Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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

---

Remove Talmud

See rationale at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 8#Remove Tanakh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Keep either one, Talmud or Tanakh and remove the other one. Logical1004 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Same as reason above crystalclear (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I support keeping one subtopic on Judaism. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:48, 30 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Mahayana

Buddhism is the religion of about 7% people worldwide. This is one of two or three branches of Buddhism, not a household name worldwide. I would rather we add concepts like paganism, wiccan, new religious movements or folk religion. In fact, by removing those and few other entries we could add the scientifically-recognized categorization into Abrahamic religions, Iranian religions, Indian religions, East Asian religions, and potentially something more from the Major_religious_groups#Classification. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose Buddhist denomination are more significant than the current number of buddhists in the world alone suggests.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. Cobblet (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Maunus. Mahayana and Theravada are household names where I live (a non-Buddhist country). But as has often been said anyway, household name or commonly known =/= vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Theravada

See rationale for remove Mahayana above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support--Thi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think it's reasonable to list the major schools of Buddhism. Cobblet (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Vajrayana

According to the article's lead, "Vajrayāna is a complex and multifaceted system of Buddhist thought and practice". In other words, it is a custom / tradition / ritual of Buddhism. We don't list such practices for other religions, so why is this one here? It seems on the same level as something like Eucharist in Christianity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose False analogy based on misunderstanding. Closer to differences between Christian main denominations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Vajrayana is a Buddhist denomination much like the above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Eastern Orthodox Church

Because it's not as vital as Catholic or Protestant, and I'd rather we add something like Abrahamic religions than this. Now, it is a religion of ~200-300 millions adherent, but they are covered under Christianity already. Also, not a household name outside it's own cultural/Western sphere, I believe (unlike Catholic Church and Protestantism, never really spread through missionaries much). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Meta-wiki lists only the Catholic church. --Thi (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose How exactly is it less vital than Catholicism and Protestantism? Cobblet (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, it is about as important as Catholicism and Protestantism, definitely not much less, and if people have a less good idea what the Orthodox Church is about, that is only more reason for the article to be vital in Wikipedia in this case. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per above. Removing this will just exacerbate the Western European bias on the list, which I thought we were trying to fix. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --^Melody _Lavender 15:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Paganism

Major religious group, profund historical significance, still present today through a number of smaller groups. A vital religious concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose "Major" in what sense? I wouldn't call the early Christian term for non-Christians a vital concept at this level. Nor does the modern revival seem terribly vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Folk religion

A grouping of about 6% of different religions per the graph on Major religious groups. Another major container term to increase the diversity here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, Not important enough for level 3 and should stay on level 4. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose : Agree with Maplestrip Logical1004 (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If folk religion dealt with traditional religions that don't fit within the major religions (such as many traditional African religions) then I could see a case for supporting it. But based on how it's currently written, the article is about the folk versions of major religions which just creates overlap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:40, 6 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Abrahamic religions

Grouping of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support crystalclear (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Totally unnecessary. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose the broad classifications are not completely arbitrary, but in the scheme of things not vital. This is not an article on religion but comparative religion. Religion draws its vitality from the meaning and experiences it gives to its followers and non-followers. Classification articles are only vital for academia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Gizza ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not in the 10,000 list and failed miserably when I suggested adding it there, see here I'd be surprised if it gets in here, but it's not impossible consensus can change and we havesome different users on board now.  Carlwev  08:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

with 4 oppose here it looks like it's not going to make it but with 4 support too maybe it will stand a chance in the 10000 list now? who knows?  Carlwev  17:33, 1 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Eastern religions

A grouping of Indian religions and East Asian religions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Makes no sense as a grouping. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose also agree with replacing Eastern philosophy with Chinese and Indian separately. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Does Eastern philosophy, which we list, make any more sense than Eastern religions as a grouping? Malerisch (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Good question. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd now prefer listing Chinese and Indian philosophy separately. Cobblet (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Add New religious movement

A neutral term for cult, a major religious trend for a lot of relatively well known ideas, such as Wiccan, New Age, neopaganism, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support this is the vital topic, not the problematic term cult which ought to redirect to NRM.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, cult is a much better known word with a lot of overlap with this term. We're going for common names here. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This really isn't the right place to put this argument, but seeing as it seems to be your argument for inclusion: if cult and New Religious Movement are exactly the same thing or incredibly closely related, should NRM become a redirect to cult as suggested by WP:COMMONNAME? Cult is quite probably the more popular word, as it's much higher in pageviews and even if you don't put quotation marks around things, there are many more Google results on cult. I'd keep the article on level 4. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:36, 3 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Monotheism

A key concept in theology, on the same level as already present Shamanism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, such a term is absolutely vital for an encyclopedia in my opinion. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by theism. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Covered by theism. --Thi (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose : Agree with Cobblet Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Polytheism

A key concept in theology, on the same level as already present Shamanism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, such a term is absolutely vital for an encyclopedia in my opinion. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Covered by theism. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose : Agree with Cobblet Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Was removed over a year ago 5-0 support see here, but consensus can change.  Carlwev  08:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof that the control by small cabals ebbs and flows over time. This list is the picture of team editing.Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Irreligion

A key concept in theology and philosophy, a parent concept to atheism and agnosticism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose unnecessary on this level because of its overlap with atheism. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maplestrip. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose There are over a billion irreligious/atheist/agnostic people in the world. Their views should probably be represented with more than just atheism. Personally I think the next best article would be secularism. It's better than something like anarchism IMO. Not irreligion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose God, no. Agree with Maplestrip. --^Melody _Lavender 15:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Secularism would make a nice counterweight to theocracy, which is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I don't think we need to list both Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky; it's hard to justify listing two Russian novelists on such a short list – French and Japanese literature receive no representation at all, for example.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Logical1004 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support : crystalclear (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Mark Twain isn't listed. Not sure why his name always comes up. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Less vital than Peter the Great and Lenin, and that's what should matter here. Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. We can have two or three Americans or Brits but not two Russians? Systemic bias, I call it. Now, I'd support adding Voltaire as a French representative. Japanese, I am afraid, never became as influential abroad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Much more vital than Mark Twain whose influence on world literature is minimal. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We've previously voted to remove Lenin from the list. I don't think Dostoyevsky's more vital than Lenin; he may not even be more vital than Pushkin. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Ernest Hemingway

We're also a bit heavy on 20th-century writers (five on a list of seventeen). And when it comes to American literature, Hemingway shouldn't be listed before Mark Twain. Edgar Allan Poe is the other American writer on the list.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Is Hemingway even the greatest American novelist? I have my doubts. Neljack (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose : Ernest Hemingway and Mark Twain both should be in the list. I will prefer swapping Fyodor Dostoyevsky for Mark Twain rather with Ernest Hemingway. Logical1004 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose if anybody has to go it's Edgar Allan Poe, I still think. --^Melody _Lavender 15:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I'd rather remove Kahlil Gibran. Yes, systemic bias and whatsnot, but I think their influence (and fame/notability) is incomparable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose I would support removing Twain who I dont consider a vital author, but not Hemingway.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd also like to swap Virginia Woolf for Jane Austen. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer Mark Twain over Poe as well. Nevertheless I don't see the need for two American writers if hugely significant American leaders like FDR and MLK aren't listed, and if nobody from French literature (Voltaire?) or Japanese literature (Murasaki Shikibu?) is listed. Cobblet (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• WHy is Twain even on the list? What is his contribution to world literature? Huck Finn? Poe invented two genres that are still practiced today. What is Twains wider influence? Woolf or Austen would be better than Twain, and perhaps competitive with Poe. Twain is important to American literature - Poe and Hemingway are important to world literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Relax – he isn't on the list, it was just a suggestion. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Ok. I thought he was on the list. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 2 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Giuseppe Verdi, Frédéric Chopin and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Five of the eleven musicians are Europeans from the 19th century. If no jazz musicians are listed and only one person from a non-Western tradition is included, we can afford to trim the Romantic composers. In terms of their impact on the history of Western music, Beethoven and Wagner stand head and shoulders above these three figures. So would several others not currently listed, such as Monteverdi, Haydn, Schubert, Debussy and Stravinsky.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, though it pains me to see Tchaikovsky go, can't go against your argument here ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support : Though all 3 are important, but to maintain a balance, we can move them to level 4 vital articles. Logical1004 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Strong Support It's painstakingly obvious that musicians is imbalanced and in some areas very bloated. There are 4 musicians who composed and performed in the late 19th century and zero who composed or performed in the early 20th century. How Duke Ellington was removed before Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky is beyond me. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Does anybody really think that Chopin is more important than Schubert, Mahler, Debussy and Stravinsky? I'd have all of them before any of these three. Neljack (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removing Chopin or Tchaikovsky. I'd remove Hildegard of Bingen and Ravi Shankar instead. I support removing Verdi, but since this is a batch nomination, 2 out of 3 I have to oppose. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Piotrus. These composers are too key to remove. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Vital. Jusdafax 00:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There's something to be said about classical European music being overrepresented, but - it does seem to represent the global view on that. A bit more focus on the 20th century might help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of European classical music being overrepresented. It's also a matter of Romantic-era music being specifically overrepresented, and with figures that are not even of the highest importance. Schubert should be in before any of these people, for instance. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Walt Disney, Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa

I don't believe film is important enough in the grand scheme of things to require four representatives on the list and I propose keeping just Chaplin. Note for example how we do not list a single architect or physician; and those are essential occupations that have existed since the dawn of civilization (Imhotep).

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support for Walt Disney Logical1004 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support except for Disney  Carlwev  16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support only for Walt Disney : CrystalClear (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose for Alfred Hitchcock and Akira Kurosawa Logical1004 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose for Disney and Hitchcock, weak oppose for Kurosawa. Film is a major cultural medium, and film makers are more famous than architects or doctors. I would support adding Hippocrates, however, he is vital enough IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose only Disney,  Carlwev  16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose If film is not important in the grand scheme of things, then screw the grand scheme of things.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose - They are vital in my book. Jusdafax 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I support adding Imhotep. I think adding a non-Pharoah Egyptian when there are so many Greeks is a must. Being the mastermind designer of the earliest great Egyptian monuments with a legacy that would last for millennia in addition to his foundational work on medicine makes him vital IMO. I could support Hippocrates as a swap with a weaker Ancient Greek biography. Pericles and Sophocles stand out.

I also believe one sports figure is reasonable when there are over 100 at Level 4. And if there's one and only one, it would clearly be Pelé, being the greatest player of the world's most popular game and elected as "Athlete of the Century" by the IOC. Adding him would provide Brazilian representation in biographies and make him the third person of Sub-Saharan African descent on the list. After the removal of Ellington and Hendrix the only black people are in the list of politicians. As with Egypt, I'd like to think they contributed to the world beyond politics to an extent that makes them vital for the purposes of this list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd weakly support Pelé and definitely support adding Imhotep. I feel uncomfortable selecting so few among so many people who have had a big impact on their field, but I guess those two would do a decent job. Cutting out some Greek dudes never seems to be a bad idea, so feel free to suggest them. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In such a short list, its really very difficult to accomodate so many people that have a great impact on various civilizations. Over the three, if I have to prefer, I may chose Walt Disney (though it also have a lot of contribution, but can be safely moved to level-4 in my personal opinion) for the removal. Though I will support adding Imhotep considering his contributions, but I want to throw one more name of Kidinnu in this list. Lets discuss. Logical1004 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disney would actually be the person I disagree with to remove the strongest... ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Kidinnu is not on the expanded Level 4 list yet. Maybe he should be. With this proposal, I'm leaning towards opposing or partially opposing as well. Note that we're under quota and we have been for a very long time. Most of the current proposals are removals as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I always thought animation should be attempted for this list, in place of these filmmakers? vital enough?  Carlwev  16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

...Animation itself isn't on the list yet? Well then it makes sense that you all want Disney gone, haha. Yeah, animation should probably be suggested. ~Maplestrip (chat) 06:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I tossed out suggestions for removing ten people because it's my long-held belief that on this list we have too many people listed, and they are taking up space we need for other vital encyclopedic topics to be added. Of course, we could be listing animation rather than Disney. Instead of listing Kurosawa as a stand-in for Eastern art (Murasaki would be my personal preference), we could think about listing vital genres of the same, like calligraphy or garden. I know it's easier to be attached to what's currently on the list than to think about what isn't there and might be even more important, but if people are looking at this list when they're deciding how to make a better Wikipedia, we need to work on making a better list. Cobblet (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove nuclear technology

