Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

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 Benjamin Spock, Add Anna Freud

The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care is already listed; I don't see why we need to list Spock separately, particularly when the founder of child psychoanalysis isn't listed to begin with.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support the add but oppose the remove, since this list contains less than 10,000 entries, and if we consider a book crucial enough to be added to it, the its author(s) should be added to it as well (but not the publisher).--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

User:RekishiEJ, that's not a given: you'll find many works of literature and art on the list whose creators aren't also listed. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 23 September 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.

---

Swap: Remove Barbara W. Tuchman, add Eric Hobsbawm

Tuchman was another popular historian without much wider influence. Hobsbawm's works were both popular among the general public and enormously influential in the discipline. He's widely regarded as the most important Marxist historian (and we don't have any representatives of Marxist historiography, which - whatever you think of its merits - had been a highly influential historiographical approach). His greatness was recognised even by historians who strongly disagreed with his historiographical approach. Professor Sir Richard Evans, a leading critic of Marxist historiography, wrote:[1]

Many historians have come up with one influential concept or another, but Hobsbawm came up with a whole shedload: the "General Crisis of the 17th Century"; the "dual revolution" (the French and Industrial revolutions, the formative events of modern times); the "invention of tradition"; "primitive rebels"; "social banditry"; the "long 19th century" (1789-1914); the "short 20th century" (1914-1989); these are just a few.

Niall Ferguson, the prominent conservative historian, said: "That Hobsbawm is one of the great historians of his generation is undeniable. ... His quartet of books beginning with The Age of Revolution and ending with The Age of Extremes constitute the best starting point I know for anyone who wishes to begin studying modern history."[2] He was awarded many honours in various countries, including the Balzan Prize, perhaps the most prestigious prize there is for the humanities. Neljack (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Agree that Tuchman was more of a popularizer of history than an influential historian. We don't list any science popularizers, so this swap seems logical. Malerisch (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Would E. P. Thompson and E. H. Carr be good additions to the list as well? Malerisch (talk) 23:08, 7 September 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 Nicomachean Ethics

Nonfiction literature is currently underrepresented compared to fiction, and the following three proposals may help to correct this. Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle is "widely considered one of the most important historical philosophical works" and is the foundational work of ethics (a level-2 vital article). We currently list a few other works by Aristotle, but this is arguably more important than the others. Malerisch (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support A more important work that Aristotle's Physics, which we list. Probably the most important work of classical moral philosophy. Neljack (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I won't comment on the relative representation of nonfiction and fiction. It's hard to determine what the ideal ratio is. Maybe it will be better to just look at each literary work on a case-by-case basis. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:58, 14 September 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 Critique of Pure Reason

Immanuel Kant's most famous work, the Critique of Pure Reason, is "one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy." The Guardian calls it "perhaps the greatest of all single philosophical works" and "a turning point in the history of philosophy." [3] Malerisch (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support In many way the foundational work of modern philosophy. Neljack (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support much more vital than 'I love Lucy'. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:47, 27 September 2014 (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 Software Industry

Important industry that isn't on the list yet. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support industries can replace nearly all companies. They have far wider scope. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We do not need to list industries that correspond to every type of engineering discipline when those disciplines are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Switched to Oppose. Cobblet and Carlwev have convinced me. I will probably switch votes for health care industry and agribusiness too. I now oppose software industry in particular because it overlaps with the companies which were not removed successfully (Microsoft, Apple and Google although Google's removal was never proposed). Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I don't think industries are good topics for this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I tend to think Cobblet has a point here. On the on hand this article may seem better compared to relevant companies, maybe. But picking main topics from the 100 list for example, presumably as more vital probably, why not Film industry or music industry, Entertainment industry, Food industry, Electronics industry, or Energy industry which also exist, but somehow most seem not needed, there are more possible examples if you use the 1000 list. Some possible "topic industry" articles from the 100 list and elsewhere don't even exist as articles themselves, but redirect to the parent article, like transport industry, construction industry, Telecommunication industry, clothing industry and more. Some industry articles may or may not be needed, I think more general discussion may be needed first, and I think software industry may not be first in line, compared to some articles I mentioned above, among others.  Carlwev  09:55, 23 September 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 Health care industry

Another vital industry with a wide scope not on the list. There aren't even any related companies on the list at the moment. Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson would be the closest to being vital but they ain't.

Support

1. Support nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Again there's too much overlap with health care which is already listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose HEalth care and medicine is obviously vital. The industry build up around it not necessarily.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet and Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We should probably have articles on all the major industries. Perhaps these would replace the articles on specific companies. What does everyone else think? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out Outline of industry#Major industries and Category:Industries and its subcategories and let me know how many articles you want to add, and then we can discuss. The number of industries (service industries in particular) that we could add is vast: right now I see proposals made without any criteria defined for what constitutes a vital industry article. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a lot of overlap - except in the title. Health care deals with the nursing/medical aspects and discusses the social aspects of availability of health care and organization/strategy of health care by communities. Health care industry on the other hand is about the business behind it - sales, stock market, investment strategies and the like. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Again I invite you to look at the two pages I noted in the previous comment and tell me which industries you think are vital. I believe that an article on health care can cover the business aspects, and that to a greater or lesser extent this is true of many industries and their associated technological fields. Cobblet (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the article you're linking to is a good basis for the kind of decision you're trying to make (or want me to make). Better options are: Industry Classification Benchmark or Global Industry Classification Standard - these are the classifications used by the American stock markets, rsp British stock markets. Other options for classification are listed here: Industry classification. These can give us ideas for what's vital. As I said many times, I don't think VA is an outline project, and if we stick to closely to these lists that's what we're going to arrive at.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• When would it ever be necessary to look up "health care industry" or "software industry" or "food industry" or other industries in an encyclopedia? What one looks up is healthcare, software, food etc.

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 Peer pressure

Basic Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (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 limit of a function

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Great catch. Limits are the foundation of calculus. I am surprised that this is not on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2014 (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.

Imbalances in the list of political figures

There's a pronounced European slant in the list of political figures. This is most obvious in the earlier time periods: more than half (36/71) of the figures from ancient history are European, and so are 62% of the post-classical figures, even though this is a period marked by golden ages in Islamic, Indian and Chinese civilization while Europe was mired in the Middle Ages.

At the same time, the dearth of Chinese and South Asian leaders is so striking, it's farcical. We have room for two Tyrants of Syracuse and two Dacian leaders but none for the kings of the Gupta Empire: in fact the entire political history of South Asia before the 16th century is represented by a grand total of two people! How does ancient Egypt get 13 rulers while ancient China gets two over the same time period?

None of this makes any sense to me and I'm going to take a stab at fixing these imbalances. My proposals lead to no net change in the number of people a net addition of one person to the list. Europe would be reduced from a majority to a plurality of political leaders in the ancient and post-classical periods (like in the other periods); and pre-16th-century India and China would get twelve leaders each. Frankly I think these changes are pretty conservative, but we gotta start somewhere and I'm sure these 31 proposals will provide everyone with plenty to think about.

There are other issues I've tried to fix. Africa oddly goes from having seven post-classical figures to just one in the early modern period. On the other hand, Southeast Asia's remarkably well represented at every stage of its history, probably too much so. I've also spotted a couple of notable medieval Europeans we're still missing.

The additions are listed first (in chronological order), followed by swaps and removals (also in chronological order). Many thanks to User:Redtigerxyz for helping me pick Indian rulers to add. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Rome also has 13 rulers, which is a bit high. Although Cicero doesn't really fit in. He should probably be moved out of leaders and go into Writers or Philosophers. Anyway, these proposals will take a long time to get through! Thanks for doing the research Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Rome at 12-13 isn't crazy if the USA has 24. Cobblet (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Great job on these proposals! There's definitely an imbalance in the current list of politicians and leaders, and these suggestions all seem well-researched and thought-out. Since you aimed for zero net additions, I was wondering if you think the current number of leaders (~475) is satisfactory. I would support a moderate increase, mostly at the expense of entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters. Malerisch (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I miscounted (nominated one fewer Indian leader than I intended to) and it's actually a net gain of one since I'll now open the nomination of Rajendra Chola I as well. Increasing the number of political figures to 500 wouldn't be unreasonable IMO. Nevertheless I tried to preserve the status quo because we've never discussed how many of them we should have, and it's generally much easier to suggest additions than removals but an honest effort to fix issues of balance requires that we do both. Cobblet (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• An excellent set of proposals, Cobblet! I'd noted the European bias too. Neljack (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove modern music works?

