are over 10'000 and things can only be added or deleted after discussion, if that's the way we are doing it. Carlwev (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with most of this, except that I don't see a compelling need to say "we're over 10K", because once we get back around 10K, we'll just have to change it back. We probably are at the point where bold edits should be discouraged, though p b p 04:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

At some point we should hold an RfC in an attempt to establish a standard procedure for adds/drops, though discouraging bold editing is generally very un-Wikipedia, per the fifth pillar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

- Need to change this soon if we are following this discussion and vote rule first. Users new to here are changing the list and one has quoted the instructions in the lead says they can. A couple of changes I thought were maybe not the right changes, removing Titanic LotR movies and Godzilla movie, so I undid the edits. We can discus adding and removing the titles involved and more titles here following the other articles discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwev (talk • contribs)

Yeah. BTW, did anybody notice that once again it's pretty much you and me on the discussion board? I.E., my prediction that interest would die down before the work is done came true :-( p b p 00:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't count me out, PBP. I'm back from vacation and chewing on these issues again. I said I would stick around to see this through, and I meant it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we including lists as articles or not?

We have List of elements in science next to Chemical element itself; are we having lists? this is one of the few "list of" articles I can see. If we are not having lists should we remove it? Is it covered enough by chemical element? If we are having lists which ones do we have and which ones do we not have? If we are having lists, List of sovereign states seems like one we definately should have. There are many many lists that could be seen as vital if we have lists, list of a countries leaders, US presidents, UK monarchs and PMs, any other nations, list of US states, lists of cities, lists of planets, moons, stars, constellations, galaxies, species etc etc. Are we having lists? Carlwev (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Water chestnut and Salsify are disambiguation pages

Where, if anywhere, should they be pointed? p b p 06:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Artists vs. Craftsmen

Right now, we have over 100 artists, but Stradivari is the only craftsman on the list. By craftsman, I mean somebody who makes stuff that, while it may be pretty, also serves a utilitarian purpose. For example, Paul Revere (his magnum opus was his smiting and casting, not that jaunt he took on 4/18/1775) or Gustav Stickley or one of the English dudes who worked in porcelain. Anybody think, in the abstract, that we should delete a few artists in favor of a few craftsmen? p b p 23:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet !votes

FYI, one of our recent participants, User:MadeinJapan, is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Plant's Strider. I assume that their !votes should be stricken, but I may be incorrect about that. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not policy but I would follow WP:DENY and indent all of MadeinJapan's votes, with a note to remove them from consideration. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, Plant's Strider hasn't voted... MiJ/P'sS didn't use the secondary account to sway the vote, so I'm not really seeing much of a problem here p b p 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that the two accounts were not used to sway the voting results. However, MadeinJapan was editing in violation of a block. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

New adds and deletion method

I would like to suggest a slightly different way of adding and deleting. Some of the swaps we have make perfect sense to look at like Gilbert and Sullivan replacing them separately. Or The Doors replacing Jim Morrison. Others however are not as simple. It has been proposed to add Kahlil Gibran, (who I think belongs) but the proposal is that he will replace Harry Potter. For this to "be OKed" all users voting have to agree on BOTH the removal of Potter AND the addition of Gibran, if people think Harry Potter should stay they will not vote to swap, even if they think Gibran should be added. Gibran being pitched to replace Elvis Presley may get 6 opposes. But Gibran to replace Tina Fey may get 6 supports. The existing thread may not show how many people believe Gibran should be added, it may show only how many people want to keep Potter, if users don't agree with both sides of a swap they may not even give a reply at all, so for an add its all about what you pitch it against, not the add itself.

What I'm trying to say is, unless its something simple like Doors vs Morrison, add and deletion proposals should go up separately, that way the proposals will get the truest result of peoples views. BUT an article can only be added if one is removed at the same time, this way completely unrelated articles from different areas of the list and different threads, that have consensus to be removed or added can be done together at the same time to prevent the total growing. This is being done at the 1000 list talk page, it has slightly more users giving input and it seems to be working. ALSO although adds could be put through if agreed on, overall we should still have A LOT MORE deletions than additions being proposed and carried out. I hope people agree with this I am sure it is a very good idea, and will work much better, please tell me your views on this. Carlwev (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Carl, I will be among the first to support adding Kahlil Gibran once the total number of articles falls below 10,000. Until we get the numbers under control, I think we have to focus on deletions with occasional swaps. IMO, swaps work best when the topics are from the same sublist (or at least from related sublists), allowing for a direct oranges-to-oranges comparison of priorities. As for obvious deletion candidates, I think several redundant gradations of the metric measurements you identified above are another good place to start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DL1, so you won't support the addition of Kahlil Gibran because the list is currently over 10,000 articles, but you are also only weakly supporting the removal of Harry Potter? That's why you won't see much participation moving forward: this list is a redundant joke. Enjoy! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)