Nuclear power and nuclear weapon are both listed, making this umbrella topic rather redundant – nuclear medicine does not really need to be discussed on level 3.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose : I will rather remove Nuclear power and nuclear weapon as both are covered in nuclear technology article. Logical1004 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Logical. This umbrella topic seems sufficient enough to drop the other two and free two spots here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Logical1004. CrystalClear (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Given the worldwide debate over nuclear power, this article appears vital to me. Jusdafax 08:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Nuclear power and nuclear weapon comes under nuclear technology article. As level 3 article list is limited, we can remove Nuclear power and nuclear weapon and add just nuclear technology. Although Nuclear power and nuclear weapon can be added to next level, if necessary. Logical1004 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd support both ideas, though I have a hard time deciding which would be best. It would be somewhat odd to have nuclear technology on level 4, but not on level 3, while these two remain on level 3... On the other hand, it's these two things that are absolutely vital about nuclear technology... Tough call. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear power and weapon are listed because of the comparable articles listed. Nuclear power should be in if solar power and wind power are listed as it is more widely used and has been used for a longer time. Nuclear weapon is a basic category of weapon like artillery, sword and firearm. If anything it's more vital because of the catastrophic consequences of using nuclear weapons. Removing power and weapon will create imbalances. Nuclear technology is just the umbrella article. Broader is not always more vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza: In that scenario also nuclear technology is justified as it is listed under the umbrella of "Technology" section. In that case I will support the removal of "tool" which can be move from this section to everydays life section. Logical1004 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@user:Jusdafax, Nuclear power remains listed, as does Nuclear weapon - only nuclear technology gets removed, because of redundancy with those two articles. ~Mable (chat) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Male and Female, Add Sexual reproduction

It doesn't make any sense to list the first two concepts but not to list the latter. Note that man and woman are also already listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. SUpport Male and female are words. Sexual reproduction is what makes them exist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose see comment. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose : Agree with Maplestrip Logical1004 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose removing male and female. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose : Instead of removing Male and Female, man and woman can be dropped from the list. CrystalClear (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd propose adding asexual reproduction as well; it may not be necessary to list reproduction at all if we add these two. Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd rather remove man and woman from this level than male and female. I do agree that having both man and male, and both woman and female, is somewhat ridiculoous... Sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction are already covered by sex and reproduction. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I assumed sex was about human sexual intercourse; I guess not. I think it makes sense to list both articles of relevance to biology in general (sexual reproduction) and humans in particular (human sexuality and human sexual activity). Maybe I'll rework this proposal some other time. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have reproduction; I think the division of reproduction into sexual and asexual is not as crucial for Vital 1000, certainly not enough to justify trading those two for male and female concepts. We also have Sex, Gender, Human sexuality and Sexual orientation. Hmmm, how about Third gender, Gay or LGBT? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely support homosexuality, but LGBT isn't even on level 4 yet and I'd definitely oppose Third gender on this level. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All that I have to add, at this time anyway, on this topic is that the sex and gender distinction exists. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, that is really good, and probably deserves a spot on level 4. It's a vital topic in any conversation about sex and gender, but the topic isn't popular enough...? Either way, it does not replace any of the articles that are discussed here, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talk • contribs) 09:42, 1 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Cult

Second choice after New religious movement, based on comments expressed there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, cult wasn't in yet!? Well then, I think it probably should be. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I read the NRM comments and not sure I find this convincing. As a sociological phenomenon of study it may be vital for level 4, but as a religious set of practices is fringe and teaches us little about the world. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Frida Kahlo

I know - Mexican, female, lesbian - systemic bias and all. However, is she really Vital? Ranked 1821 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org, compared to 860 for Picasso or 833 for Van Gogh. I know popularity is not everything (Hokusai is way below, for example), but I have doubts she is in the same league (influence/significance-wise) as Holusai, or for the modern artists, Picasso. (Through yes, she does rank about as high as Dalí). Still, her placement as the Top 10 artists of all time seems worthy of discussion. Instead, why not another Asian artist like Korean Jeong Seon or contemporary Ai Weiwei? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Artists are a bit overrepresented, and I entirely fail to see why she's a better choice than Hernán Cortés to represent Mexico. Malerisch (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  15:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose : She is definitely in the same league. Logical1004 (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Malerisch, Cortes was a Spaniard, born and died in Spain, and is universally hated in Mexico. And yes Kahlo is in the same league as the main European artists of the period. 1821 is a very good traffic rate for a painter. Definitely as influential as Hokusai.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. --^Melody _Lavender 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose : CrystalClear (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose In terms of page views, Kahlo is most popular than Rembrandt and Claude Monet, and vastly more than El Greco and Hokusai (neither of whom are in the top 10,000). Kahlo receives more views in one day than Jeong Seon does in an entire month. She does pretty well for a person who was supposedly added for diversity reasons only. Also unlike the sciences and to some extent politics and social science where the contributions the people make are universal in scope, the influence of painters is largely restricted to their own cultural region. It is an area where geographic diversity should be more achievable. I would remove one of the Spanish painters, either El Greco or Dali. There are more Spanish painters than Italian and Dutch right now, which doesn't seem right. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose One of the most influential Latin Americans. Also, pretty sure she was bi, not lesbian. pbp 14:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose Someone described as "the most famous female artist in history" by the top art museum in the world (Tate Modern) should be on the list. See also Newsweek: "Frida Kahlo is, in the words of one of her many scholars, the most famous painter in the world. Not the most famous female painter, not the most famous Mexican painter, not even the most famous disabled painter, though she was all those things." (If you doubt this assessment, go try and see her painting at MoMA on a weekend--tell me how many bruises you get from the crowd). Or the Guardian: "among modern artists, only Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso and Warhol have such name recognition." AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm very much aware that Cortés was a Spaniard, but that shouldn't affect his influence in Mexico. He did spend over half his life in the New World, after all. I don't see why his representation in Mexico should matter—we still list Adolf Hitler, who I note was born in Austria-Hungary, spent ~40% of his life there, and is universally vilified in modern-day Germany. Malerisch (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Animation

...I don't know what rationale to give; it's a major, multimillion artform. Many great animated films have been made in the past ~100 years. People would love to read in an encyclopedia how animation even works.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support : Logical1004 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I see it as more important than several artists and musicians we have  Carlwev  16:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support agree with Carl. --^Melody _Lavender 20:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. It should belong to this list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm wary of the equating of business profits with vitality here. Love animation--but the reason given is that its movies make a lot of money and are pretty good. Science Fiction movies make lots of money and many of them are good, but we wouldn't add that (or 'romantic comedy'...please no one propose this). Much of the importance of 'Animation' is captured by highlighting one of the producers who brought it to mass consumption, 'Walt Disney' who is already on the list. If Disney gets deleted, I think we can consider this (or it could be proposed as a straight swap), but having both at level 3 is overemphasis on a relatively small business (floral industry is bigger business, in all fairness). AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per AbstractIllusions and Piotrus. It's a film/TV genre and I can't see it being more vital than any other. I could possibly consider it as a swap with Disney but then why not other art forms and movements like puppetry, fable, design, fashion, calligraphy and handicraft? Many of these forms have been around for thousands and developed independently throughout the world. And there are other films genres as already mentioned. I guess it's more vital than opera though, which is clearly redundant to theatre and should be removed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Hmmm. I am almost convinced by Carl's argument to support, but... can't we think of other art forms that are similar and yet missing? I am afraid we could open a new pandora box here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Animation is not actually a genre, as it does not imply anything other than how the movie is made. "Live-action" isn't usually refered to as a genre either. The market and good works for it was only half of my argument, "how it even works" is a pretty important part to it and is the main reason for its vitality. That is where its encyclopedic value lies. However, I do think that it's odd that we don't have some of those articles Gizza mentioned on this level. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:24, 8 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Saudi Arabia

In my view, to list both Israel and Jerusalem, but to list neither Saudi Arabia nor Mecca, would be a symptom of "systemic bias", as someone else has put it. I nominate the country; not only does the region carry tremendous historical, religious and cultural significance as the location of Islam's two holiest sites, but the modern country is also vital to the global economy and geopolitics.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
7. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
8. I was thinking of Saudi Arabia and Iraq as an article to add from the Middle Eastern heartland. Iraq is partially covered by Mesopotamia (as is some of Syria) so I believe Saudi Arabia is the better choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We all know my reasoning. I think we have too many countries and are adding them for really problematic reasons. (I also wonder about some of our political statements--e.g. adding Israel because the country has major sites of the monotheistic religions even though most of these sites are in the occupied territories of the Palestinian Authority. But whatever, I'm just gonna be a contrarian on the country adds because I think they've gone overboard). I would support an add of Mecca. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Leif Erikson

To quote Malerisch: "Leif Erikson strikes me as an odd inclusion. He has a negligible legacy, and I don't believe chronological diversity alone is a good argument for keeping him. Malerisch (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)". Being able to call "First!" shouldn't be a reason for inclusion in level 3. Great guy to keep on level 4.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Main vitality is captured better in 'The Viking Age', already in the list, which includes Eric the Red (who has more Google scholar hits that Leif Erikson, by the way) and other explorers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Negligible legacy in English-speaking countries, perhaps. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (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.

Composers

4 out of the 11 composers were active in the mid-to-late 19th century, and all belong to something not too far removed from romanticism:

Richard Wagner Giuseppe Verdi Frédéric Chopin Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Narssarssuaq, there is a removal proposal above addressing the disproportionate number of Romantic music composers of the list here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add LGBT

Nomination based on comments at #Remove Male and Female, Add Sexual reproduction. Because sexual orientation doesn't talk about the major social and cultural aspects that are covered by LGBT topic. This has became a major social and cultural topic of the last few decades, and I think is more comprehensive than homosexuality (which also isn't on the list). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose nowhere near vital level 3 I think. Doesn't affect as many people as the media hype makes it look like. Sexual orientation isn't even an issue for many people - either because they are straight or just don't care about anybody's sexual orientation. Would support it at level 4 though.--^Melody _Lavender 14:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Flyer22: the article is about the term "LGBT". A discussion of the history of the LGBT term and alternate terminology of sexual orientation groupings (what does LGBTQQIAAP even mean?) is not level 3 material, and arguably not level 4 material either. Malerisch (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Flyer22 and Malerisch. An article discussing terminology and labels relating to sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity is not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that LGBT isn't even on level 4 yet. I do think it has a good chance of inclusion here, though. ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sexual orientation article does indeed talk about the major social and cultural aspects that are covered by the LGBT topic, albeit not all of them. Furthermore, the LGBT article is about the initialism. If you want an article about the LGBT community, then the LGBT community article is more so about that than the LGBT article is. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That some people are "not affected by it" is a really bad argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly right - that's why I'm saying most people aren't.--^Melody _Lavender 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The majority of all people don't care about the majority of the items on this list. Ask an average joe on the street about Richard Wagner or the Tang Dynasty or even Nigeria and odds are that they don't know much about the topic and that the topic's history hasn't affected them much. It is indeed not a good argument. Also, I took the liberty to move this conversation to the "discuss"-part of the suggestion. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If the numbers in this article: Demographics of sexual orientation are correct, there is an incidence of about 1%, the number for "experimented once" is slightly higher, always in the low single digits, though. The issue is represented disproportionately higher in media. And I so, oh so, agree about what you're saying about history topics. The section is bloated. I keep thinking that with exactly that argument. The average joe doesn't care. And history is kind of represented on the list. Especially the history of so and so articles are candidates for removal.--^Melody _Lavender 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What is 1%? The incidence of homosexuality is not 1%; the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, as shown in the Homosexuality article, do not indicate a 1% matter for homosexuality. The 1% argument is more common regarding asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

" 1%" appears three times in said article, indicating the amount of people homosexual in the UK, homosexual in Canada and bisexual in Canada. I've not checked the sources. Obviously, this automatically means that way more than 1% of the population of these countries are not cishet. I'd say more than 1% of the population being affected is quite a lot myself. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, sexual identity is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation. While it is common that 1% of people identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual in a population, that number is usually significantly higher for same-sex sexual activity and/or same-sex sexual attraction; the Demographics of sexual orientation article also makes this clear. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Had not even considered that - good catch, my bad. All of this counts up to pretty high numbers on a topic that is way too often ignored as a taboo. Plus, it is culture-independent: LGBT exists everywhere in some form. I don't know how I could have ever opposed to homosexuality below... ~Maplestrip (chat) 21:05, 5 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Homosexuality

Second choice per rationale above, I'd not support if LGBT is added (one is enough), but in case this is the preferred choice, here it is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Homosexuality is what defines heterosexuality, which only emerged as a category as the opposite of the former. Its cultural significance is monumental. Its existence affects all people who are at all connected to global discursive networks. LGBT could be added in stead but I think this one is the right choice, for its historical cultural significance. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Looking at the numbers some more and thinking about the other possibilities, I've changed my mind. I think homosexuality is probably the best candidate for increasing the nonexisting coverage of non-cishet topics and would be an important addition on this level. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose we can't just add homosexuality without heterosexuality. And ideally other major sexualities should then be added too. Otherwise the list will be imbalanced. It is like adding black people but not white people (and other "races") or adding woman but not man. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose, have to agree with Gizza here, there are too many topics with similar importance that should exist next to eachtoher in such a list. I think only an overarching article could make it... ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose nowhere near vital level 3, I think. Doesn't affect as many people as the media hype makes it look like. Sexual orientation isn't even an issue for many people - either because they are straight or just don't care about anybody's sexual orientation. --^Melody _Lavender 14:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Homosexuality was previously removed in favor of including sexual orientation, and the latter adequately covers the former for the purposes of a vital articles list. Is redundant coverage of a type of sexual orientation really a more important topic of human sexuality than physical attractiveness, which affects a much larger percentage of the population? Yes, homosexuality is a defining characteristic of some people's lives, but so are blindness and hearing loss, which are excluded in favor of the parent topic of disability. Social class is another defining characteristic that affects many more people and is more important as well. Malerisch (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose A reasonable suggestion, but maybe not vital level 3. --Thi (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