Sometimes I wonder whether it would be possible to reduce the modern musical works list to around 5 or 10 entries. The problem with proposing individual removals is that there are so many of a similar level of notability, so there is always the argument, "well if X is on the list..." Any opinions on a major reduction? --Rsm77 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel some trimming is warranted, but down to 5-10 seems rather extreme. How do you feel about the current distribution of musicians across different time periods? The distribution of musicians and musical works ought to be similar IMO. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little hasty. Perhaps some trimming and reshaping might be in order though. What does anyone think about the merits of Amazing Grace Silent Night, Summertime (song), In the Mood,My Way, and What a Wonderful World. I think there may be other standards with a case. I also think some particularly notable anthems like The Star-Spangled Banner and La Marseillaise might be considered. Think there was discussion of this before. --Rsm77 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we can reduce, and cut one by one, I don't think we need things like What's Going On by Marvin Gaye, or the sound track to Saturday Night Fever. Also we have Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, without Fleetwood Mac, I'd either swap it, remove the album and add the band, or just remove the album.  Carlwev  13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Star-Spangled Banner is not more vital than the Flag of the United States, and we currently list no national flags or symbols. Also popular tunes are not necessarily vital: Für Elise is not a vital piece of classical music. I think every piece of art on the list should be something that is recognized as a masterpiece of its genre; ideally, it should either have made an impact on the history of the art form or possess some larger cultural significance. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We could also add God Save the Queen in addition to Star Spangled Banner if you want to limit American bias. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support a major reduction as well, although 5 may be too little. Malerisch (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Locomotives

Our coverage of Rail transport is lacking basic articles compared to other transport possibly for a few reasons. First there is no such thing as a military or weapon train, so compared to planes and ships for example trains get less space. Representation of them when the list was compiled years back went the direction of including certain things like rapid transit then 5 examples of it or 5 underground train networks. We also have train station, track, Trans-Siberian Railway. We include high speed rail, just added, one of the newest types of rail transport but we are missing the 3 types of rail transport that have been the most widespread and used for longer amount of time, at the moment we have 13 articles in rail transport. It looks like the rapid transit systems may be staying, to include articles like Moscow Metro and Nissan but not Steam train, seems odd to me. Also rail transport has less than other transport types. 13 rail transport, 27 road transport, 18 aviation (plus more in military tech), 21 naval transport (plus more in military tech). Someone may say we have steam engine, but that's also in the 1000 with things like automobile, internal combustion engine, electric motor, so I think taking that into account I think the 10,000 list is big enough. To play Devil's advocate to my own idea, I am less sure on diesel locomotive as I am also pondering on Diesel fuel and/or Diesel engine. I am also pondering if Railway electrification system may be better than electric locomotive.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What about locomotive? I think that should be listed before individual types. (Also, I believe you nominated electric locomotive twice.) Malerisch (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Altered, one electric was meant to be diesel.  Carlwev  12:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll open locomotive too then, didn't realize that and we have train, I noticed Steam train, redirects to steam locomotive, diesel train to diesel locomotive, and electric train also not an article but a disambiguation that lists electric locomotive, because we list train I thought train types were OK but they redirect to locomotive types, then because we list train I didn't realize locomotive itself was a separate and missing article. I'll open Locomotive too.  Carlwev  12:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Also realizing the train articles redirect to the locomotive articles, we list Steamboat already, and steam train is equal if not higher importance. We don't leave off steamboat as we have boat, but we may leave of steam train, as we have train?  Carlwev  12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've suggested below, if this bothers you then we could swap steamboat for marine propulsion in general. And one of the reasons I nominated electrification is that it should cover the electrification of different economic sectors, including transportation. Cobblet (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Diesel I'd like to point out, we have nothing for diesel anything anywhere. Although diesel locomotive may not get in, to say it's covered by diesel fuel and/or diesel engine, isn't relevant unless we include them, which we do not at the moment, I may suggest one or both of them instead, thoughts? They may be better to have, but we don't have them yet.  Carlwev  18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Diesel engine's more vital than diesel fuel; it's the operating principle of the engine that dictates what kinds of fuels can be used, and diesel fuel is not a specific chemical mixture the way gasoline is. Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support diesel engine. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting statistics

The issues of nationality and pageviews have been popping up now and again. For everyone's information here are a few links showing which nationalities are editing and reading the English Wikipedia 1 and 2. Also important to note are the countries where the English Wikipedia is the most popular version. Here is a useful map (slightly outdated at Oct 2013 but it wouldn't have changed a lot since then). The archive at Wikistats provides further insights in the viewing and editing habits of Wikipedians as you can observe the trends over the past few years. Generally the gap between the Global North and Global South is decreasing slowly but steadily. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:53, 5 August 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.

---

Remove Robert Mitchum

Mitchum ranks #23 on the AFI list, and I don't think he's vital. He's mainly noted for his work in film noir, but when film noir itself isn't listed, I can't justify keeping him. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 27 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Jane Fonda

Fonda isn't known as one of the best actresses of all time, and her activism isn't significant enough for her to be listed: Jane Addams and Emmeline Pankhurst (who aren't listed) surely win on that front. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:09, 24 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Jerry Lewis

I agree with Rsm77 that comedians are also severely overrepresented on this list, and Jerry Lewis seems like a good place to start. I don't see anything vital about Lewis. He doesn't rank on lists of top comedians (Comedy Central, Channel 4). Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support The extraordinary US bias in the comedians listed should also be noted. Neljack (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support less vital than his one-time partner Dean Martin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support He's certainly no Chaplin. Or even a Jim Carrey come to that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Jack Benny

We already list The Jack Benny Program in Society and social sciences, and I don't see why he needs to be listed separately. Benny ranks #29 on Comedy Central's list. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support And while were at it remove the program too.21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support That's Maunus's vote above, I think. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Milton Berle

Berle was only popular on television for less than 5 years, and he ranks #29 on Comedy Central's list. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:37, 21 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove George Burns

Burns had a long career, but nothing stands out as vital. He ranks #31 on Comedy Central's list. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:36, 20 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Bob Hope

Hope ranks #25 on Comedy Central's list, and entertaining the military doesn't make you vital. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support vitality limited to a specific period of US history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I disagree with Comedy Central's low ranking. I'd put him in the top 10. pbp 02:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Here's a third list of comedian rankings [4], which ranks Hope even lower at #47. I'm curious to know who your top 10 are—do you mind listing them? Malerisch (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hope, Carlin, Tomlin, Pryor, Robin Williams, for a start. I disagree vehemently with the Comedy UK list; it has Russell Brand higher (good entendre!) than Hope or many other comedy legends. Lemme be clear: I'm fine with there only being a handful of comedians; I just think Bob Hope should be one of them. If you want to consider lists, consider the Greatest American list of the Discovery Channel. For historical figures, it's an awful list, but the fact is that of their top 25, only Lance Armstrong isn't on our list ATM, and that because he's since been disgraced. Hope is in their Top 25. pbp 13:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with all these lists is that they are all highly biased towards those from their own country - whether the US or Britain. Neljack (talk) 07:39, 18 September 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 Spike Milligan

Milligan is primarily known for The Goon Show, but that's already listed in Society and social sciences. Milligan doesn't need to be listed separately. Peter Sellers would be a better choice to represent the show, anyway. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Agree re Peter Sellers. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:04, 28 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Al Pacino

Looking at all the stuff we don't have, and a number of actors who are similar to Pacino but better (i.e. DiNiro), I ask, "Why?" pbp 07:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 07:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I don't think he's quite vital. Neljack (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Robert De Niro is actually listed. I would put them close, but De Niro slightly higher.  Carlwev  07:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If we have DeNiro, we don't need Pacino. pbp 13:13, 18 September 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 W.E. Johns

I am currently reading Biggles, the series of almost 100 books about the British air pilot James Bigglesworth. And by reading I do not mean rereading for nostalgic reasons, because I read them for the first time (in Dutch translations). I noticed:

• Though all of the books involve airplanes in some way, virtually no adventure is a rehearsal of a previous one.
• The "Britishness" of the hero and the high moral values he embodies, such as fair play, are characteristics that his fellow countrymen should be prouder of than they are, since I have to nominate him.
• The author was the editor of aviation magazines and voiced some sound insights at the outset of the war.MackyBeth (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose I fail to see the vitality of this particular writer. His magnum opus, Biggles, doesn't seem to have much significant legacy, even within children's literature; why is it more vital than Harry Potter, or even Charlotte's Web? As for the author himself, I don't see why he's more vital than many other British authors not listed like Alfred, Lord Tennyson, D. H. Lawrence, Mary Shelley, Ian Fleming, William Golding, Ted Hughes, J. K. Rowling, or the very-recently-removed Kingsley Amis. Malerisch (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Malerisch. Not particularly influential or critically acclaimed. Neljack (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Malerisch. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:45, 12 September 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 Smokey Robinson

Motown produced three important artists, and while the other two (Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye) are listed, Smokey gets overlooked. In addition to his hits with the Miracles, he composed and produced a score of hits for other artists, of which The Temptations' My Girl is perhaps the most famous. Many of his post-Miracles solo albums maintained the high quality. His lyrics explore romantic love from a variety of unusual points of view, but he is also known for his original use of metaphor.MackyBeth (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Albrecht Conz (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The last thing this list needs is more American musicians. Most genres of American music are already ridiculously overrepresented. If we can't find room for those 15 Americans listed above, we shouldn't be adding Smokey Robinson. pbp 03:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per pbp. I just can't see this particular genre of music as being important enough to deserve 8 entries. Many other music sections are bloated as well. Malerisch (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Agree that we don't need more American or soul musicians. And I'm not sure that Robinson is quite as vital as Wonder or Gaye. Neljack (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We already have plenty of soul music artists. If there's one contemporary style of American music that's underrepresented it's probably hip hop. Cobblet (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. On a related note, ideally, the entire sub-section should be checked for rockism to allow for more representation for other genres.--Mαuri^’96 “everything and nothing always haunts me…” 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cobblet and Mauri96. All of these genres are important but 28 rock musicians, 20 composers of Romantic music and to a lesser extent 14 of Jazz are excessive when you compare them to other Western and non-Western genres. Some of the musicians listed under "pop" like the Bee Gees, Billy Joel, Elton John and Prince also had partial rock careers, further inflating that genre.

The number of 20th/21st century musicians shouldn't be more than the number of actors/directors/comedians and sports figures from a similar time period as they are all equally important forms of entertainment. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:42, 8 September 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 Modern pentathlon

One of the obscurest Olympic events – this would've been removed from the Olympic programme a long time ago if there wasn't a small but vociferous lobby for it. Heptathlon and triathlon are much more relevant to modern sports and neither is listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Unique Olympic sport

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 Electronic component

Many electronic components are listed, but the overarching article is not. This could be a substitute for semiconductor device on the level 3 list. Malerisch (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Electronic component seems to be almost too generic. The article is currently structured like a list and is rated as "List-class" by WikiProject Electronics. Can something substantive be written about electronic components in general? Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not—I would expect such an article to cover the history of electronic components in general, as well as overviews of each type of electronic component. Besides, this would hardly be the only general overview article on the list, and it wouldn't seem out of place in relation to articles like measuring instrument and astronomical object (mostly lists), weapon (half a list), and chemical compound, landform, and home appliance (short overview articles). Malerisch (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If electrical conductor and insulator (electricity) aren't listed, is semiconductor really vital? Maybe swapping it with semiconductor device on this level will fix its discrepancy with level 3. It could be argued that the reason semiconductors stand out is because of their applications in electronic devices; hence the more specific article is the one we want. Cobblet (talk) 03:02, 22 September 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 pagoda

To me it is as important as tower.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2014 (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 Gas turbine

If we're going to list Diesel engine and Four-stroke engine, Gas turbine seems essential. They power all large aircraft, many ships, and have a major presence in electricity production.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  08:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (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.

---

Automatic vs. manual nesting of VA lists

Recently, there has been some discussion about how to handle articles that appear in a higher-tier VA list but not a lower-tier list. I think that this would be best resolved with a formal proposal. There are two obvious ways to solve this problem: automatic nesting and manual nesting.

Supporting automatic nesting would mean a few things:

• Articles that appear on higher-tier list but not a lower-tier list would be automatically added to the lower-tier list. For example, although solar energy isn't on level 4, it can be added without discussion because it is already present on level 3.
• Articles that are nominated to a higher-tier list but are not already on a lower-tier list would be automatically added to the lower-tier list. For example, if a nomination of climate change to level 3 passed, it would also be added to level 4 without discussion.
• Articles that are deleted from a lower-tier list would be deleted from any higher-tier lists. For example, if a nomination to remove point (geometry) from level 4 passed, it would also be removed from level 3 without discussion.

Supporting manual nesting would mean the opposite:

• Solar energy would still have to be nominated to level 4 even though it is on level 3.
• Even if climate change passed on level 3, it would still have to be nominated on level 4.
• Even if point (geometry) were removed on level 4, it would still have to be nominated for removal on level 3.

Please support your preferred choice! Malerisch (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Support automatic nesting

1. Support I prefer automatic nesting because it ensures that all articles are always appropriately nested and streamlines the process without unnecessary voting. Additionally, it's possible to hit roadblocks with manual nesting. Consider the semiconductor device nomination: it failed to be added on level 4 1-3. What if the removal nomination on level 3 received a final tally of 3-1, which is entirely possible, and so wouldn't be removed? Manual nesting doesn't guarantee that nesting will always be achieved. Malerisch (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I confess I didn't read all of the discussion below but I think it makes sense to have this rule as a matter of procedural convenience, even if it's an arbitrary one, given how slowly discussions take place on Level 1 and 2 (it took years before we got rid of cuisine from Level 2 when it was never on level 3). Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Malerisch and Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per above comments. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per above. There's no harm in trying this at least. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support manual nesting

1. Support I see a problem with automatic nesting. Here's an example. Lets say we have Balkan Wars on Level 3 and First Balkan War and Second Balkan War on Level 4. If we have automatic nesting the Balkan wars article will have to be added on level 4 creating an overlap. If after that Balkan wars is removed on level 4 because of the overlap, it will also be removed on level 3 and won't be covered on that list. This way we get in a vicious circle. I think it is better to discuss every change, so we don't have such problems. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose both solutions (I assume this means no nesting at all, so please explain why!)

Discussion

• Comment: It is my belief that new Level 3 nominations should come from articles already on Level 4. pbp 14:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I would agree to automatic method if there was only one logical choice but there is not. Even if we agree every article should appear at all lower tiers than its highest appearance, which I presume we have by now. An issue I was thinking about, if an article is listed in the 1000 list but not the 10,000 list, the automatic method could have several ways of doing things, all logical. I'll call them Adding, Removing and Switching

1. Adding One could say The article should automatically be added to the 10,000 as it's already in the 1000, this is what ended up happening to History of North America, with voting and many more.
2. Removing One could just as easily say the article should be immediately removed from the 1000 list as it's not even in the 10,000, this may happen to Semiconductor device and more in the past with voting.
3. Switching Some articles were removed from the 1000 and added to the 10,000. This happened to Antônio Carlos Jobim and more by voting.
4. If an article is found, added or removed from the 10 or 100 lists but is missing from one or more lower tiers, there would be even more combinations of solutions, of where said article should and should not be and all completely logical...I found Oral tradition in the 100 list but no other list. It ended up being listed in the 10,000 list only. But it would have been equally as logical to have it in 100, 1000 and 10,000, or only 1000 and 10,000, or only in 10,000, or remove it completely....When we removed art and added arts to the vital 10, we presumed arts should be added to the 100 and 1000 too, but had to discus whether or not art should be removed also from the 100 and the 1000.