It makes sense to me to add the Homosexuality article but not the Heterosexuality article; this is because, as noted in the Homosexuality article, homosexuality has been, and largely still is, stigmatized. People are killed just for being LGBT. There are a variety of injustices concerning non-heterosexuals, which is also why the Heteronormativity and Heterosexism articles exist. Similar cannot be stated of heterosexuality, except in the few cases where an LGBT person targets a heterosexual person because of the injustices done to LGBT people. The social differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality is why the Homosexuality article is far bigger than the Heterosexuality article, and has far more WP:Watchers than the Heterosexuality article. I typically don't compare race (human classification) issues to sexuality issues, and I don't see comparing them to the "black vs. white" matter as a solid argument in this case. Yes, black people have been heavily discriminated against, far more than any other racial/ethnicity group, and people are killed just for being black, but there is a lot of material that can go along with that if we were to add articles dealing with both sides (black people and white people), and racial/ethnicity matters are very different than heterosexual/LGBT matters. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support and article about the discrimination of LGBT, the closest we have is heterosexism. --^Melody _Lavender 20:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And did I mention that I think the race article should be removed? --^Melody _Lavender 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC) On level 4. This is the wrong level to ask for this article to be removed. But we have race on 4, and racism on 3. So why not heterosexism on 3, and LGBT on 4?--^Melody _Lavender 20:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record: As someone very familiar with the literature on homosexuality, I disagree with your argument that homosexuality "[d]oesn't affect as many people as the media hype makes it look like." But as for more LGBT article proposals, the Violence against LGBT people article also exists. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Among 1,000 articles to represent everything from the sun to WW II? I have my doubts that it's one of the thousand most important topics in the universe. Media talk a lot more about LGBT (and sex in general) than they talk about world hunger. Which is more vital? But if you're familiar with the literature maybe you can come up with some convincing link?--^Melody _Lavender 11:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thousand most important topics for humans. Homosexuality is less vital than famine or malnutrition, but those topics should appear on this list as well (I'm actually surprised famine isn't on level 3, I might suggest that). We add things that are important to many people in the world and have value to be documented. It's odd that you're saying "the media talks a lot about x" as if it's a reason not to include it. Not that the media talks about it as much as you would make me believe anyway. What is important is how much impact it has on humanity. If more than 1% of the human population is homosexual and this has a huge effect on those people's lives, then I find it hard to find it "not vital."

Anyway, what kind of source would it take to change your mind? I mean, these numbers are on the statistics page mentioned before. I'm not sure what to add... ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Melody Lavender, I'm sure. But I'm also not sure what source/type of statement you'd be interested in on that matter; however, there are various scholarly sources on Google Books to support it. And if we can validly add asexuality as vital, a sexual attraction topic that affects far less people than homosexuality does, I don't see why we cannot validly add homosexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, you're linking to an archive page for the expanded vital articles list (also called level 4, those are the 10,000 most vital articles). It might be a better idea to try to get LGBT or homosexuality added there first. It's even harder to get something added to level 3 (1,000 msot vital articles, that's this page) directly if it's not on level 4. Maplestrip I wanted to express that the intense presence of this topic in the media in this decade and the last decade makes the topic appear more important than it really is to the Average Joe/Jane. Famine, hunger, and malnutrition are on level 4 and several people have mentioned the need to add it here. I'd support all three.--^Melody _Lavender 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality has been on level 4 for a long time, and yes, I have noticed malnurition being suggested on this page. I'll suggest Famine right away. ~Maplestrip (chat) 18:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality is definitely vital on the expanded list. However this list is more exclusive. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:29, 23 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Agnosticism

A key concept in theology and philosophy, on the same level as already present Atheism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - A major religious concept, on par with Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Atheism, and so forth. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support As I said, my preference is for the big religions to have multiple subtopics so non-religious views should have it likewise. IMO this is next best article after atheism and secularism. Slightly ahead of the types of theism (mono and poly). Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support - Vital in my view. Jusdafax 12:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose : crystalclear (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Was removed over a year ago 5-0 support see here, but consensus can change.  Carlwev  08:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've retracted my oppose !vote. I feel this is just one aspect of skepticism and that's the more vital topic, but it's not a strong preference – one might say I'm now agnostic on this issue as a whole. Cobblet (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Famine

Famine is "widespread scarcity of food." There are many causes for famine, and famine causes hunger and malnurition in an entire class of people. The study of famine is incredibly important for humanity as something we should know how to prevent and know what kind of impact it has.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 18:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--Thi (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. A condition that is still too common today, and very common historically. We have war and death already. How about pestilence? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support At the very least I think this is more vital than malnutrition whose addition received overwhelming support. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Something that impacts a handful of countries in the world in recent time does not seem to qualify to this level. Drought seems far more vital in terms of the people it impacts and its complex impacts, which includes famine (of course Sen's hypothesis notwithstanding). To give some insight into this issue, Google Scholar hits since 2011: Famine 33,000; Drought 130,000. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Agree with AbstractIllusions. Drought covers more territory. Flood is also an option. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

An interesting proposal. Should we include epidemic or pandemic as well? Neither of those are even on level 4 (although epidemiology was recently added) – it would probably be good to add them there first before we try adding them here. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Those too are very vital topics for humanity, though the overlap with epidemology might be an issue. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait. How come natural disaster is not on our list? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 12 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove All People

The more I think about it, no individual is 1000-article vital (Level 3). While individuals did great/horrible things and changed history, much of this was luck (I mean if Hammurabi wouldn't have written down law, someone would have a couple years later, right?). We can capture more of the content of the world by highlighting historical forces (e.g. slave trade, spice trade, etc), collective entities like cities and countries, things that impact people around the globe, and even more physical/natural entities. This can also help reduce systemic bias on the list as a whole (135 pages is too small to allow an anti-bias approach--you gotta have the canon and that leaves little else to add). Let's just save individuals for Level 4.

Support

1. Support I'm not 100% convinced of this and posed the argument in stronger language than I actually think. So might withdraw this, but figured I'd pose it to everyone. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, I think this is indeed the right thing to do, in stages as said. ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Well, individuals make history, so that the section "People" should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I am unwilling to make a sweeping statement about all 'people articles' and would strongly prefer discussing them individually. Also, I think this list should be curated by individual discussions and we gain strength from being willing to debate each article. RJFJR (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose I have my doubts that non-biography articles can be swapped in for every person. Hokusai could be in the 10 most vital artists but Japanese painting is not among the 20 most vital general articles on visual arts. And there are other articles in a similar position. It will be awkward only swapping half of the people out of keeping half of them in. I will support the proposal on the condition that we can revert back to the current state if we cannot successfully complete phasing out all people. Having e.g. Newton swapped out but not Galileo will be silly. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Yes, people are vital. We can discuss how many should be in. But cutting it would require making a very strong case for why other topics are more vital. I fear very strongly that this would just lead to inclusion of general overbroad topics that noone is ever going to look for in an encyclopedia. You would have to convince me that an encyclopedia where you cant find Hitler, Julius Caesar or Socrates is an encyclopedia at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Not a good idea. Jusdafax 08:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

• Note: If this passes, I think the deletion should proceed in stages while we make sure that conceptual gaps are filled (for example, if we want Nazism to be represented we would delete Hitler and add Nazism). I would think religious figures might be moved down to the religion section and not removed entirely. So, it shouldn't be automatic upon voting, but it would at least give a clear consensus to proceed and figure out. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that Vital Articles is essentially about creating a list of articles that should be a priority in becoming high quality and eventually featured. Wikipedia is an all-purpose reference work or compendium, covering all branches of human knowledge in a summarized, introductory way.
  • I came to this project on November 2 2013 when I saw that Sea was Today's Featured Article. It completely stood out from the usual featured articles that are incredibly technical, specific, minor and just not important at all to be considered vital. For the sake of comparison, the last four FA's featured on the main page are SMS Scharnhorst, Ford Island, 2008 ACC Championship Game and Irreplaceable. None of these articles when featured would have receive several compliments and comments on the talk that Wikipedia is on the right path and countering systemic bias like sea did. 2008 ACC Championship Game in particular is the type of article that receives criticism from anon IP's who would rhetorically ask, "Is Beyoncé and online video games all that Wikipedia has to offer". The critics of Wikipedia exaggerate the disparity of articles appealing Western middle-class 15-30 year old males and everything else but it very much exists.
  • I'm leaning towards the view that biographies are something that should be covered. I think if Da Vinci, Einstein and Mandela became featured, you would see a similar reaction to that of sea. Wikipedia would be on the right path. Also on the Main Page, one of the main portals is Portal:Biography. It is a basic category of knowledge. People is something that a general encyclopedia is expected to cover. Still undecided on how many people though.
  • They may be a hurdle in swapping bios with non-bios. Many scientists and philosophers were known for multiple establishing multiple theories. Einstein should ideally be swapped in for both general relativity and special relativity as his bio article deal with both theories in detail in addition to his other groundbreaking work. Doing these swaps will result in a net increase of articles. Then there are articles whose non-biographical equivalent just doesn't seem vital or doesn't make sense. Presumably Simon Bolivar will be replaced with Spanish American Wars of Independence, which in turn is not as vital as Spanish Empire. But adding the Spanish Empire is not going to focus on the decolonization and independence movements. Bolivar is the best article for that as he is a hero among Latin American people. Heliocentrism is now an outdated theory since the sun is not in the middle of the universe but Galileo Galilei is still one of the greatest scientists. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

...and Galileo also had an interesting biography, he was persecuted during the inquisition - "and yet it turns" is a frequently used phrase that might make people want to look up his bio. Similar, but not as clear: swap Sigmund Freud for psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is definitely not level 3 vital, but Freud is perceived as the first psychiatrist ever, which he isn't, but he started a huge expansion of the industry, in that psychiatrists now perceived the root cause of psychiatric illnesses as mental, and not only organic. Like Einstein, Freud also has a huge presence in pop culture and a large percentage of people know his name. Speaking of mental illness - should the most crazy of them all, Hitler, be switched for Nazism? Hitler was really just a single madman. The interesting thing is how his psychosis spread to so many people. While mass psychosis is a phenomenon that is scientifically researched, there is as of yet very little science on how a single case of psychiatric illness affects a group of sane(?) people, making them do insane things. There is hardly any research on that in general and in the Hitler/Nazi case specifically. Nazism is an ideology, so not sure if that is vital. The interesting thing is how Hitler executed mass murder. There is no article on that but Hitler personifies these enigmatic happenings. Many biographies thus can't be cut. As stated in the OP, if Hammurabi hadn't proposed the law, someone else would have. It's just this feature of interchangeability that makes biographies an interesting read. People read biographies and compare them to their own lives and the lives of those they personally know and they also put themselves in their shoes. I would however support swaps with historical forces in cases where it is possible, and I would support collapsing the people section into other topics, which is implicitely also suggested in the OP.--^Melody _Lavender 08:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat undecided, but I do like the idea. If we do go through with this, I definitely agree with Abstract that it should be done in stages, removing one person at a time, switching them with something else if deemed appropriate. Or not, of course. I would support collapsing people into otehr topics, but if that isn't done on level 4 also, it might be a bit inconsistant... ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with RJFJR about the importance of focused discussions (and have said as much elsewhere). But the issue is comparing unlike things without some group consensus to guide it. So if I propose Swap of Hammurabi with Contract, how do we weigh the completely different vitality of the two things? We seem to have good consensus from all so far that even if this passes, it should be done in stages considering each individual--but with a rough norm for eventually phasing out individuals. (Also, just a related note--we seem to have moved away from the Swap proposals and with the list as high as it is currently, we should probably clearly put which deletion will accompany each add at this point as good practice again). AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Another posibility is trying to cut people down to ~50, or something along those lines, so you have your Hitlers and Napoleons, but keep the amount of people in the list down to the most vital and well-known people in human history - people that will definitely be looked up. I have no idea if that would actually solve things, though, and it might even make things worse. Just throwing it out there. ~Mable (chat) 08:06, 10 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Andean civilizations

This major cradle of civilization is completely neglected by the list save for Machu Picchu. If we list Mesoamerica, Indus Valley civilization, Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, there's no excuse to leave this out.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Support - Good reasoning by nominator. Jusdafax 12:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