In short why would you pick adding to be the only logical solution, when removing or switching also make sense. When opening a thread that would otherwise not follow logic, we should vote not for simply, "have it/don't have it" at this level, but for the methods Adding Removing Switching above; or ask the question "Which is the highest tier you want this article" and vote on the options, we did threads like this for Antônio Carlos Jobim, and space technology articles and a few more. Some found consensus some didn't, but that's no different to the potential result of any other kind of thread.

When all existing discrepancies are dealt with, any new thread opened for a higher level should either be an article already at lower tiers as PBP says or should just be opened and worded in such a way as to follow our logic. Eg if someone wanted to open a thread for Ableism, which is currently being discussed, and is presently not listed at any level, one could open a thread: "add Ableism to the 10,000" or: "Add Ableism to the 1000 and 10,000" the thread simply named: "Add Ableism to the 1000" shouldn't really be started and should be altered quickly if it is, as opening it now would create the problem all over again. The last one would only be OK to open if Ableism gets added to the 10,000 first in a separate thread, which it isn't yet. I have written more than I hoped I would, but does this make sense?  Carlwev  09:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply! I understand what you're saying. You're correct that there is more than one way in dealing with such a discrepancy, but I believe that adding automatically by default makes the most sense since it's the most common case and most accurately reflects the status quo. Additionally, all other adjustments can be made with only 1 thread.

Let's say that we added all the missing level 4 articles automatically, and I'll explain how this happens:

• For a complete removal, a "Remove Semiconductor device" on level 4.
• For a switch, a "Remove Antônio Carlos Jobim" on level 3.
• In the case of oral tradition, "Remove oral tradition" on level 3.
• And art would also only need 1: "Remove art" on level 3.

With removing/switching, more threads would need to be posted because those are less common scenarios. I believe that adding is the simplest solution. Hope that's clear! Malerisch (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

V3n0M93: Your argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that Balkan Wars would be removed on level 4, but wouldn't First Balkan War and Second Balkan War be removed before Balkan Wars, though? I think this would be brought up during a discussion to remove Balkan Wars due to the overlap, and there wouldn't be any vicious circle. In fact, a contradiction has already emerged with semiconductor device through manual nesting: it failed to be added to level 4, and it also just received no consensus to remove it from level 3, exactly as I stated could happen in my reasoning for supporting automatic nesting. Malerisch (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I didn't explain my position clearly. It might have been better if I put my vote under no nesting. My position is that after a proposition passes, if needed a proposition on a higher/lower level list will have to be automatically created. After that it should be discussed whether the change is reasonable for that level list. Because the scope of the level 4 list is much bigger, an article on a level 3 list can be covered on the level 4 list by the articles of its subtopics, removing the need of the overall article on that level. There will be a few article that wouldn't be nested. --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The comments in this discussion and on the semiconductor discussion at Level 3 have touched on a broader issue. Should every level automatically contain the articles in the previous level? If that's the case and every level is its target size, Level 2 will contain 90 new articles, Level 3 will contain 900 new articles and Level 4 will contain 9000 new articles. A lot of the regular VA members believe in this and assume this but not everyone here necessarily agrees with this. This could mean for example that if all levels met their target number, for example Level might take 8 articles from Level 1 and have 92 more articles. What this means is that the overall number of "vital" articles will be more than 10,000 when you count all of them together. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Assuming this proposal passes, how would it be implemented? Lets say an article right now is on level 3 but not level 4. Should we automatically remove the article from level 3 if this passes, or would we first nominate it on level 4? And what would we do about an article on level 3 that covers two articles on level 4 but is not on level 4 itself? As you can see, the implementation of this proposal could get rather messy. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If an article is on level 3 but not level 4, it would automatically be added to level 4 per the first part of the proposal. To quote myself above, the reasoning for addition is that "it's the most common case and most accurately reflects the status quo." If an article on level 3 covers two articles on level 4 but isn't on level 4 itself, it would still be added, and I suppose further discussion would be needed as to which articles should be removed. However, I can say with some confidence that the only article currently on level 3 but not level 4 is semiconductor device. This case should be pretty rare. Malerisch (talk) 00:34, 26 September 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 William Blackstone

Perhaps had a greater influence on the study of law than anyone else in the English-speaking world. His Commentaries on the Laws of England was the most prominent law textbox for centuries after his life. Propose him to be added under social scientists. pbp 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
2. It is indeed hard to choose between the author and the Commentaries. At least one of them should be on the list. Looking at the biographies section in isolation, Blackstone is among the 2000 most vital people IMO and so should be listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I wonder if adding Commentaries on the Laws of England would be a better idea instead. His influence largely stems from that book, after all. Neljack (talk) 23:07, 26 August 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 Rajendra Chola I

Under his rule, the Chola dynasty became the first great south Indian empire. He expanded its lands in every direction and finished the conquest of Sri Lanka started by his father; launched an expedition north to the Ganges – such a long-distance land campaign had not been witnessed in India since Samudragupta's attack in the reverse direction 700 years prior; and most remarkably, conducted an overseas campaign against the Srivijaya empire of Sumatra, which led to the demise of that empire and secured Tamil trade routes with China. Compare his achievements with any Viking ruler (can any other maritime civilization before the European Renaissance boast of similar naval conquests?); I don't think he comes off worse.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2014 (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 Manuel Noriega

Noriega was the military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989. he was overthrown by the US due to his links to drug trafficking. He is critical to both the historical War on Drugs as well as American anti-communism acts in Latin America.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not convinced.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Neljack (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose: While he was a good example of a typical "banana republic" dictator, his father was far more significant, and any of them pale in comparison to people like Fidel Castro or "Papa Doc" Duvalier.

Discussion

I would suggest adding Augusto César Sandino, United Fruit Company, Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez before adding Noriega.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Chavez and Ortega are listed. Given that the presence of any company on the list has been subject to debate, I don't think UFC's going to make it. Sandino does looks like a good choice though. Cobblet (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandino over Ortega, one gave inspiration to the other. Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 6 October 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 Eleanor Roosevelt

Awhile back, we posited that removing American actors and comedians would give us space to add Americans elsewhere. As far as worthy Americans co, Eleanor Roosevelt is at the top of my list. We have no female American political leaders. Eleanor is highly ranked on numerous lists of great Americans; she is in the top 25 of the Discovery Channel 100, the top 50 of the Atlantic Monthly 100, and made Time's 100 people of the 20th century. pbp 23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support She's one of two leaders and revolutionaries on the Time 100 that aren't listed (the other is Tank Man). Hard to argue that she's less vital than Doris Day. Malerisch (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Third time's the charm? Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Ive changed my mind.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Wow. Good catch. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Strongest possible support: Amazed she isn't there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support A crucial female figure in the history of the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2014 (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.

---

Remove Leo Fender

What makes him more vital than Orville Gibson, Bartolomeo Cristofori, Andrea Amati, Henry E. Steinway, Torakusu Yamaha, or Robert Moog? Malerisch (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Certainly less vital than Cristofori. Cobblet (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  07:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Lol.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Oppose as he was significant in the development of electric instruments. No, not more important than Gibson, but equal to Moog in his own way. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the list of inventors has scope for expansion though I don't believe that Fender will make it even in a bigger list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:44, 26 September 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 Evolutionary history of life

The history of life is vital. Not sure if this should be added here or in Biology and health sciences. Malerisch (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  17:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Thinking if life, rightly so in my opinion, is a vital 10 article, the history of it should be vital 10,000 material, also we have 1000 ish species of life, surely the history of it can fit in. Some may say we have life and evolution, but I still think this has a shot.

There was discussion and vote, proposing all history of articles be placed under history, it passed. May link to it later if I find it. My only thinking against it is history is kind of documenting human history; OK these examples are redirects, however articles such as,history of the Universe, History of the solar system, History of the Earth, and history of life among others, seem to be more science articles at heart not history articles. I mean where would you study them at school and further education, and which kind of books would you find such information in, science not history. Maybe articles about events periods and eras outside history of humans is the defining line.  Carlwev  17:27, 24 September 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 Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning

Two of the main forms of reasoning. Jucchan (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:50, 9 October 2014 (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.