You might have noticed that I left Ancient China out of the comparison in the rationale – that's because it's a redirect to History of China. An overview of the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties would definitely be a vital article, but one does not currently exist. Cobblet (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of me would love to consider the main player "Inca Empire", but the overview may be better, even if it's in many less languages, and probably less page views, though I haven't checked; although that's only one aspect to remember. The ancient culture of a whole continent needs representation one way or the other, Machu Picchu just doesn't seem enough to me.....Perhaps we should create Ancient China, even if it's just cut and pasting relevant sections from the existing articles, including sources as a starting point?  Carlwev  17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If we list Mesoamerica rather than the Mayans and the Aztecs, adding the South American analogue makes sense to me. Granted they were the only dynasty to unite the area under one nation, but the Inca were just the latest in a long line of Andean civilizations. Cobblet (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We need both the Inca and Andean civilization, just as we need Mesoamerica AND Aztec/Maya.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But in that case it is equally true that we need one each of the West African and Southeast Asian empires, the Guptas and Mughals of India, and Timur. To add all these we need a couple more removals. And you guys can see from the rest of this page that it's not so easy to agree on what needs to be removed. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cobblet- I ran into the Ancient China problem when I was editing the State formation article that lists the other primary civilizations but for China, I had to just go with Shang Dynasty--an ok bookmark. If you want to co-tackle the Ancient China article, just hit me up on my talk page and I can put some time towards it (not in my strike zone by any means, but I'm sure we could shake out a good starting article). AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant to create an article on Ancient China solely for the purpose of adding it to the vital articles list, and if the article should be created, I'd consult WP:CHINA first. Could a similar argument not be made for Ancient India, for instance, or Imperial China? I'd much rather add Zhou dynasty. Malerisch (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested creating an article just to fill a space on the vital articles list. There is a large archeological literature on state formation in early China that did not occur in one context but near-simultaneously (and in a co-evolutionary manner) in many contexts. That literature is currently absent (or organized across multiple articles) from Wikipedia because 1. It is a lot of work and we're all working as hard as we can and 2. Wikipedia loves segmentation into small pieces. Yes, China-folk would of course be in the loop, but the disaggregated approach to early Chinese dynasties is unsatisfactory based on RSs and actual reality. Just a notable omission in Wikipedia that has bothered me for some time now that we could easily tackle. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be a fun article to write, but without any training in history I'm definitely not the best person for the job. To respond to Malerisch, adding the Zhou dynasty is a reasonable idea, and I could be way off on the comparisons I'm about to make here since I'm not a historian, but my feeling is that putting Zhou on the list instead of Ancient China would be kinda like replacing Ancient Egypt with New Kingdom of Egypt, or Ancient Rome with Roman Empire, or Ancient Greece with Classical Greece, or adding Magadha rather than Vedic period for India. For ancient history, it looks like we list more articles that cover the formation of a civilization in general than articles that focus on one notable period or entity during that process – basically the reason why I suggest we add Andean civilizations first rather than the Incas. Cobblet (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I definitely see where you're coming from—it seems like we've hit the specific vs. general roadblock once again. So why don't we list Ancient India instead of Indus Valley Civilization, which would presumably cover the Vedic period and the Maurya Empire as well? There isn't exactly a dearth of sources preventing that article from being written, either. Imperial China is also a coherent topic, so why don't we list that instead of Han dynasty and Tang dynasty? (Of course, History of China is another option, but we don't like general articles that much for some reason.) Malerisch (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I happen to believe we should be listing Vedic India along with the Indus valley civilization which would make an article on Ancient India redundant. I think it's generally accepted that civilization in South Asia began in the Indus valley, so having that on the list isn't controversial, unlike the question of whether Xia dynasty or Shang dynasty is the correct article to add for China. Creating and adding "Ancient China" would sidestep the issue, while also conforming to Chinese historiographical tradition (which frequently groups the Xia, Shang and Zhou together). "Imperial China" is a less meaningful grouping of historical periods – it would be like calling Christendom a period of European history. Sometimes I think general articles are a good idea, but these don't seem very useful to me. Cobblet (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Argentina

If we have room for seven European countries and five African countries, I think adding a fifth country from the Western Hemisphere and a third country from Latin America is warranted. Argentina is the only member of the G20 and the largest country in the world not currently listed. Its culture (tango, soccer, Jorge Luis Borges, gauchos, cuisine) is known throughout the world; its recent history is notable (Eva Perón, the Falklands War); and its economic history is of unique interest.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, you won me over quite easily. ~Mable (chat) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Being a member of the G20 means that Argentina is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Per Cobblet and RekishiEJ. Also agree that it is time to stop adding more countries. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This is the last country I'll suggest adding to the list. I think that the 31 countries we currently have plus Argentina form a set that efficiently captures many key aspects of global culture, and at the same time meaningfully reflects its diversity. Cobblet (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably support a few more like Morocco, Ukraine, and Afghanistan off the top of my head.  Carlwev  17:05, 30 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Natural disaster

While we cover some in Earth science section, this parent topic is vital enough of a basic concept to warrant inclusion, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Much like Disaster below, this also more a dictionary definition than a specific thing. However, the article basically lists different kinds of natural disasters. It's very broad, perhaps too broad. I haven't decided yet... ~Mable (chat) 08:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Natural disaster is in the core articles project, another project similar to this with a 150 article limit. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics  Carlwev  09:26, 12 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Disaster

In case some would think we already cover most natural disasters, and/or that we would have to add the man-made disasters, perhaps we can compromise with this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, disaster is too much of a word for this list. It's hard to get encyclopedic information on something so general. ~Mable (chat) 08:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose (per Mable) RJFJR (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

This is not Lev4 listed yet either.  Carlwev  08:23, 12 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Add Leopold von Ranke

It is weird that this historian is not listed in the list, since he influenced Western historiography substantially. According to Caroline Hoefferle, “Ranke was probably the most important historian to shape historical profession as it emerged in Europe and the United States in the late 19th century.”

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I wasn't convinced Herodotus was vital (he was added not that long ago) and I see even less reason to add a second Western historian. Cobblet (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Opposee Not vital at this level. No room or necessity for more historians.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not that well known to warrant being vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Well, both Herodotus and Ranke are vital at this level, since the former is the father of Western historiography, and the latter is the founder of modern Western historiography, whose research method is highly influential.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How about articles historiography, history of sociology, history of psychology, History of economic thought etc. --Thi (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or history of the social sciences, although that would have to be added to level 4 first. Every person we add takes away a spot from articles that could give a broader perspective of similar ground. I see no reason why Western historiography should be prioritized over other traditions and no reason to add more dead white men to the list: if someone like Socrates isn't vital, there's no way Ranke is vital. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ranke's historiography is highly influential even in non-Western countries, e.g. India or Japan. And Socrates is vital, though he never published any books.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (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.

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

---

Remove Point (geometry)

Do all primitive notions or axioms in math have to be vital at this level? I'm OK with number; but I'm not convinced when it comes to the notion of a geometric point, which like equality (mathematics) or parallel postulate or empty set may be terribly important if one is interested in mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics; but I think we should be including either of those general articles before including something this specific. An article on geometric points is going to be far more abstract and of far less general interest than an article on geometric lines or planes.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, you've got a point. ~Mable (chat) 10:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Support arguably too abstract and philosophical to be vital at this level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. An article on the geometrical term point is not less vital than articles about line or plane.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Number is very vital. As vital as word. Fundamental. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Epidemiology

Much like Famine, epidemics/pandemics are one of the largest and timeless human disasters. I personally think epidemic would do better on this level, but due to overlap, this is probably the best choice. It's simply such a major topic, both in history and simply for the survival of the human race entirely. Absolutely vital for an encyclopedia.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC) How about pandemic? --Thi (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose The overlap with disease is a little too much IMO. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree. Too much overlap with disease. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

While disease would discuss in length about the effects of a condition on a body, epidemiology is all about how a disease spreads through a populous. Because of how broad disease is, the article cannot possibly cover this topic much at all. @Thi, a pandemic is an epidemic, but on a larger scale. Epidemic would be the primary topic. I completely forgot why I picked epidemiology rather than epidemic now, though...

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.

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

---

Add Fashion

Came up in the animation discussion. A much more vital cultural concept that it; on the level of video games and such. I think it's current not inclusion is the result of a systemic bias (Wikipedia is written by young male geeks who don't care much for fashion). Let's remedy this. Like it or not, for most people the choice of which clothes to wear is pretty vital, and more so than the topics like animation or video games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Much more encyclopedially vital than the clothing industry. This is culturally significant in the extreme. It is in fact almost the cover concept for cultural significance itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per Piotrus and Maunus. Also fashion doesn't just mean clothing fashion. Fashion is more distinct from clothing than animation is from drawing. It is a huge cultural phenomenon becoming universal in a globalized world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per comments. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per comments. Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Mable. RJFJR (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

This crossed my mind before and I brought it up a few didn't like the idea, clothing is in the 100 and 1000 lists, fashion is not a technology or craft separate from clothing like animation or video games, but an art form or creative expression through/with clothing, is it distinct enough from clothing for this level? I am neutral at the moment...Also for regular everyday things like clothing, the article furniture was previously in, but removed without discussion, furniture is pretty vital to majority of people in their everyday life, and is not really covered by anything other than house, that I can see anyway. I would like to add furniture back before something like fashion. Is common place vital, with things like furniture? the expanded list has furniture plus several examples of it too. Carlwev  09:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good argument. I'm not completely sure about it anymore either, as "the art of [blank]" isn't that important when [blank] is already on the list. ... I just checked the article and it is dedicated for a good portion to the cultural aspects of clothing. I think that should be enough for this topic, yes. ~Mable (chat) 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would someone be willing to define the difference between "popular culture" (already listed) and "fashion"? Is the latter simply one aspect of the former, or is it more than that? I'm not sure how to conceptualize these things. Cobblet (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but in layman's terms, the two concepts have very little to do with eachother. Fashion generally only focuses on clothing. Though it could also refer to other things that are "in fashion," thus popular, this should probably be seen as an entirely separate definition. Fashion as clothing could simply refer to communicating culture and taste through clothing. In that sense, fashion doesn't even need to be popular. The article on fashion is almost entirely about how people dress or express themselves through their appearance.

Popular culture is even more vague. It's a very wide topic, according to the article: "the entirety of ideas, perspectives, attitudes, memes, images, and other phenomena that are within the mainstream of a given culture." Simultaneously, popular culture is even used to refer to things that are not actually that popular, but fall within a modern and not-alternative style. Popular culture is incredibly hard to define, while simultaneously being all around us. Wikipedia itself might even be referred to as popular culture by some people, as it is part of a modern thing that many people use and might signify culture in some way. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Mecca

Just read the lead of it and you'll know that it is crucial and should be in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose, there are plenty of vital topics to cover Islam with, but I don't think we need this one on this level ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I agree with nominator reasons and I would support a swap of Saudi Arabia with Mecca--but since Saudi Arabia was just added, no need for both. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose just adding Mecca, but I would support swapping in Mecca for Saudi Arabia. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I could support a Saudi Arabia-Mecca swap. It would be one of the few cases where a city within a country is arguably more vital than the country itself. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Discuss removing some elements

Currently we have the following elements as vital: Aluminium, Carbon, Copper, Gold, Hydrogen, Iron, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Silicon, Silver. They are all interesting, but are they all vital? Do we want to trim this list to make space for other articles? If so then which? RJFJR (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

They all seem vital to me. I might even add a few more, such as tin, lead, and helium. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding lead and helium. About removing some of these, it is somewhat complicated. I think I'd only support the removal of aluminium, or possibly silicon if someone was able to convince me it was redundant to current technology topics listed. The rest either seem technologically and/or historically vital, with hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon standing out as most important of all. I'd rather remove aluminium than add tin. ~Mable (chat) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Indeed if anything we should be listing more, although I'm fairly comfortable with the current list. I'd rather add protein than another element, for example; but if I had to suggest an element it would be sulfur. Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that protein is definitely more important than RNA. :-) Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how helium could be vital here. Its applications are limited compared to the other elements. Being abundant is not a good reason to consider it vital. I would list some of the states of matter e.g. gas before helium not that chemistry really needs to be expanded (although maybe biology and physics could do with a trim). Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