---

remove Secretariat (horse)

Tried once and failed, but trying again. On horse articles in general, we don't have dressage and show jumping now, we have never had Grand National, Kentucky Derby, Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, nor Domestication of the horse, Horses in warfare. I cannot imagine an encyclopedia putting this horse as higher importance than those, nor higher than missing/removed sports, sportspeople, other entertainers in general, or other articles such as cities and leaders etc.  Carlwev  17:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I don't see any justification for singling out Secretariat as the sole horse worthy of being on the list. There have been other great horses with a comparable cultural impact - for instance, Phar Lap in Australia and New Zealand. Ultimately, however, I don't think any horses are really vital enough. Neljack (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and the fact that Secretariat isn't clearly more vital than Man o' War. Malerisch (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
7. Support: per coverage of the "most important" race horses could or should be addressed in horse racing. But mostly to avoid the War of the Century erupting between fans of Secretariat and Phar Lap. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 28 September 2014 (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 Creativity

The phenomenon by which most things are created. Jucchan (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support big omission. Well spotted. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  21:14, 1 October 2014 (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 Immigration

Immigration is a major part of society today, especially over the past century. Millions of people immigrate to other countries every year. Malerisch (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  18:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Though I am not sure that immigration is necesarrily more vital than emigration (though there is more literature about the former). Might be better to treat both under a single label.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Human migration is likely vital as well. Malerisch (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding that if we didn't already have things like early human migrations, settlement of the Americas, Migration Period or Bantu expansion. Once we've started down the road of including specific migration events in history, an overview doesn't seem so necessary – I'm not sure the history of human migration is more vital than the history of food or clothing and we don't have overviews of those topics either. Cobblet (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had these, I would support Human migration as well as immigration, big omitions I believe. Human migration does appear in print encyclopaedias I have, which are smaller than 10'000 articles limit. I consider them both pretty vital.  Carlwev  18:10, 22 September 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 Human migration

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support prefer this to immigration. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:47, 26 September 2014 (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 Cellular respiration

Cellular respiration is the catabolic process by which organisms convert organic molecules into ATP. This is a basic concept in biology and should be added. Malerisch (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I'd consider ATP vital as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Another good find. I guess that removing species of organisms really freed up some space for other important articles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
7. Support quite an omission. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think I'd support ATP too. Also on a side not, we have photosynthesis at lev3, should we have metabolism there too? I always thought of them as similar importance. Do more species and a wider range of species use metabolism than photosynthesis? crossed my mind a while back, but never brought it up.  Carlwev  18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Metabolism is even more fundamental than photosynthesis: it is what maintains homeostasis which is a fundamental characteristic of life. I'd absolutely support adding it to level 3. (I'd throw out botany and zoology to make room for it, if necessary.) Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

For lev 4 would you also support Homeostasis itself? (into biology, probably?) I just noticed that's missing too, I think I would unless there's another article with a different name that is covering well that I'm unaware of.  Carlwev  19:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a concept related to and covered by metabolism and doesn't really need an article on its own. I'd prefer adding specific metabolic processes instead. Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 22 September 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 Prokaryote

Prokaryotes (Archaea and Bacteria) and eukaryotes are the two basic types of organisms, and both should be listed. Malerisch (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support big omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support - appears to be of core importance to this topic. Montanabw^(talk) 01:08, 24 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Lyra and Canis Minor

Figuring out which constellations after Corona Borealis to remove is hard, because there's none that jump out as being of lesser importance. However, I think these two are probably slightly less important than the other constellations on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We also list the brightest star of each constellation. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Thoughts on removing Capricornus, Cancer (constellation), Libra (constellation), and Aries (constellation)? I know it's a zodiacal constellation, but I don't think being on the zodiac is enough of a reason to include it on the list here, and Capricornus is certainly not vital in any other way. We have the zodiac article itself on the list, which I think is enough coverage of the concept. The other constellations on the list are all more important from an astronomical standpoint. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with these removals if we add astrological sign under astrology. Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of me would be sorry, but it makes complete sense though, we are nearly removing all months of the year and days of the week, as redundant to day, week, month, year, calendar etc. Removing them but keeping all the Zodiac signs/constellations just because they are in the zodiac wouldn't seem right, as they seem less vital than days and months. I notice there are separate articles for the constellations and the astrology signs. It appears the constellations may not be top top astronomy articles, if we kept them because they are astrology signs then shouldn't it be the astrology articles we should have then? but that situation would be even worse, as they are less vital individually than missing/removed things like some Greco Roman figures, we don't have Medusa or Minotaur etc.  Carlwev  10:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Astrology and zodiac, both of which are listed, should cover the non-vital contellations on the zodiac. Maybe astrological sign as well to make it complete. Agree with StringTheory, Cobblet and Carlwev. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:04, 4 September 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.

---

Move Pampas, Amazon Rainforest, Cerrado, Sahel and Eurasian Steppe to Geography

All of these articles are about terrestial features or actual regions in the world. They fit much better in the geography section than in earth science. The Amazon Rainforest for example, should be alongside Sunderbans. This will make the difference between the earth science and geography clear. Earth Science contains types of terrestial features, hydrological features and biomes. Geography contains actual ones. So river and desert are in earth science while Nile River and Sahara Desert are in geography.

Currently the earth science section is 10 articles over quota with further additions proposed below and geography is significantly under quota. This move will also help with the quota balance somewhat.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support moving geographically defined ecoregions to Geography, under their own category. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Most of these articles can go into physical geography though the Amazon may fit better in "Parks and Preserves". Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't given it a lot of thought, but my instincts say to not put it in parks. The forest is huge very old, across several countries, I don't think it's within one single park or preserve, though it main contain some. It is a region of physical geography.  Carlwev  18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's just that there are a few other forests listed in the parks section. They should probably be listed with the Amazon if this proposal is successful and be moved into physical geography themselves. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, Also although some is protected, much of the forest is not "preserved" but cut down for numerous reasons in many areas and has been for some time which we often hear about.  Carlwev  18:41, 22 September 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 Cambrian explosion

Important and huge topic in evolution and paleontology. This appears in print enclopaedias. This is more vital to biology than numerous species we have, we still have about 10 butterflies and moths (might suggesting removing some of them soon). Not sure whether to put this in with geology and paleontology or biology, where are the extinction events it probably belongs with them as an event/period of earths natural history.  Carlwev  18:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support and I agree about the moths --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2014 (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 Palace

Palaces have been built by humans for millennia, stretching from Ancient Mesopotamia to the present day. We also list some specific palaces like the Palace of Versailles, the Forbidden City, and the Alhambra. Malerisch (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support a crucial article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support More important than villa at any rate. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Macramé

On the other hand, I don't see how macramé is vital. Lace is the fundamental type of openwork fabric and all I think we really need.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, macramé is the oldest technique, knotting was done before crocheting, knitting and weaving. I'm not sure if there are any statistics on it's use today (lace can be produced macramé) but historically it is no doubt the most important technique. I see no reason to cut the number of techniques to produce fabrics.--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

? If basketry counts as weaving then weaving is by far the most ancient and widespread of these techniques. Felt is pretty old as well. Knot is separately listed; macramé is only one particular type of knotted fabric. Cobblet (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Macramé does not just produce openwork fabric. Knotting as a textile technique is an ancient art and so is a vital article. However, the knot article is focused on what a knot is and how it's made with only cursory examination of knotted textiles. I'd support replacing macramé with a new article on knotting as a textile technique (that might include a discussion of rug making, macramé, tatting, netting, and needle lace). --Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 3 September 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 Combination and Permutation

Key in probability, combinatorics, and group theory. Combination also covers binomial coefficient, and thus Pascal's triangle as well. Jucchan (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. I've been thinking of proposing these myself. I was a bit hesitant because I wasn't sure if the articles were vital enough to take two spots (I'd strongly support a combined combination and permutation article). Having said that, these key concepts in probability need to be included. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support combinatorics is on level 3, therefore it makes sense to add more detailed articles on this level --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2014 (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.