While some of these are vital, I'm not convinced of all of them. Hydrogen (most common element and the simplest) is definitely vital. Carbon sounds vital at first since one of the major divisions of chemistry, organic chemistry, is about carbon; but we have organic chemistry as vital so do we need Carbon by itself? (Carbon by itself is pretty boring.) Gold we need to keep not as an element but because it is a monetary base. Silicon I challenge: a lot of semiconductors are based on silicon, but not all, and semiconductor technology is what is vital, not the silicon they may be made out of. Why is nitrogen vital? (Air is vital which contains a lot of nitrogen but nitrogen itself isn't really that vital to me.) Oxygen maybe because oxidation is so important. Iron is important for construction so we may want to keep it as vital, similarly for aluminum. Silver has been used as a monetary base, debatable if that makes it vital. That leaves copper, which was important to early industry (the copper age), but is it vital? RJFJR (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Saying that carbon isn't vital because we have organic chemistry would be like saying that money isn't vital because we have economics. The article on carbon is about a lot more than just elemental carbon. Silicon isn't just vital because of semiconductors; silicates are the most common mineral on Earth and in the solar system. Nitrogen and oxygen are essential elements for life (no less so than carbon and hydrogen) and no educated person should be unaware of the significance of the Haber process. Copper is definitely still vital; think electrical wiring, for instance. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I can support removing silver. I prefer a potentially hazardous metal like lead, mercury or uranium before silver. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support removing nitrogen, as we already include air. Nitrogen has a lot less "common" applications than silver does, but I guess I could weakly support removing silver as well now... I still support removing aluminium. ~Mable (chat) 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

technical bias

I just found this article now, and it is hilariously biased towards technical issues. Aluminium, black holes, the weak force, and others are interesting topics, but hardly vital to really anybody's understanding of the world. The sections about art, history and religion are sorely lacking in comparison. This page should consider taking for reference the proportions of articles in more conventional encyclopedias, and this will surely call for a cull of the science and technology sections, interesting (and of higher than average quality) though they are. Keep an article for Chemical Element, and lose all the individuals. Harley peters (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Turned this into a separate section, let's see. Over a third of the articles fall under science, technology, mathematics, medicine, etc. However, these articles include every-day things like transportation (cars and bikes), some of the most common illnesses, the planets of the solar system, the anatomy of humans, all animal classifications, communication (internet, phone, tv, etc), weapons, etc, etc. These are all incredibly common topics in every-day life. We can't exactly get rid of hospital, bridge or calculator. On the other hand, if you look at, for example, the kind of topics mathematics indulges in, it is true that we got a large amount of articles that would be of no interest to a layman. I personally think it's balanced, as these articles are also vital. They describe the basics of their field. Thanks for your input, though - if you want to suggest a specific article for removal, please go ahead. ~Mable (chat) 08:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I would also argue that aluminium, black holes, and the weak force are indeed vital to one's understanding of the world. For example, to not know about the weak force is to not know about one of the fundamental characteristics of reality. If I draw a parallel to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the importance of topics when choosing article titles, I would view this as analogous to the "enduring significance" clause. Sunrise (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I confess that I am 35 years old, am a year short of a PhD and have never heard of this fundamental aspect of reality, nor has it ever left a noticeable hole in my sense of reality or my world view. I dont think that is a good criteria. The good criterion would be whether I would be likely to ever want to look it up in an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, wanting to find out what I have been missing, I looked for the Weak force and found out that we dont even have an article about it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

...You've linked to it (via redirect). :-P Sunrise (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I've linked to Weak interaction via redirect. If the "weak force" isnt notable enough to have its own article then it also clearly isnt notable enough to be on the vital list. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They refer to the same phenomenon. The difference is analogous to the difference between Gravity and Gravitation. Note that the former redirects to the latter, so we "don't have" an article on gravity either! Sunrise (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Then "gravity" should not be in the list. It is absurd to add topics to the list that redirect to other topics. It strikes me as a rather stupid choice to redirect gravity to gravitation, and probably in contravention of our naming policy, but if it is the case then the topic to include is gravitation and not gravity. A redirect per definition is not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if "fundamental" is a reason for including articles, why don't we list quark? I don't think removing strong interaction and weak interaction is out of the question—they're both discussed in force and particle physics, and we don't even cover other major physics fields like fluid mechanics at all. Malerisch (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that removing them is conceivable. There are a lot of these topics and we have to exercise judgement. I was mainly responding to the OP's implication that reasonable people generally shouldn't consider them to be important. Sunrise (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There tends to be two sorts of articles in science and tech, those that are familiar to a lay reader (and it is plainly obvious that they are vital most of the time) and those that are technical which still may be vital but not necessarily. There are also articles that overlap with each other and consequently take more spots that they should on such a tight list. For example, we have computing, computer and computer science, all of which are repetitive. Personally I think they should only take up 2 spots notwithstanding the importance of computers (we removed World Wide Web because of its overlap with internet a while ago).

Then there are articles like Neptune which are added on the basis of completing the set of planets in our solar system but are not important at all to a lay person. We won't be colonizing Neptune any time soon. You cannot even see the planet without a telescope. OTOH, from an anthropocentric perspective, something like eclipse is not listed at this level but far more vital to someone with a casual interest in astronomy. Based on the current structure of the list, science is indeed the biggest section by far. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Article class update

I've updated the article class count. Here's the breakdown by area. From our last count, the noticeable differences are a reduction in Start/Stub and B-class articles and an increase in C-class. There is a moderate increase of Good Articles while the number Featured Articles was static.

I don't know how much of the difference can be attributed to a change in article quality, changes to class criteria or changes to which articles are listed on VA. Nevertheless it is interesting to observe where the list has progressed and where it has not. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

FA A GA B C – Total People 23 1 23 51 34 0 132 Hist 6 1 2 28 26 6 69 Geo 9 0 9 47 26 1 92 Art 2 0 3 18 28 5 56 Phil and Rel 1 0 4 27 20 8 60 Everyday 2 0 5 36 41 5 89 Society 0 0 7 30 45 19 101 Health 5 0 11 14 6 3 39 Sci 39 0 25 65 55 9 193 Tech 1 0 4 56 46 4 111 Math 2 0 3 45 6 0 56 Total 90 2 96 417 333 60 998

Add Fuel Cell

Propose adding the Fuel Cell page to the Vital Articles list under Energy. Seems to have a common theme with the other energy technologies and could certainly use some updated links, perhaps a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.0.254 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest for you to first make this suggestion at level 4, as it isn't even included there yet. This is the list of the thousand most vital articles on Wikipedia, whereas level 4 is for the 10,000 most vital articles.

Adding it to level 4 would probably be a good idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The amount of work an article needs is also irrelevant to us. Many of the articles on this list are of very high quality. Please do explain why you think the topic is vital for an encyclopedia to cover if you suggest it on level 4 :) ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We include Battery (electricity) in the 1000 list, that is similar to fuel cell, not sure which is the "parent" article at the moment of the two, probably wouldn't have them both on such a short list.  Carlwev  22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth discussing a swap, though I think battery as a common item in life is more important than the more abstract "fuel cell". ~Mable (chat) 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Neptune (planet)

How vital is our article on Neptune? Is it a vital topic for someone with only a casual interest in astronomy? We are hardly even getting near this planet except with some long-distance space probes like the Voyagers. You can't even see the planet without a telescope. It doesn't give insight to key topics in astronomy or physics like a black hole does, and frankly, it isn't as interesting to read about either. If we are only listing Neptune to complete our list of planets (we got Solar system for that, that article sums up the key characteristics of the planet anyway), then I suppose we might as well drop it.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose I can think of plenty of reasons why someone with even just a casual interest in astronomy would want to read about Neptune: the story behind its discovery, its unusual weather, its orbital resonance with Pluto and other Kuiper belt objects, Triton (one of the most interesting satellites in the Solar System), etc. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose Part of our system of one article for each planet. (Unfortunately no article that combines all the outer planets of the solar system so we can combine Neptune and Uranus.) RJFJR (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose All 8 planets in our solar system are vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Solar eclipse

Now this is something you can see from Earth, and it would probably be something worth looking up a lot more for a layman than planet Neptune is. "Why is the entire sky suddenly black?" might be a realistic question a person might ask themselves. "This image is beautiful/looks weird/what is this?" is an easy way to get someone to look it up. I'm sure it is not the most fascinating topic in astronomy, the terminology, predicting, historical record, viewing, effects and the list of forthcoming eclipses are all very interesting for a layperson

It's too bad that solar eclipse and eclipse are separate articles, and I'm not even completely sure myself whether this article deserves to be on level 3, but I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys think :)

Support

1. Weak support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I dont think constellation is more important. Eclipses are important cultural and historical phenomena in almost all societies, they are astronomically interesting because they provide a way to observe an important fact about the solar system with the naked eye.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Constellation is more important. --Thi (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
2. weak Oppose though I can think of two reasons for including it: Eclipses are used for some measurements and because people should read the warning about not looking at eclipses with the naked eye. But we're very close to our 1000 article limit and I don't think solar eclipses are common enough or important enough to add at this time. RJFJR (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose. While interesting, a solar eclipse is just the Moon passing between the Sun and the Earth. Ancient people probably wondered a lot about what was happening during a solar eclipse, but you could say the same thing about Thunder and Lightning which aren't included. And unlike a solar eclipse, which most people never experience in their lifetime, just about everyone will experience thunder and lightning. I don't think it's a vital article at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

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

Remove Calculator

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.

---

A calculator is a specialized form of computer (which we already have.)

Support

1. Support as nom. RJFJR (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Support No more vital than any other type of computer. Calculators haven't had the same impact on society as other devices related to computing such as printers. Just not important enough to be vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per Gizza. ~Mable (chat) 10:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Less vital than most home appliances. Something like air conditioning seems clearly more vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I'm going to need better rationale. Calculator on its own seems vital to me despite its overlap with computer. ~Mable (chat) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

If there was space, I prefer adding articles that do not overlap with anything in the technology section like tunnel or bomb. I can't see calculators being more vital than those topics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral on calculator, I would support tunnel, we have bridge. Bomb seems reasonable, does it overlap with explosive material? and to a lesser extent, artillery, and nuclear weapon. Candle doesn't quite seem level 3 tech to me, at level 4 we don't even have lantern, torch or flashlight. For explosive things, we don't have TNT at level 4 either.  Carlwev  14:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't support tunnel – for most of history they weren't really significant as transportation routes, so the comparison to bridges isn't perfect. There are a bunch of things of similar importance to candle that aren't listed, e.g. oil lamp, furnace, window. It might be preferable to list lighting and/or HVAC instead. Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

For inspiration

Here is a translation of Finnish-language Wikipedias list of one thousand vital articles. --Thi (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Thi. The Finnish list provides another perspective. It definitely seems to be influenced by the English list (some sections are almost identical and share the recent additions to the en list) while it has become very different in other sections. Btw, is the original list at fi:Käyttäjä:Thi/Luettelo_keskeisistä_tietosanakirja-artikkeleista or fi:Wikipedia:Luettelo_keskeisistä_tietosanakirja-artikkeleista? And is there much difference between the two? Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They are identical, the first one is a copy of original in the Wikipedia namespace. The list was originally a translation or a slightly modified version of En list, as in many other Wikipedias. It has recently been in a peer review, so it takes into account many recent changes in en-wikis list but is tailored to Finnish Wikipedia. There was a poll about which are the most vital and interesting articles, United States, Finland and evolution got most votes. --Thi (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why no coordination with meta - list of 1000 articles?

I look at the list of 100 most important articles and wonder why there is no coodination with the list meta:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have ? Obviously the 100 most important should be in the 1000 most important. What is it good for if you guys spend your time here on en:wikipedia if people on meta are doing the same job? As an editor on sw:wikipedia i am interested in these lists but uncoordinated they are useless. And what is the point to have separate lists on Meta an En: ?? Cheers! (Sorry:I wrote this first to the level2 page till I saw the advice to ontribute here..) Kipala (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kipala: thanks for your question. It is a shame that there isn't more coordination between the English and Meta lists although I believe they serve slightly different purposes. As the English Wikipedia is very mature, the list here is intended to be a list of articles that ideally are a priority in becoming Featured or otherwise of a very high quality whereas the Meta list also serves as a list of articles that every encyclopedia should have (this is relevant for smaller language Wikipedias). From memory, the meta list of 1000 and 10,000 were copy and pastes of an older version of the English lists. Since then, the lists of each site have gone their separate ways. Funnily enough, when you skim each of the lists you will notice that the English list has been globalized to a greater extent than Meta even though you would expect it to be the other way around.

Inter-wiki coordination (not just English Wikipedia and Meta) is weaker than it should be throughout the WMF sadly. Editors tend to get bogged down in one wiki. Working on multiples wikis at least in the beginning requires a great deal of effort. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Enzyme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add Mark Twain

He has been regarded as the greatest American humorist, and as the father of American literature. He is more vital than any American writer and, thus, he should be added here. Gonzales John (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Gonzales John (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support – He is arguably the most important writer of the 19th century. He should be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'd be open to a swap for Poe or Hemingway, but I think it would really be excessive to have three American writers on the list. Consider that we have one English writer, one German, and (most strikingly of all) no French writers. I would say all these countries have literary traditions at least as important as the US. I'd say there should only be one American writer. Twain would indeed be a strong candidate to be the one, but I can't support just adding another American. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Neljack. As far as Western writers go, Voltaire should be in first. An issue more concerning is the weak representation of non-Western writers. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Twain stands as the first major vernacular writer and may therefore be worth adding, but as Neljack said, Twain should not be added without removing another American. Poe should stay, because he fathered whole genres of literature that are still widely read today. Exchanging Twain for Hemingway makes better sense, because the list does include not even a single writer of realist fiction, but has far too many Modernist writers. So Gonzales John, there you have a plan to improve the case for Twain.MackyBeth (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

He's probably slightly more important than Poe, maybe a swap would get better results, due to there being too many Americans like others have said. Voltaire is probably more important than them both, maybe he has a chance, maybe some works should go like Don Quixote to keep the size the same. We already have Don Quixote's author Cervantes, do we really need a Cervantes work too, we don't even have a Shakespeare work, nor in fact any work of literature originally in English. About works, also do we really need the Mona Lisa in addition to Leonardo da Vinci? or as many works of architecture?  Carlwev  16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Don Quixote is more vital than the author Cervantes. The work was his magnum opus and greatly surpasses him in notability (gets triple the page views for instance). It would be like replacing Mahabharata with Vyasa. Doesn't work. Having said that, you make a good point on the overlap between them. Cervantes could go to make room for someone else, either in the Spanish-speaking world or beyond.

Wrt the Mona Lisa, 2 articles on painting seem reasonable in a list of this size. There isn't really an article other than an actual painting could be added as a subtopic. No genre or movement really stands out. The closest may be oil painting and watercolor painting. Similarly with architecture, it is easier to narrow down and create a list of 8 or so subtopics based on works than genres. Many of the buildings are influenced by multiple styles of architecture. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove neutrino

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.

---

Under Subatomic particle, I can understand having separate articles for Proton, Neutron, Electron, and even Photon, but why is Neutrino any more important of a subatomic particle than Quark or Gluon or Boson which aren't listed?

Support

1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support It's noticeably less important than the other physics articles listed (and even some that aren't, e.g. radioactive decay). We can afford to lose it. Cobblet (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support (regretfully) I find neutrinos cool and interesting, but I have to admit they aren't very significant at the human scale of things. RJFJR (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  16:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Replace Insect with Invertebrate

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.

---

By using Insect rather than Invertebrate, we are leaving out a lot of animals that people often think are insects but are not, such as spiders, snails, centipedes, worms, etc.; and we are also leaving out a lot of sea life, such as shellfish, starfish, jellyfish, octopodes, etc.

Support

1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose But invertebrates are not a very meaningful taxonomic group; there is little they have in common besides not having vertebrae. Insects are the most notable class of invertebrates and I think it is preferable to keep them on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet pretty much said it. Also, the the insect article is much more developed than the invertebrate one, which would be hard to expand. RJFJR (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose removal  Carlwev  16:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Although, I wouldn't mind adding vertebrate and invertebrate, I'm not sure if others would, and I wouldn't add it at the expense of insect. Not an exact science but we have over 60 insects at the expanded list, we used to have over 100. Although vertebrate are more visible and visibly active to humans, it may seem odd to have the major vertebrate divisions, but only one invertebrate one, the insect. Their may be too many others on equal footing too consider, but perhaps invertebrate and/or some of it's divisions like mollusc, crustacean and more I can't think of should at least be discussed?  Carlwev  16:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Mathematics

The list of mathematics articles is shown in two columns. The numbering sequence restarts at the top of the second (right-hand) column. I think that it should continue from the previous (left-hand) column. That is, the first item at the top of the right-hand column should be number 7. --76.14.68.103 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove Candle

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.

---

I don't think this cuts a 1000 list. Sure fire heat and light are vital, but I don't really see why candle is vital. Other sources of light are not present in the 1000 list nor even in the 10,000 list, such as flashlight, torch, lantern, gas lighting, Electric light, street lighting and more. Going off topic a bit, but if I think of completely random objects important historically or today, there are also many tools, weapons and other objects missing, are candles more vital than spear, axe, saw, shoe, brick, or art things like pen, pencil or ink? Perhaps a wider article would be better, something like lighting? or something else.

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Support convincing nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the articles Bicycle, Republic of South Africa and Nelson Mandela, all vetted as vital, were selected a while ago to be reviewed by external experts. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the articles before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated experts for review (for details, please see each articles' talk page). Any notes and remarks written by the external experts will be made available on the articles' talk pages under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add 2 musicians to Level-3 vital

I propose we add Igor Stravinsky and Louis Armstrong to the level-3 vital list. There isn't a single 20th-century classical composer or jazz musician who is currently rated above level-4 vital, even though the Wikipedia articles about these 2 genres or categories of music are rated level-3. If any music genre is of level-3 importance, then at least one major pioneering individual of this genre should also be so classified. Stravinsky arguably was the first major composer to take 20th-century western art music fully beyond the influence of Richard Wagner (or 19-century romanticizm in general for that matter). Jazz forms a major link between modern classical music and rock music, and Louis Armstrong is widely cited as this genre's most influencial pioneer.

Support

1. As nominator.--ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We need fewer musicians, not more of them. Listing thirteen musicians is unconscionable when figures of the likes of Imhotep, Socrates, Voltaire, Lenin and Pelé are not included. Cobblet (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Actually, I considered Debussy as well, but I think Stravinsky's neoclassism had a somewhat stronger and longer lasting influence on 20th century music than Debussy's impressionism. I believe there has also been some debate among musicologists as to how completely Debussy escaped Wagner's influence, whereas with Stravinsky there has been no serious doubt about his break with Wagner that I know of. Still, I agree it is very close between them and I would not hesitate to nominate Debussy if the level-3 list were open ended rather than restricted to 1000 articles. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've read though the procedures and protocols for these nominations and I see no provision made by Wikipedia for declaring conditional support for a nomination as a means of horse-trading on behalf of another nomination. I can see no way that Wikipedia can consider this an acceptable practice. A voting editor can support or oppose a nomination, but not sit on the fence or try to manipulate the vote. Five editors have declared support in principle for this nomination with no opposers, so it's time to pass this nomination. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, these are !votes intended to foster consensus-building; polling is not a substitute for discussion. As such I can !vote in any way I choose as long as it's done in good faith. Second, never edit someone's comment to change its meaning. Cobblet (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bob Dylan article is FA-class level 3 vital, why isn't it on the list on this page?

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.

Recent changes link

See MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext#Vital articles edit request, a related changes link to this page has been added to our recent changes option. I always found it useful while patrolling for vandalism. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add Gupta Empire and Mughal Empire

In the interests of balance, we've recently begun to broaden our coverage of world history outside Europe by adding topics like Andean civilizations, Han dynasty and Tang dynasty. Since we've added two of China's golden ages, it seems appropriate to add two of India's golden ages as well. It seems very strange to me that we should list something like Taj Mahal but not list the civilization that produced this architectural wonder.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  08:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Nvvchar. 12:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Support per nom —Vensatry _(ping) 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

More vital for India than Ravi Shankar.  Carlwev  08:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Kek Lok Si

Kek Lok Si is one of the most beautiful Buddhist temples in Penang Malaysia which is the largest temple in South East Asia. In its features it represents Mahayana Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism and traditional Chinese architectural features and also rituals which blend into a harmonious whole. It is GA.--Nvvchar. 10:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator.--Nvvchar. 10:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Support per nominator. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 10:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per nominator Cerevisae (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose We already list Angkor. Cobblet (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Try the larger list first where this might be successful. Definitely not here. Even in Southeast Asia Borobudur is ahead of this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Srinivasa Ramanujan

Srinivasa Ramanujan made extraordinary contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions. When his skills became apparent to the wider mathematical community, centered in Europe at the time, he began a famous partnership with the English mathematician G. H. Hardy. He rediscovered previously known theorems in addition to producing new work. The number 1729 is known as the Hardy–Ramanujan number. 22 December is observed as 'National Mathematics Day in India'. It is GA.

Support

1. As nominator.--Nvvchar. 12:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose If we absolutely had to add a 20th-century mathematician I'd suggest Emmy Noether. Cobblet (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose undoubtedly a genius, but not a major influence on how mathematics has developed. (But imagine if he'd lived longer.) RJFJR (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose Not at this level. If you want to add another modern Indian biography to the list, Rabindranath Tagore is a better bet. He has a stronger case than Ravi Shankar (swap?) and is almost on par with Mahatma Gandhi IMO. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Linked to here from Portal:Contents

FYI I've added a link to Vital Articles to Portal:Contents. Siuenti (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Replace Esotericism with Western esotericism

We currently have a problem here at Wikipedia in that we have two articles, Esotericism and Western esotericism, which are basically devoted to the same subject, albeit using different names. It is the former which is listed as one of the 1000 vital articles but, I would strongly suggest, we should instead be listing the latter (and not just because the latter is clearly in a far better state of affairs at present). As prominent scholars of the subject such as Antoine Faivre and Wouter Hanegraaff make clear in their works, esotericism is a solely Western phenomenon, because it exists as a category that comprises that which has been rejected by both orthodox Judeo-Christian thought and Enlightenment rationality. Given that Asia has experienced a very different historical development, there is no such thing as a comparable "Eastern esotericism" (notwithstanding the fact that some individuals have chosen to use the term "Islamic esotericism" for Sufism and "Buddhist esotericism" for Vajrayana, but these are not common occurrences). The term "Western esotericism" is certainly that commonly employed within the Academic study of Western esotericism (see the title of the peer-reviewed journals or academic books devoted to the subject), with "esotericism" only ever being used as a less precise shorthand. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I think it important to use more precise, academic language, and thus would strongly urge for the change to the vital article. Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Support If there are no objections let's apply this change to the Expanded list (level 4) as well. Cobblet (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Support--Thi (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Rahul Dravid

Rahul Dravid is one of the greatest cricketer ever to have played the game. He definitely deserves a much better article than what it is right now and is a vital personality as far as cricket is concerned. Therefore, I nominate that his page be listed in level-4 vital article. Skagrawal4k (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Skagrawal4k (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No sportspeople are currently listed and should we wish to change that, Rahul Dravid is not the most likely figure to come to mind. Cobblet (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake. I wanted it to be included in the Vital articles expanded project. I'd like to close the nomination here and take up my case on Level 4 Talk page. Thanks.Skagrawal4k (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2015 (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.

Layout improvement idea – de-'#-ize' the lists

Because the various lists have sublists (and sub-sublists), the use of numbers does not help the reader much. (For example we have Mediterranean Sea as a single numbered article ('1.') as a sub-list of Atlantic Ocean ('2.'), which is sub-listed under Sea ('1'), which is a Hydrological feature (sub-section) under the broad Geography section. Also look at Prime number.) Using bullets for each item on the lists will present better. The readers can see quite well whether any particular list has got a lot of items or just a few items or just 1 or 2 items. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the same the same numbering problem, and maybe it can be made better. I can see you're trying to fix it and sometimes it's good to be bold, but I'm not sure this was the correct solution, or if such a change should go ahead without consensus, in fact this has no replies at all. I personally find numbers helpful, if not down the margin like bullet points, then in list/sublist headers, as used in several pages of vital and expanded vital articles lists. Now I have to manually count leaders and inventors to see how many there are which has more, which I can do but it takes longer when I could previously just see at a glance. But, regardless of my view, why was such a change put in place after one user asked no one replied, but it was done anyway within 6 days, not more than 15. Although not a content change as such, still a change, other alterations have at times still taken into account the 15 days, 2/3 of votes and minimum 5 support rule we use; or at least I think they have. Why is this any different?

1. In short, why changed with no replies to discussion, no other support at all, let alone minimum support, nor minimum 15 days either.
2. Why only done to the expanded list, when the same number method with same problems is also still used on levels 1 2 and 4?
3. Why no other solution to the problem considered, a different numbering method, or total number of a list in it's title/header, or something else I can't think of.  Carlwev  16:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The numbers have been added to make it easier to the count the articles. And counting the articles is relevant because we've decided to limit each vital list to 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 respectively. It will become much more difficult and count and maintain the list without the numbers. For example, finding out the number of cities or illnesses on the list is no longer immediately obvious as it once was. Counting ever illness is a tedious chore.

Stating the Level 1 vital articles on the larger lists is also going to be hard to maintain. The vital lists are not very well integrated and a change to one of the lists is not often picked up by the followers of another vital list. There was some opposition to a similar proposal in the past. IMO somebody can always click on the link at the top directing them to Level 1. Mentioning that information again is redundant. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also would prefer putting the numbers back in. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I kind of like the new format (though I don't feel strongly about it.) RJFJR (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The new layout has grown on me. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC) I would prefer the numbers back as well. There really wasn't a good reason for removing them, and it has made keeping track of the article count a whole lot more difficult. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Remove 2 musicians from level-3 vital

I additionally propose we remove Guseppi Verdi and Petior Tchaikovsky to the level-4 vital list if it is necessary to maintain the level-3 list at 1000 articles. Like Johannes Brahms, who currently occupies a place at level-4 vital, they both wrote very high quality music that was innovative to some degree, especially within their own countries, and they both gained large international popular followings among concert-goers and opera-lovers that continues to this day. However, also like Brahms, Verdi and Tchaikovsky did little to advance western art music as a whole beyond what was achieved by Richard Wagner.