---

Remove Sidney Poitier

Poiter ranks #22 on the AFI list, but I don't see why he should be listed. His ethnicity alone doesn't make him vital; we don't even list W. E. B. Du Bois or Booker T. Washington! Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Poitier left a lasting legacy still felt throughout Hollywood. He was the first African-American to win an Oscar in a leading role. He was the first black actor to successfully star in non-stereotypical roles, who until then were always cast as servants, maids, singers and comedians, and thereby helped paved the way for other African-Americans to act in such roles. Breaking the race barrier in film was a big achievement. The political side of the Civil Rights Movement is well represented with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Sidney Poitier covers the cultural side of the movement. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per DaGizza. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose in agreement with DaGizza. Neljack (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Lets add Dubois and Booker T Washington, though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose: Pointier's ground-breaking work in film makes him jump the queue. Dubois and BT Washington were not actors, let's not compare against categories, they too should be added, but to an appropriate list. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 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 Ed Sullivan

I also don't see why we need so many TV hosts, and Sullivan is the weakest of the bunch. He ranks #50 on TV Guide's "50 Greatest TV Stars of All Time," so I don't see why he should be listed. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Another area with American bias. Neljack (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Either he or The Ed Sullivan Show should be listed; the promotion of people like Elvis, the Beatles and the Supremes played a decisive role in making rock and roll mainstream. Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: 50th in delivery? Sure. Sullivan was a wooden, unfunny host...who knew popular trends and was great at getting up-and-coming people on his show. pbp 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose: This is recentism at its worst. Sullivan was groundbreaking in what was still the early days of television, in his promotion of modern music, in his work to overcome racism by promoting Motown acts, and the very high ratings his show achieved. If we must limit, then why do we have BOTH Steve Allen AND Johnny Carson on that list? (Arguably, we could replace with Sullivan and the Tonight Show if that wouldn't open up a different can of worms). Seriously, Sullivan is up there in cultural iconography with Walter Cronkite and the like. Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap for The Ed Sullivan Show --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The show makes more sense in this case. Getting famous people to perform on his show is what makes it vital. Sullivan didn't have any special talents of his own, even as a television host. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:26, 13 October 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 Michiel de Ruyter

The navy is not well-represented in this category. De Ruyter was a 17th-century admiral that fought in the Anglo-Dutch Wars and lead the Raid on the Medway. Is considered a Dutch national hero by some.

Support

1. Support – Editør (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Naval leaders are indeed lacking compared to other military leaders. De Ruyter's tactical genius and contribution to victory against the combined English and French fleets in the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars ensured Dutch domination of global maritime trade in the 17th century. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support This is one of the preeminent naval leaders, who should be included. CRwikiCA talk 14:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - while Ed makes a good point below, I don't think that's reason enough to oppose de Ruyter's inclusion (and I'd argue that we ought to add Tōgō too) Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

   @Parsecboy: Well, this list is supposed to be limited to 650 people, hence why I'm not proposing to add both. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

   Then pull someone else off - the list needs some significant work anyway. We have von Wallenstein from the 30 Years War when Gustavus Adolphus was by far more significant as a military theoretician and commander. We have three conquistadors in the Early Modern section while Maurice of Nassau, for instance, is left off. And George Marshall is in this section? Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

   @The ed17: Actually, the quota for people for 2000, so the list isn't that limited! The 650-article quota is for Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History, which does not include people. There isn't a quota for military leaders and theorists specifically, so feel free to propose some. Malerisch (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

5. Support Naval leaders are indeed underrepresented. Also, the early modern times saw the emergence of both the British and the Dutch empires that replaced the Spanish empire as the most powerful empires of the time largely based on their naval power and great field commanders. No Dutch commander is currently listed; so also an underrepresentation (although something may be said for listing Maurice, Prince of Orange or Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange instead, who were probably the best field commanders in the world in their time). Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• On the fence. What makes Ruyter more deserving than Tōgō Heihachirō? The English Wikipedia tends to have issues with systemic bias; let's not perpetuate that! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  On a related point, I'm struggling to understand why Isoroku Yamamoto is not also included. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  And on the above point, perhaps we ought to have a wider discussion on the composition of the list. There are a number of names I'd like to see replaced with more deserving individuals. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with Malerisch above, feel free to propose other articles. – Editør (talk) 09:05, 24 September 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 Empire of Japan, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster

As title, since m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded contains all of them, and this expanded list has less than ten thousand articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Empire of Japan, not sure about the other two. You also have to note that the meta list has a 800 article quota, but this one has a 650 quota. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Empire of Japan, neutral on the others. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support Empire of Japan (notwithstanding my concerns about the history quota) and Oppose 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. The Empire of Japan is indeed a huge omission, but the other two articles are less so. When history only has a 650-article quota, articles about specific events should be exceedingly rare compared to periods/eras. When even major periods of Japanese history are not listed (e.g. Kofun period, Sengoku period, and Azuchi–Momoyama period), I don't think the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami can compare. I would even consider events like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria more vital. If we're talking about the overall impact of the earthquake and tsunami on Japan, I would argue that the air raids on Japan caused more devastation. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is even less vital than the earthquake and tsunami and should be covered in the overarching article anyway (let's list nuclear reactor first, for a start!).

Broadening our perspective to East Asia, I think it should be starkly clear why the other two articles shouldn't be listed: we're missing Mongol invasions and conquests, Manchu conquest of China, Dungan Revolt (1862–77), Republic of China (1912–49), Goguryeo, and Division of Korea! I don't believe the other two articles about specific events in Japanese history are similar in vitality to any of these. Malerisch (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Same thoughts as Malerisch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose The Earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear disaster are redundant with eachother. Empire of Japan I think is sufficiently covered in the rest of the coverage of Japan and its history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Just thinking out loud, I like these more than the other recent ideas, I can't help thinking some of these threads would be better separated, although simpler together only if voters agree on them all, otherwise it gets complicated and may put people off voting for one but not another. Empire of Japan seems very good to me, I like it more than the other 2. There are many Disasters, to choose from, in long ago and recent history, but these still seem higher importance than sportsman, actors and Beatles songs. Which other natural disasters types and examples do we have I forget. On a side note I thought of having natural disaster at the 1000, we have several types, but they all share a big impact on humans and other life in common. I think we need Impact event too.  Carlwev  13:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for another discussion on quotas. 800 articles may be a little too high but at least 700 is reasonable. I believe the measurement and biology sections could be cut to make room but everyone will have a different take on this. Notwithstanding the increase, some sections in history are bloated. There are articles on small medieval/postclassical kingdoms that only lasted for about a hundred years. Not sure how most of them can be vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the target for history articles could, and should, be increased, all of the articles that Malerisch would be great additions to the list. I personally think that astronomy could be cut to 200 articles, specifically by cutting some more constellations. Geography could likely be cut to 1150. Jucchan (talk) 01:42, 20 September 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 Nibelungenlied and The Song of Roland

We have Beowulf and Arthurian Legend and Gilgamesh, but we don't have the corresponding epics of Germany and France. Ironically, we have Wagner, whose Ring Cycle is derived from the Nibelungenlied pbp 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support my college world history textbook mention these!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

1. But why should we have the corresponding epics from Germany and France? What about the corresponding epics from Spain and Italy, or Denmark and Sweden or Thailand or Malaysia, or Zimbabwe and Morocco? The argument would be whether those epics are correspondingly vital as the Gilgamesh and the Arthurian legend. I think clearly they arent. The Nibelungen lied actually gains its notability from Wagner (whereas he doesnt gain his notability from the epic, so there is nothing ironic about including him and leaving out the epic that he made famous outside of Germany), and I dont see anything making the Song of Roland particularly important on a global scale. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

   Um, the Nibelungenlied was culturally significant in Germany centuries before Wagner, we just added El Cid, and what makes you think that these two are significantly less vital than some of the works of literature we have on the list already? pbp 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in Germany. But something being important in Germany does not equal vital. I didnt ad El Cid and would have likely voted against it, so no otherstuff argument will work here. It is not my job to show that these are less vital than otherstuff,but the nominators job to convince others that they are moreso.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You've nominated plenty of people in the past (Latin musicians come readily to mind) without making any sort of argument for why they are more vital than other people on the list; why are you so upset with pbp doing the same? Claiming the Nibelungenlied ("probably no literary work has given more to Germanic arts", quoth Britannica; and this is a literary tradition that boasts of Goethe, Schiller, Heine and Mann) is only vital because of Wagner is like claiming Hua Mulan's only famous because of a Disney movie. Roland and the associated Matter of France are equally central to the history of European literature and art. Cobblet (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont know why you would think that I am upset. I just disagree that these particular works have any global vitality. They are simple national epics of the type that every nation with respect for itself has. They have not particular literary qualities and are not usually studied except for their relation to national ideologies (or to Wagner). There are dozens of national epics of similar significance if one were to dare to look outside of Europe.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Offering vacuous generalizations ("there are dozens of national epics of similar significance") and accusing others of a lack of global awareness when that topic has dominated discussion on this page for the last two months suggests that if you aren't upset, you're at least not in the mood for a serious conversation. Come back when you're prepared to actually enlighten us with your understanding of what truly constitutes a "globally vital" work of literature. Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me if I dont take your suggestions for how to argue or when to "come back". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the arguments you've presented here apply equally to most of the literary works on this list, unless you'd like to clarify them. A Dictionary of the English Language does not have any influence outside the English language, but that did not prevent us from adding it to the list not so long ago. If you want to explain why we can't list the Nibelungenlied or the Song of Roland but can have the Codex Regius and Popol Vuh (are these at the same level as Gilgamesh and King Arthur?), I'm all ears. Cobblet (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How many derivative works do you know of the song of roland or the nibelungen lied. I know one of the nibelungen lead, and that work happens to be more notable than the lied itself. Like the Gilgamesh, the Popol Vuh represents the literaru heritage of an entire civilization, not a single european country, and it has inspired dozens of derivative works and translations. I cant even list the number of derivative works of the Arthurian legend. So obviously those three works need to be on the list. It is not at all obvious why the Song of Roland should. Or why the Nibelungen Lied should be considered notable apart from its being used by Wagner.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Song of Roland: Numerous works of medieval literature including the masterpieces Orlando Innamorato and Orlando Furioso. El Cid is also inspired by it. See The Song of Roland#Adaptations for translations – the epic was widely read throughout Europe in the Middle Ages.

Nibelungenlied: Wagner's Ring cycle, two films by Fritz Lang; see also A Companion to the Nibelungenlied, p. 133-145.

Sure, I haven't listed "dozens of derivative works", but I think the ones I've listed are somewhat more important than an experimental rock band. These two epics represent more than the literature of their country: they are pinnacles of medieval European literature as a whole. I would consider works that inflamed medieval Christian belligerence or modern German nationalism at least as vital as any 20th-century novel. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:, you seem to be arguing that you need to achieve global significance to be listed on WP:VA/E/A as a work of literature. It seems disengenuous to have numerous examples of the Great American Novel, but not the Great French Epic or the Great German epic. In terms of "there are dozens of national epics of similar significance", I honestly think that's not true. You're honestly more likely to read the two nominated articles in a foreign country then you are to read the national epics of the countries you mentioned (and, by the by, the Nibelungenlied has a significant following in Scandinavia). Heck, some of the countries you mentioned don't really have national epics, because they aren't unified by a common ethnicity and/or language the way France, Germany, and England are. I'd also turn your argument that adding these works decreases globalization on its head: if you look at the current list of literary works on this list, it's dominated by 1) works of the last 200 years or so, and 2) American and British lit. Adding two non-English language Medieval epics improves globalization, not damages it. pbp 13:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Niebelungenlied does not have a significant following in Scandinavia (except among opera people), each of the Scandinavian countries have their own medieval epics. I really dont think these epics are vital at all in themselves. If you wanted to convince me instead of just badgering me for my opinion you would provide some examples of how they have been influential outside of their small spheres of local nationalism. They are also not good examples of literature and are not among the top 50 pieces of notable literature of the respective languages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You've acknowledged that these works of literature are influential. That cannot be said for most of the works on this list. You're essentially saying being good literature is more important than being influential literature. Also, from where does the "they're not among the top 50 pieces of notable literature" come? That doesn't seem true to me, by any definition of notability pbp 15:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I dont think they are influential at all. I think they have a symbolic value within their respective countries and that the Nibelungenlied is only well known outside of Germany because of Wagner (and that consequently Wagner should be listed not the Lied). I have never seen the Song of Roland listed as one of the major pieces of French literature - among the earliest maybe, but not the best or most influential. Nor the Nibelungen lied as one of the major pieces of German literature. They are national epics simply and have no more nor no less influence than any number of other such epics such as Kalevala, El Cid, The Fenian Cycle, the Siege of Sziget, Pan Tadeusz, Epic of Jangar, Jewang Ungi, the Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Cobblet you are being quite the hypocrite here I think, you had no problem opposing almost all of my suggestions of additions offering NO rationales at all and now you are trying to badger me into offering a detailed rationale. I DONT EVEN NEED TO GIVE A RATIONALE FOR WHY I THINK THESE PIECES OF WRITING HAVE NO PLACE ON THE LIST. Feel free to disagree, but please quit making this out as if I am being irrational or contrary when that applies equally to yourself. I am not going to spend more time defending my vote here. These two epics are simply not vital in my opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pbp nominated two articles, not twelve – excuse me for behaving differently in different situations. But finally you have raised some useful points of comparison. El Cid's on the list and so is Adam Mickiewicz. I think the Fenian Cycle (better than Ossian), The Siege of Sziget and the Tale of the Bamboo Cutter (certainly better than True History as a work exhibiting science fiction themes while also having literary significance) are reasonable choices. The Epic of Jangar is less significant than the Book of Dede Korkut. The Kalevala is clearly less globally influential than the Nibelungenlied (indeed its composition was inspired by the presence of the latter), and we already have the Codex Regius to represent Scandinavian epics. The Jewang Ungi does not represent a pinnacle of Korean literature. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And now you finally provided some arguments for keeping it. The fact that it is "the corresponding epics of Germany and France" is not a valid argument in itself (because by that reasoning we should also necessarily include the corresponding Epic of Thailand and Bhutan and the Solomon Islands if they have one). And that has been my problem with this nom all along. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it really not evident that the literature of France and the Solomon Islands are not comparable? I'm sorry but that does seem rather irrational to me. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont live in a world where that can be assumed a priori no. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, Socrates. (Or the Solomon Islander or Bhutanese Socrates, if you prefer.) Cobblet (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) French and German are two of the 10-15 languages spoken by the most people worldwide. Therefore, it is more important we have the important works of those languages than languages spoken by fewer people. pbp 00:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By that flawed logic we should list the foundational literature in Portuguese, Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Russian, Japanese, Javanese and Lahnda before the Nibelungenlied, and Korean before French.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're doing it by first-language, not total speakers. But we probably should have at least one work in each of those languages, except for maybe Javanese and Lahnda. pbp 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We should have the leading work of literature from most if not all of those languages, not necessarily the foundational. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The national epic of Bhutan is the Epic of King Gesar, which is actually a pan-national epic. It is highly esteemed in Bhutan, Tibet, Mongolia, in the northern mountainous areas of India, Nepal and Pakistan, and various other parts of Central Asia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I get your distinction between leading and founding. What are the leading and founding works in, say, English? pbp 04:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean leading in the sense of best, iconic and most famous while founding is the oldest, which may have influenced other literature in the language. Or at least the oldest text of note but not necessarily the best of all time. I guess it's subjective because it depends on when a language starts and finishes but something like Beowulf could be "foundational" and Hamlet would be "leading". They are often the same in many languages Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The leading Lahnda/Punjabi literature is Heer Ranjha, which was traditionally a folk tale and later made popular by Waris Shah. The author and story are the region's equivalents to Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet respectively. I think the Epic of King Gesar and Heer Ranjha are close to being vital. Not sure though if either are them are quite there. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:53, 29 September 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 Codex Regius add Poetic Edda

The Codex Regius in itself is neither famous or vital, the vital topic is the Poetic Edda which it contains. (The poetic Edda is not a national Epic, by the way but is notable because it is the main piece of literature produced by Norse culture).