Support

1. As nominator.--ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Less fundamentally influential on the direction of Western music than Stravinsky and Armstrong (even though I have a soft spot for Tchaik). Cobblet (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Great composers, but less influential than others. Agree that these proposals will create a well-balanced list of musicians/composers. Neljack (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Note: The current Level 3 article count is only 994, so removing these articles just for the sake of keeping the article count at 1,000 is unnecessary at this time. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure whether the article count was at 1000 or not; I'm still learning how to navigate around Wikipedia's many internal information sources. I believe it has been at 1000 on occasions in the past. In any case, the current count makes the second of my 2 nominations rather less important for now than the first, but I agree with those who have asserted the current Level-3 list is overloaded with 19th-century romantics (because of their popularity?). I'm beginning to think the pioneering baroque composer Monteverdi and the equally pioneering classical-era/period composer Haydn are also deserving of places on on the Level-3 vital list. The addition of these composers and the removal of the 2 already identified would create a well balanced list consisting of Hildegard of Bingen (medieval pioneer and perhaps master -latter debatable), Monteverdi (baroque pioneer), J.S.Bach (baroque master), Haydn (classical pioneer and master), Mozart (classical master), Beethoven (classical master and romantic pioneer), Wagner (romantic master), Stravinsky (modern classical pioneer and master), Louis Armstrong (jazz pioneer and master), Elvis Presley (rock and roll pioneer and master), and the Beatles (60's rock pioneers and masters). By "master", I refer to any musician who reaches the pinnicle of achievement and influence in a particular genre, era/period, or style, and who's music usually represents the culmination of that genre or period. If there's still some room for another addition after that, Debussy could be a good choice as a pioneer and master of musical impressionisn that paved the way for many modern classical composers and arguably some jazz musicians. For now, I'll see how the current nominations play out before making any further move to nominate the earlier composers or Debussy. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I for one would like to see more attention focused on removing things from the list. Past discussion has shown that it's easy to think of things to add but difficult to think of things to remove. There are glaring omissions everywhere you look. Taj Mahal and Machu Picchu are vital while the Mughals and the Incas are not? No French writers, no Enlightenment writers? (Voltaire says hi.) No cats or sheep? We have room for Washington and Franklin but no room for Lenin or Sun Yat-Sen? Twelve musicians are vital (Shankar plus the suggestion above) but not a single architect or athlete is? Etc. Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

One point made I disagreed with; "Every genre of music we list we must have at least one person from the genre also." Music is vital 100 material along with architecture, visual arts, literature, construction, engineering, history, etc Some of those vital 100 topics have been expanded very little or not at all here. We list many things in the 1000 list that have no person or genre/style/type listed also. We have video games but no people/title/genre of. Sport with football, athletics, and Olympics but no athletes/sportspeople, architecture but not style or people. Literature and many writers, but no genres. History, but no historian. Dance but no style or dancer. Why does every genre of music also need a person from it too. We don't list a person from every Religion we list nor every country, city, industry, artform, other entertainment or discipline we list, why is music more special? To list too many examples, there are probably more. I think we have too many people, especially musicians I think we could do with less, I wouldn't wanna add Armstrong I think Jazz maybe important but Jazz itself is probably enough. Also I think we could lose Ravi Shankar.  Carlwev  10:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As nominator, I think I'm losing interest not only in the musician category, but the entire vital-list project. I can see now that it's a complete mess with no consenus after more than a decade as to what the priorities should be in many of the categories. I don't think it works to have an arbitrary limit of 1000 articles for level-3 vital, but removing that limit would probably create all kinds of other problems. This whole project seems futile to me. I think I'll just go back to editing articles. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there are no easy answers, and ultimately it's not vital that we come up with answers at all. But I think the exercise is interesting in that it forces us to confront our own biases. Cobblet (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31:, even though you proposed the additions and removals in two different parts, what you suggested is essentially a swap, and I think a very good one. If both proposals are successful, the musician list will reflect a greater range of iconic and influential genres and will overall be better. And it seems that both proposals are on their way to being successful (no opposes at all so far).

The Taj Mahal and Machu Picchu are listed because architecture deserves more coverage than just itself and having buildings/works is a better way to represent architecture than genres at this level. The Mughal and Inca Empires may be worthy additions but I don't think architectural works or other specific things listed are always subsumed by its respective historical era/country. I think nearly everyone would prefer having Stonehenge instead of Neolithic British Isles on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making and fully agree, but I'm sure you also understand that the historical importance of prehistoric Britain is not comparable to the Mughals or Incas. Cobblet (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Mughals and Incas are both strong candidates for inclusion. Having the Colosseum and Great Wall hasn't stopped us from including many articles on Roman and Ancient Chinese history. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gizza; I appreciate your support, both with your voting and your remarks, so I'm setting aside my scepticism for awhile to see how this finally plays out. The progress of this nomination looks good at first glance, but there have only been 3 supporters for removing the 2 composers so nominated nearly 2 weeks ago, and no new votes on that for nearly a week. If it doesn't pass, one of the 5 supporters for the musician and composer nominated for addition to the list is gone. So we have a house of cards here that could fall at any moment if the voting doesn't pick up again fairly soon. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Alcoholism

In addition to Alcoholism, in the 1000 list we have Beer, Wine, Addiction, Drug, Smoking. In fact even in the 10'000 list, we only add Alcoholic beverage, a hand full of drinks and drugs, including tobacco, and Substance abuse and Substance dependence. My point being alcoholism is one kind of addiction, and even in the 10'000 list we list no other specific individual type addiction, whether it be gambling, cigarettes, sex of whatever. Alcoholism may be very reasonable for the 10'000 list but for the 1000 list it's too specific, Beer, wine and addiction are enough to cover the subject at this level. At the 1000 level we don't even list Tobacco, Alcoholic beverage, or even Alcohol itself.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Support. I agree with the nom. Too much overlap with other articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Support If smoking, a bigger global health problem and preventable cause of death, is covered by just the one article for both the activity itself and its effects on the human body, so should alcohol. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It's a serious health problem in most parts of the world though. I think it may be more significant than some of the diseases we list. Addiction doesn't talk about common addictions (and really shouldn't) so there isn't really an overlap. Cigarette's an interesting add but I'd prefer we keep discussions about the Expanded list on that talk page. Cobblet (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose It is one of the leading preventable causes of death. Some sources say third after smoking and obesity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

On the topic of legal drugs I was thinking about suggesting this for the 10'000 list. Something very widespread: Cigarette it's not included at any level, considering we settled on 13 articles for alcoholic drinks (even 2 in the 1000 list), 5 articles for cheeses, after giving that section thorough looking through, and didn't think that excessive. I would have thought adding cigarette in addition to tobacco and smoking wouldn't really be excessive for the 10'000 list, They are incredibly widespread, significant to culture/social, health, industry, tax, commerce both legal and otherwise. I know we have smoking, but it's only one article compared to 13 for alcoholic drink. And yes they contain tobacco which we have, but we have, sandwich even though it contains bread which we already have and we have hot dog in addition to sausage etc. What do users think? they are probably more significant than many food and drink we have.  Carlwev  16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll bring up cigarette on the other page later like you said, only mentioned it as it's a "legal drug" topic, but yeah it's the wrong page, sorry. The alcoholism article, says around 4% of world adult population or 208 million people are considered to have alcoholism, although it's a higher proportion in US and Europe, which is quite a lot of people I suppose, but not that high. I was wondering if there are other conditions that are serious, can kill and/or have a big impact on one life, that effect more people but are missing. A bit of looking I found Major depressive disorder, 4.5% of total world pop or 298 million, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 5%, 329 million, and diarrhoea, which is higher again with billions of cases. Are these less important? should we think about them too? (I realize diarrhoea is kind of covered by the inclusion of Gastroenteritis)  Carlwev  16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm undecided. On the one hand we already have the article addiction, on the other alcoholism is by far the most common form of addiction. Looking at it a different way, does anyone wnat to argue for the removal of beer and wine possibly replacing with Alcoholic beverage? RJFJR (talk)

Delurking — I should really ignore "vital articles", because I decided long ago that it had almost zero utility and was just a place to argue about why what's important to me is more important than what's important to you. But no, alcoholism is not at all the most prevalent form of addiction. Tobacco addiction is. More people drink than smoke, but a much higher fraction of smokers are addicted. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

ah. Good point. I didn't think of tobacco when trying to figure out if anything might be more common. (Thank you for pointing that out.) RJFJR (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Allergy and Smallpox, Add Visual impairment and Hearing loss

Hard of hearing (which includes deafness) and visual impairment (which includes blindness) are much more important than allergy and smallpox. No call of smallpox has occurred in more than 30 years. It is important historically yes but not as a current health issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A few facts to back these up

• Visual impairment affects 235 million people in 2012 and has both a significant economic and negative effect on quality of life.[1]

• Hard of hearing affects about 10% of the global population and causes disability in about 5% (about 360 to 538 million people) [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Cobblet (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Support for removing smallpox --Thi (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Smallpox as the first example of modern medicine causing a pathogen to become extinct by vaccination and Allergy for its wide-spreadness.) RJFJR (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose removing smallpox per Cobblet and RJFJR. Unsure about the other three aspects of the proposal yet. Just because smallpox has been eradicated and is not a current health concern does not make it non-vital. And it still fits better in the medicine section than history, just as abacus, bow and arrow and sword are in technology, Latin in language and dinosaur in biology. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose removing smallpox, which was the deadliest disease in history, killing 5-10 times as many people as World War 2. I don't think it would be all that unreasonable to say that its defeat was the greatest accomplishment in human history. --Yair rand (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose removing smallpox. The readers want it and the other languages have given it priority. There motivations are not expressed, but the voices are many. --Ettrig (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose the removal of either Smallpox or Allergy. Smallpox is one of the most important diseases in human history, both in terms of its cost to human lives and in being the first disease to have an effective vaccine for or to be eradicated. Likewise, allergy is very important in terms of the number of people who are affected and in how broad the implications of allergies are to everything from the types of medications we can use to the types of foods we can eat. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I've taken the liberty of starting this proposal. Yes, smallpox no longer exists; but its historical impact dwarfs that of many of the diseases we list. Its eradication is a milestone in medical history. Last year I proposed adding it while simultaneously also proposing to add history of medicine and both proposals passed. I suppose you could argue that just the general article on the history of medicine is sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes smallpox is the first and only disease that people have ever eliminated and I guess based on that alone it is of significant importance. It was also the leading cause of death globally at one point in time. Like the Black Death it is more of a historical article and should maybe be moved to that section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The readers are more interested in Smallpox and Allergy. Article access statistics for the last 90 days: Hearing loss 47972; Visual impairment 37617; Allergy 86406; Smallpox 227113. Other language versions are most interested in Hearing loss and Smallpox. Number of interlanguage links: Hearing loss 101; Visual impairment 19; Allergy 81; Smallpox 96. The low number for Visual impairment is probably caused by term mapping problems. Maybe a fix is needed there. But still it seems that "the people" wants to keep Smallpox. --Ettrig (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Job

I noticed that Job is currently a start-class article. I considered labelling this as discuss instead of remove but decided to skip that step. Comments on whether this is vital (or should it be replaced with something like employment)? RJFJR (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Employment in another section already covers it better. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
2. There are no sources that talk about "jobs" which do not talk about employment. They are the same thing. Job could probably become a redirect to employment. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Support although job is listed on level 2 as well. If there are no objections let's swap job for employment on that page. Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Support, agree with Cobblet, we should only remove this if we swap job for employment in the 100 list.  Carlwev  16:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Support as nom (sorry, forgot to make that explicit.) RJFJR (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. At first glance, swapping Job for Employment made sense to me. But Job does seem to encompasses a broader range of human activity than Employment does. Also, the concept of "employment" is much more recent, maybe only a few hundred years of human civilization, whereas the concept of a person's "job" has been around for many thousands of years. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

1. This isn't really the place to discuss it, but as long as we're here: I would go as far as to say that Job (biblical figure) should be the primary topic for the search term Job. To be sure, it's a less common use of those three letters in ordinary speech. But this is an encyclopedia, and no one ought to expect the employment-related content to be listed under such an informal word. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud. A tiny counter argument. Job does or at least could include specific tasks/roles assigned to certain people independent of the concept of official employment. Eg in a culture like a tribe where people are assigned or just do certain tasks, whether hunting farming making clothes keeping guard or what ever but no one is ever officially employed anywhere. Roles/tasks in the modern western world that people do on regular basis but are not officially employed to do eg housewife, carer, window cleaner, parent. Tasks assigned within a family home, eg my job is to do the ironing, my sisters job is doing the dishes. Tasks assigned within an employment, today my job is serving on a checkout, tomorrow it is cleaning the warehouse, but my employment is the same however. This is only based on dictionary definitions, and the job article, touches on it very slightly. I don't think this enough to not support this, the words are very very similar and I do support, as we only need one here and employment is a more formal word, just pointing out they're not identical though.  Carlwev  16:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Homophobia

It's a massively public issue that generates controversy and discussion in a wide range of communities. Compared many times with the civil rights movement, it seems important enough to list it as a vital article. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 13:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This may have a good chance at being included in the 10,000 article list, I would probably support it there. Here we don't even list Homosexuality itself, having swapped it for sexual orientation see here, the idea was, it includes all covered by LGBT, not to mention heterosexuality as well, and also other less prelevent/documented sexualities/theories too. I believe it may be viewed as illogical to have homophobia before/without homosexuality but feel free to try, I may be wrong; a similar conversation was had about race and racism, I believe....After reading a bit, I realize the article, rightly or wrongly, kind of covers discrimination against other orientations, not just homosexual, so my point may not be...as strong.  Carlwev  16:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Some possible gaps

I noticed a few areas that the list seems to be lacking. Perhaps a few of these articles (or something similar in the relevant areas) should be added?