Support

1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support There is the Prose Edda as well; nonetheless this is an improvement. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support We don't list the Corpus Aristotelicum either. Malerisch (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Le Morte d'Arthur

King Arthur and Merlin suffice for our coverage of Arthurian literature. Le Morte d'Arthur is but one source of these legends: Historia Regum Britanniae is probably more significant in this regard.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support this still leaves us with King Arthur, Merlin and Camelot. If Le Morte d'Arthur were to stay, you could easily add Ramakien (Thailand's national epic and own version of the Ramayana) and many other articles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Yeah we have Arthur and Merlin, I knew we had a work with Arthur in it somewhere someone brought it up ages ago, I thought it could be found and nominated. If I'm not mistaken though, I removed Camelot myself a long time ago, although this may make no difference to votes here.  Carlwev  07:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake Camelot is included, I removed Avalon, I remember now.  Carlwev  07:13, 26 September 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 Through the Looking-Glass

Is it really necessary to include both Alice in Wonderland and its sequel? We don't include The Hobbit or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer alongside LOTR or Huck Finn. Other classics of modern children's fiction such as Pippi Longstocking and Anne of Green Gables aren't listed at all and neither are their authors; OTOH, Lewis Carroll's also on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support although it seems like Astrid Lindgren is listed. Malerisch (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:04, 27 September 2014 (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.

---

Remove Much Ado About Nothing

There seems to be consensus above that there are too many Shakespeare plays on this list. Much Ado About Nothing seems to me to be far and away the weakest of the Shakespeare plays listed. I'd put Taming of the Shrew and Merchant of Venice ahead of it, and I don't believe we have either. pbp 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom pbp 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support since I was going to propose this myself. If none of the history plays are vital I don't think we need so many of the comedies either (Midsummer Night's Dream and Merchant of Venice are both listed). We ought to make room for notable dramatic traditions lacking any representation at all on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support I was thinking about nominating this for removal too. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Actually, The Merchant of Venice is already on the list. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, good, but my general point is that Much Ado About Nothing is both a) not one of Shakespeare's top 9 works, and b) not important enough to be on this list. pbp 14:09, 1 October 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 Cycle sport, Move Cycling to Transportation

Cycling is about the mode of transportation in general; competitive cycling is notable enough to be listed separately.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  13:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I would also list Swimming (sport) and human swimming separately, we only have the sport article at the moment and swimming itself is a disambiguation page.  Carlwev  08:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't: swimming is mainly notable as a form of recreation and hardly notable as a form of transportation. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine and makes sense, I don't think I suggested in transport, or did I? I think swimming is important even if you ignore professional/competative swimming. I think general article about human swimming should subsume swimming sport, although I would have both; we have sailing and sailing sport for example. I think it's odd we have swimming pool but not human swimming too.  Carlwev  07:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be OK with swapping swimming the sport for swimming the activity. But sailing is a notable form of transportation so I think having two articles makes sense. Cobblet (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There is too much overlap in this. I agree that human swimming could cover swimming as a sport. And sailing (sport) doesn't seem vital to me.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:21, 13 October 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 horses in warfare

As others have recently stated, it is a more vital article than war elephant and a significant number of the weapons listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  17:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support: The article is a GA and a solid overview. Also rated A-class by MilHist project. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

It's important to note that horses in warfare is partially covered by the listed chariot and cavalry in particular. There are still uses of horses in warfare which are not covered by those articles such as artillery. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither article is particularly comprehensive as to the horse itself (cavalry nowdays includes tanks and helicopters too), and indeed, artillery, reconnaissance, archery, etc., many aspects not covered in technology or tactics-specific articles. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah this article is better for an overview. If elephants can have one article in warfare, horses can have three. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:21, 28 September 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 carbine, submachine gun and sniper rifle

These are as important as musket, rifle and assault rifle. Also sniping is considered crucial by armies around the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose sniper rifle. Sniper is already listed in the War and Military section. The skill and marksmanship involved in sniping is more vital than the rifle used to do it. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I fail to see why guns should be so vital. If the list were complete and we had a decent sociology/medical/pharmaceutical section, I might consider adding different gun types. But currently, I think the military technology section is too big, and there are army-related articles in other sections as well. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Military technology is bloated.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per too much detail. Better to recommend solid overview articles. I would think that a solid overview of firearms or military small arms would be a better choice. Montanabw^(talk) 07:14, 28 September 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 Geranium

The Geranium article covers a genus of mostly weedy plants. Many species in the genus Pelargonium are popular ornamental plants and are commonly referred to as "geraniums" (and these species were previously classified in the genus Geranim). Species currently classified in the genus Geranium are in no way vital. Adding Pelargonium to the vital list might be appropriate (there ought to be room for some ornamental plants, and this is fairly important ornamental genus). The article on the plants currently classified in the genus Geranium is not vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (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.

---

Remove Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale

If other hazard scales like the Richter magnitude scale, volcanic explosivity index, Fujita scale and forest fire weather index are not listed, neither should the hazard scale for hurricanes. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  14:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't think the Beaufort scale needs to be listed either. Malerisch (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll nominate it as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:03, 9 October 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 agribusiness, free range and intensive animal farming

All of them are crucial. but not listed in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support agribusiness pbp 22:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support agribusiness. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support and would also support the addition of animal welfare --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: the first might be worth discussing separately, perhaps in conjunction with adding something like organic farming, or local food movement, but the other two are narrow in scope and also do not mirror one another in terms of POV balance, they have differences. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, lots of agriculture related topics that would come before these. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Animal welfare needs to be listed before free range husbandry. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Agribusiness is just the agricultural industry (although looking at the businesses individually rather than collectively). Now that consensus has seemingly shifted towards not adding many industry articles, I can't support some at the expense of others unless they stand out for a particular reason, which is not the case here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the most obvious omission in the agriculture section is horticulture notwithstanding the inclusion of gardening and garden (maybe the latter can be removed to make room). Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Horticulture might be a good idea. Also, perhaps, animal husbandry if it's not in there already. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Animal husbandry is listed along with domestication, breed, livestock and hay. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:30, 14 October 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 Fortran, COBOL, BASIC, Pascal, C++, C#, Perl and PHP

They are all frequently used by programmers, and {{Programming languages}} contains all of them. However this list contains none of them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support BASIC and C++, and neutral on the rest. pbp 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We are missing post and lintel, structural analysis, transport phenomena, airfoil, artificial cardiac pacemaker, control system, operations research, computer-aided design and technical drawing – and all we can think of is to add more programming languages. It's like there's nothing else to engineering besides software. Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. I think the most underdeveloped section is medical. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose unlikely that more than one or two programming languages can be considered vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose We've been through this, and we've decided on *not* having a bunch of programming languages. In any event, I'd offer a straight oppose on all of the individual languages, except for Fortran, and that might be a reasonable addition because of its historical significance. But unless we're going to have Lisp and Algol too, I'd still oppose Fortran. Rwessel (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think you're completely underestimating the importance of programming languages. I don't think I have to mention how vital new media are and that they're everywhere. NSA wouldn't be in the news without programming languages. The code written in these languages is here to stay, for a long, long time. An ancient program could cause unpredictable problems in a few hundred years. Code is not just written for the moment or for a few years. Programs are constantly updated, see software maintenance (very needy article). C++ absolutely has to go on the list because it's one of the most widely used programming languages. And then at least Fortran, which is used in scientific modelling, has definite vitality potential. If the argument is that there is no room, then let's make room (geography, biology).--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not that we don't have room. It's about whether we should prioritize adding things that could potentially be around for a few centuries over things that have actually been around for that long. New languages, paradigms and technologies could easily make any number of current programming languages obsolete. While we do still list Morse code as vital, does that topic carry the same significance as it did a century ago? Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 29 September 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.