• Nose / Human nose / Odor / Olfaction / Olfactory system
• Etiquette / Social norm / Convention / Tradition
• Feudalism / Nobility
• Honour / Reputation
• Parent / Parenting

--Yair rand (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting suggestions. Norm/convention/tradition seems more fundamental than fashion which nearly got in recently. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the anthropocentric nature of the list, I believe the somatosensory system (sense of touch) is more important than the olfactory system. There was a time when even adding eye to the list was met with opposition. We've come a long way. Some of the other ideas are interesting as Cobblet says. Feudalism may not be necessary if the Middle Ages and social class (proposed below) are both listed. I'm not sure if honour and reputation are concrete topics in an encyclopedia. Only mid-importance in WikiProject Sociology. They seem to be rather amorphous like size. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add Irrational number and Imaginary number

The lack of these 2 articles seems to be a glaring hole in the number section.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We have complex number. And we have articles on many of the notable irrational numbers (pi, e, nth roots). Frankly I don't think we even need rational number since we already have fraction. Cobblet (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose have Complex number subsuming imaginary and Real number which includes irrational. RJFJR (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (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.

Vital WP:DABCONCEPT articles

Lately, I have been busily putting together WP:DABCONCEPT pages to replace disambiguation pages that are really just proxies for broad concepts, which often happens when the concept is difficult to write about because of its breadth. For example, I have created articles for Container, Digging, Guessing, Schedule, and Size. I have a bunch more in the pipeline, in various draft stages. Among these, examples that I would consider to be vital articles include:

• Draft:Accusation
• Draft:Arrogance
• Draft:Atonement
• Draft:Attendance
• Draft:Battlefield
• Draft:Birthright
• Draft:Captivity
• Draft:Confrontation
• Draft:Congruence
• Draft:Juxtaposition
• Draft:Mental state
• Draft:Overhaul
• Draft:Proprietariness
• Draft:Rivalry‎
• Draft:War zone
• Draft:Weightlifting
• Draft:Worst-case scenario

Of course, some of these are more important than others, but I believe that they should all be within the remit of this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add Furniture

We actually used to include this here, however it was removed without discussion a long time ago when that was normal. We list many items in technology that have an interesting moving part, and were an innovation. Furniture is like clothing, which is a vital 100 article btw, in that it is almost universal across majority of cultures for majority of history, except perhaps very early human history. Although not a technological marvel is so widespread, so widely used and so many different kinds, I would like to include it within the vital 1000. In my head, Human history life, home and work, may not have been very different with the absence of say the abacus or sundial, but would be very different without furniture although maybe an unfair comparison. It's so widespread and only guilty of not being a technology breakthrough like some other topics, but like I said clothing is important too. In the expanded list we include several items of common furniture too. More vital to humanity than the Mona Lisa or the Epic of Gilgamesh. Only covered by perhaps house, but when we list things like tower I don't think house makes furniture redundant, also houses are not the only places furniture is used.  Carlwev  20:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Agree that a household good this common should be vital. If five or six types of fine art are vital we can use a second applied art besides pottery. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Social class

We need some fundamental topics in the social sciences other than politics and economics. This is a basic object of analysis in sociology, for example.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  18:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Hm, I'm not sure about this. The more general Social stratification might be preferable. --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Size

Let's start with Size - one of the most fundamental concepts in the human experience. Technically, I would say that it's a concept in physics.

Support

1. bd2412 T 03:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Rather nebulous. Space and in particular measurement cover similar ground. Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose Size is one aspect of geometric measurement along with dimension and position. The vital parts of the article repeat what is already stated in measurement (I doubt this can change) and is therefore redundant. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose We already have both area and volume. RJFJR (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes, it is a nebulous concept - ranging from the size of a box to the size of one's generosity. That is what makes it both difficult and important to write about. bd2412 T 13:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Taking the logic from your original statement to its extreme, the "most" vital article ought to be human condition. The big and nebulous concepts are not always the ones that readers frequently look up in an encyclopedia, particularly if they are redundant to more precisely defined concepts that are more amenable to systematic treatment. There are many properties or qualities of things besides size, and not all of them are necessarily essential in an encyclopedia. Taking a step back, we don't even list object (philosophy) or idea to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We have Ideology, but not Idea, although the former is merely an expression of the latter. bd2412 T 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Emotions listed under cooking?

As I am looking at the list right now, some how the emotions are being listed under and indented to cooking in everyday life, and emotion itself is in another section. I haven't checked the history, but most likely thing I can think is someone moved emotion to another section but left the list of emotions love fear anger where they were indented, and cooking was listed as the previous thing in the list. We'll need to check and fix.  Carlwev  17:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My bad – fixed. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add Parenting

One of User: Yair rand's suggestions from a few months ago. Child can be expected to cover child development from the child's perspective, but how parents support that process seems just as important. Adult does not touch on parenting at all. I picked parenting over parent mainly because the former gets over twice as many page views as the latter.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  03:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support - I'd say this is vital. Jusdafax 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The other one of Yair rand's suggestions I really like is Norm (social), but parenting seems likely to be the topic of greater general interest. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Ravi Shankar

Shankar's name has come up frequently come up as someone who is out of place at this level. Having connections with the Beatles doesn't make you vital, particularly when the Beatles are listed already. He is not as well-known in India as people in the West may believe.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support I'd support a swap with Tagore as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  08:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Agree Tagore is more vital. Neljack (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - As noted, Shankar has come up before. It's been rejected and should be again, in my view. Well-known to millions, with or without the Beatles. If there is room for an additional sitar master, then adding Tagore is fine. Proposers reasoning fails to convince. Jusdafax 03:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

If there was one modern artist from India that actually had a case to be added, it would be Rabindranath Tagore who excelled in so much more and is far more revered. Tagore was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote famous novels, poetry, short stories, songs, plays and even painted. He is the only person in the world to have composed national anthems for three different countries (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka). To put it in perspective, nobody else has composed more than one. He also had political influence both at home and abroad. And he gets more than triple the page views of Ravi Shankar. If Tagore isn't listed, you can see why the case for listing Shankar is very weak. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Personality

The study of personality is a fundamental component of psychology.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  03:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We list Schizophrenia which is a complicated condition or group of conditions that is sometimes described as a Personality disorder, and we are listing this personalty disorder before personality itself.  Carlwev  18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think schizophrenia is vital here. It's just not common enough. The sources in the article say in 2013 there was estimated to be 23.6 million cases globally. 0.3–0.7% of people are affected during their lifetime. I have my doubts on autism too. Major depressive disorder is the most common mental disorder in the world by a distance. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd definitely support swapping schizophrenia for depression. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Magazine

Probably the least significant media element on the list by a substantial margin, and much less vital than a lot of topics that are currently missing. --Yair rand (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support I think I'd rather list something like Sound recording and reproduction over this least important form of print media. Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:50, 30 September 2015 (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.

Sexual intercourse?

Does anyone think we should have this. Human sexuality is in the 100 list. The 1000 list has gender, man, woman, sex, male, female, Sexually transmitted infection, HIV/AIDS, sexism, pregnancy, Sexual orientation. Seems odd to list all these things but leave off sexual intercourse. The article that covers it that some people may say makes it redundant is maybe human sexuality, but the other articles I listed could just as easily be said to redundant to human sexuality too; and it is a large topic. Seems a little odd to list pregnancy and individual STD's, among other things, but not this. We used to list Syphilis too a while back, but it was swapped for aging.  Carlwev  18:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Having this would be better than listing both male and female in addition to sex. Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We already have man and woman for humans as well as gender, we could also list sexual reproduction instead of male and female, but we have reproduction so that may or may not be necessary.  Carlwev  19:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I proposed pretty much exactly that a while ago, but it went down in flames. Cobblet (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the opposers did note the repetitiveness of including male and female in addition to man and woman but they preferred removing man and woman instead. I think one of these pairs should go too but it is hard to decide which one. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think man and woman are unquestionably more vital than male and female. It's simply more important for an encyclopedia to have good coverage of gender roles in human society than gender roles in animal mating behaviour. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Add Memory

Another basic object of study in psychology and neuroscience.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support - Memory is identity. Jusdafax 09:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support (Turns out to be a much more interesting than I anticipated, I've added it to my watch list so I remember to read it more closely.) RJFJR (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Important, at the moment is covered only by mind, brain and psychology, but no more than the several emotions which we include and not enough to make it redundant at this level IMO.  Carlwev  00:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I think this is a better choice than the individual emotions. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Joan of Arc

Just eight of the 131 biographies on the list are of women: Frida Kahlo, Virginia Woolf, Hildegard of Bingen, Marie Curie, Mary Wollstonecraft, Hatshepsut, Elizabeth I of England and Catherine the Great. In contrast, women comprise about 15% of the biographies on the English Wikipedia as a whole. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that if we are creating a list of 1000 important articles on Wikipedia, at least 1% of that list should be devoted to biographies of women: so I propose adding two more. Joan of Arc is one of the most famous people of the Middle Ages and regularly appears in lists of the greatest people of all time.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support - Agree with nom, and am surprised she is not there. Jusdafax 09:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  11:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Joan of Arc. What this does though is give us more French leaders (3) than Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, British/English, American and Russian/Soviet, all of which have 2 each. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support I'll support this. GuzzyG (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I wonder if Charlemagne is as necessary to keep now. He's no doubt a strong contender but there's Saladin, Attila the Hun, Ashoka, Peter the Great, Umar, William the Conqueror, Musa I of Mali, Emperor Meiji, all knocking on the door, and in modern times Sun Yat-sen, Haile Selassie, Stalin, Roosevelt, etc. Then again, Charlemagne isn't just revered in France but Germany too and there are no German leaders apart from Charlemagne and Hitler. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much more sense to exclude Charlemagne because of the (potential) presence of Joan of Arc and Napoleon than it does to exclude Saladin because of the presence of Ramses and Hatshepsut. The Treaty of Verdun was signed after Charlemagne's death and the subsequent civil war. Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Cate Blanchett

I'm surprised Cate Blanchett is not on the list, especially when there are less accomplished and/or renowned subjects (great in their own right) listed, like Gérard Depardieu, Marcello Mastroianni, Shintaro Katsu, and even Isabelle Huppert. Lapadite (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

None of those are on the list. Are you confusing this with the expanded list? --Yair rand (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes the level 4 sub list is the one I was looking at then. I see they're not on the actual WP:VITAL list. I'll propose it on the expanded list talk page. Lapadite (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Rational number

Wherever possible we should avoid listing articles that overlap each other in coverage. Also this list is heavy on math and natural science articles, to the detriment of other fields of study (see my comments in the nomination of human behavior). The set of numbers that can be expressed as fractions is a concept that is also covered by fraction (mathematics) and I think we should only keep the more down-to-earth concept.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  11:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support The rationals are part of the reals, and we do have fraction which is probably a better article on this (and does mention that the fractions are the rationals.) RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Sunrise (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• I think that fractions should be moved from the arithmetic section to the numbers section. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that. Cobblet (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Murasaki Shikibu

I also think we should have at least one person to represent women outside the Western cultural sphere. Murasaki Shikibu is a canonical figure of world literature: The Tale of Genji is often considered the world's first novel. If we list both Miguel de Cervantes and Don Quixote there is no excuse to not list either Murasaki or her magnum opus.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support - Different, but vital. First novelist, wow. Jusdafax 12:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support first novelist seems significant. RJFJR (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Sunrise (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'm leaning to support this but since we are nearing the limits for biographies i can't help but think that (not including military rulers/politicians) we are missing Hippocrates, Voltaire, Imhotep, Marilyn Monroe, Yuri Gagarin and Pelé, i also think swapping Virginia Woolf for Jane Austen is needed, with these suggestions i think we would better fully represent human progress/culture, although Murasaki is just as important. Maybe we should discuss some swaps? Like Nagarjuna for Hippocrates and El Greco for Imhotep? It really pains me to suggest these two but Ernest Hemingway for Voltaire? and Roald Amundsen for Gagarin? Especially as space exploration is more important historically then polar. GuzzyG (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We've unsuccessfully tried to remove Hemingway before – maybe try swapping Poe instead for Voltaire. There are currently more Greeks on the list than there are women, so I would not support adding Hippocrates. Nor do I think any astronaut is vital by themselves on this level – it wasn't Gagarin or Armstrong's idea to explore space. Cobblet (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that Voltaire is more important than several of the writers currently on the list. Maybe de Cervantes could be another candidate for replacement since (per the nomination above) we already have Don Quixote. Sunrise (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (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.

Open proposals that are close

Just a reminder that we have two open proposals above that are at 4 supports (and no oppose) and are just sitting there:

• Add Murasaki Shikibu
• Remove Rational number

If you agree with the supports then in this case one vote will make a difference and if you disagree you should probably say so before they get their fifth support. (also Add Human behavior is a t 3 support votes.) RJFJR (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. One left for adding Human behavior. Sunrise (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)